Active processes in the Russian language at the present stage. Valgina Researcher active processes in modern Russian language

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

State educational institution of higher professional education

"SAMARA STATE AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY

NAMED AFTER ACADEMICIAN S.P. QUEEN"

PRINTING INSTITUTE

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLISHING AND BOOK DISTRIBUTION

TEST

by discipline

"ACTIVE PROCESSES

IN THE MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE"

on the topic: "Euphemisms in modern Russian speech

using materials as an example

print and electronic Russian media"

Completed by: student of group No. 4311z

Murtazaeva Irina Olegovna

Checked by: Natalya Viktorovna Pryadilnikova

Samara 2008

WORK PLAN

Introduction

1. Definition and classification of euphemisms in linguistic literature

2. Specifics of euphemization

2.1. Target settings

2.2. Topics and areas

2.3. Language means and methods

3. Euphemisms as a means of manipulation in the language of the media

Conclusion

List of references used

Introduction

In the modern Russian language, stylistically neutral words or expressions are increasingly used, used instead of a synonymous linguistic unit that seems indecent, rude, harsh or tactless to the speaker (writer). In the linguistic literature, this common process is given the term “euphemization.”

It is noteworthy that, being quite “sensitive” to public assessments, euphemisms often change their status, turning into unacceptable rudeness, requiring another euphemistic replacement. At one time B.A. Larin wrote: “Euphemisms are short-lived. Essential condition The effectiveness of a euphemism is the presence of a “crude”, “unacceptable” equivalent. As soon as this implied, unpronounceable expression goes out of use, the euphemism loses its “ennobling” properties, as it becomes a “direct” name, and then requires a new substitution.”

Another linguist L.P. Krysin notes that “the tougher social control speech situation and the speaker’s self-control of his own speech, the more likely the appearance of euphemisms; and, on the contrary, in poorly controlled speech situations and with high automaticity of speech (see communication in the family, with friends, etc.), “direct” designations, or dysphemisms, that is, more rude, disparaging designations, may be preferred to euphemisms

The object of study of this work is the euphemistic vocabulary of the modern Russian language. The subject of the study is its features and application scenarios.

The empirical basis of the study was euphemistic units: words, phrases, sentences extracted from journalistic, official business and scientific texts.

1. Definition and classification of euphemisms in linguistics

literature

The term "euphemism" was used by ancient authors. Its genesis is well known: the term itself comes from the Greek words “good” “rumor” (“speech”). It was originally interpreted as saying “words that have a good omen, abstaining from words that have a bad omen (especially during sacrifices), reverent silence.” Such an understanding of euphemism brings it closer to taboo, but does not equate it. Subsequently, the second part of the definition (“reverent silence”) was lost.

In the XX-XXI centuries. a number of works were prepared specifically devoted to the problems of euphemistic vocabulary or affecting it in connection with other linguistic phenomena [Paul G., 1960; Shore P.O., 1926; Larin B.A., 1961; Krysin L.P., 1996; Kurkiev A.S., 1977, Senichkina, 2006, etc.].

In the linguistic literature there are various formulations of the concept of “euphemism”. In most of them, the main feature of euphemism is its ability to replace, “veil” unpleasant or unwanted words or expressions.

For example, O.S. Akhmanova offers the following definition: “Euphemism (antiphrasis) is a trope consisting of an indirect, covered, polite, softening designation of an object or phenomenon” [Akhmanova, 1967].

Perhaps one of the most successful is the formulation of L.P. Krysin, who defines euphemism as “a way of indirect, periphrastic and at the same time softening designation of an object, property or action...” [Krysin, 2000].

There are different views on the classification of euphemisms. However, they all open common cause euphemization of speech - the desire to avoid conflict in communication.

According to B.A. Larin, it should be based on the “social nature of euphemisms.” He identifies three types of euphemism:

1) commonly used euphemisms of the national literary language;

2) class and professional euphemisms;

3) family and everyday euphemisms. [Larin, 1961]

In historical retrospect, the first and second groups are moving closer together, and in moving towards the future, the second group is melting away until it disappears completely. For the third group of euphemisms, which are used primarily in colloquial speech, is typically limited to a range of ideas from the field of human physiology and anatomy.

A.S. Kurkiev identifies five groups of euphemisms, classifying them according to their generating motives:

1) arising on the basis of superstitions (to be sick - unhealthy, ill);

2) arising from a feeling of fear and displeasure (to kill - to nail, to slap, to kill);

3) arising on the basis of sympathy and pity (the patient is not all at home);

4) generated by modesty (illegitimate - bastard, bastard);

5) generated by politeness (old - in years, advanced age).[Kurkiev, 1977]

L.P. Krysin, in turn, believes that there are two spheres of euphemization - personal life and social life.

V.P. Moskvin believes that “euphemisms are used in six functions:

1) to replace the names of frightening objects;

2) to replace definitions of various kinds of unpleasant, disgusting objects;

3) to denote what is considered indecent (so-called everyday euphemisms);

4) to replace direct names for fear of shocking others (etiquette euphemisms);

5) to “disguise the true essence of the designated”;

6) to designate organizations and professions that seem not prestigious" [Moskvin, 2007].

E.P. Senichkina takes a broad approach to understanding euphemisms, sharing the point of view of A.A. Reformatsky, L.P. Krysin and other scientists and believing that euphemisms are characteristic not only of neutral, but also of other styles of the Russian language.

E.P. Senichkina proposes to distinguish the following types of euphemisms: euphemisms-tabooisms, optional euphemisms, de-euphemisms, historical euphemisms, euphemisms by origin, linguistic and occasional. To classify euphemisms, the scientist proposes to use a morphological approach. This classification is based on the criterion of lexico-grammatical attribution of words representing the category of semantic uncertainty.

3conclusion

Modern Russian language is increasingly enriched with various euphemisms. From the definition of euphemism it follows that it is not only more adequate to the communicative situation, but also “more decent” than the word being replaced. It is obvious that in the process of euphemization there is a decrease in the degree of obscenity.

The classification of euphemisms can be carried out on several grounds.

Unlike ordinary vocabulary, euphemisms are extremely sensitive to public assessments of certain phenomena as “decent” and “indecent.” Related to this is the historical variability of the status of euphemism: what seems like a successful euphemistic name to one generation may be regarded by subsequent generations as undeniable and unacceptable rudeness, requiring a euphemistic replacement.

Euphemism as a way of indirect, periphrastic and at the same time softening designation of an object, property or action is correlated with other speech techniques - with litotes, meiosis, oxymoron, etc.

The process of euphemization is closely intertwined with the process of nomination - one of the three fundamental processes that shape human speech activity (the other two are predication and evaluation). Objects that, for ethical, cultural, psychological or any other reasons, are not named or are difficult to name, need euphemistic designation; the renewal of nominations is dictated by the need again and again to veil or soften the essence of what is considered inconvenient, indecent, etc. in a cultural society.

Euphemism has its own specificity. It manifests itself both in the linguistic essence of euphemism, and in topics that are most often subject to euphemism, areas of use of euphemisms, in the types of linguistic methods and means by which they are created, in the difference in social assessments of euphemistic ways of expression.

Euphemisms have enormous manipulative potential when used in media language. Manipulative euphemisms either obscure or hide the true state of affairs, or demobilize public opinion, since a softened, neutral formulation does not cause reciprocal irritation in the recipient’s mind, unlike a direct nomination.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1. ENCYCLOPEDIA AND DICTIONARIES

Akhmanova, O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms [Text]. - 4th ed., stereotype. - M.: KomKniga, 2007. - 576 p..
Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius 2007 [Electronic resource]: Modern. Univ. grew up encycl. : 14 CD [Electronic. text and graphic given: more than 88 thousand articles, 39 thousand multimedia objects, 860 audio and 570 video fragments, more than 520 maps in the interactive atlas of the world]. - 7th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Cyril and Methodius, 2006. - Cap. from the cover.
Weisman, A. D. Greek-Russian Dictionary / Reprint of the 5th edition 1899 - M.: Greek-Latin Cabinet Yu.A. Shichalina, 2006. - 706 p.
Dahl. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language [Electronic resource]. - Electron. text data - M.: IDDK GROUP, 2005. - 1 CD. - Cap. from the screen. - Add. material: Full author's text "Proverbs and sayings of the Russian people"; "On beliefs, superstitions and prejudices of the Russian people."
Illustrated encyclopedic dictionary of F. Brockhaus and M. Efron [Text]. - M.: EKSMO, 2006. - 986 p.
Krysin, L.P. Explanatory dictionary of foreign words [Text]. - M.: EKSMO, 2005. - 944 p. - (Dictionary Library Series).
Ozhegov, S. I., Shvedova, N. Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language [Text] / Sergey Ivanovich Ozhegov, Natalia Yulievna Shvedova. - 4th ed., add. - M.: ITI Technologies, 2005. - 944 p..

2. TEXTBOOKS AND TUTORIALS

Valgina, N. S. Active processes in modern Russian language [Electronic resource]: textbook. for universities / Nina Sergeevna Valgina; Mos. state University of Printing. - Electron. text, graph. Dan. - M.: State. University of Press, November 20, 2002. - flash resource. - (MSUP Library). - Cap. from the screen.
Senichkina, E. P. Euphemisms of the Russian language [Text]: special course: textbook. allowance for university students, special education. "Philology" / Elena Pavlovna Senichkina. - M: Higher School, 2006. - 151 p.

3. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

Baskova, Yu. S. Euphemisms as a means of manipulation in the language of the media: based on the material of the Russian and English languages [Text]: abstract. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. / Yulia Sergeevna Baskova; Kuban. state univ. - Krasnodar: [b. i.], 2006. - 23 p.
Vavilova, L. N. On the issue of euphemization of modern Russian speech [Electronic resource] // Russian and comparative philology. System-functional aspect: collection. M-lov scientific. conf. February 5-10, 2003 / Kazan. state univ. - Kazan website. state un-ta. - Access mode: http://www.ksu.ru/fil/kn7/index.php?sod=11
Kovshova, M. L. Semantics and pragmatics of euphemisms: A brief thematic dictionary of modern Russian euphemisms [Text]: monograph. / Maria Lvovna Kovshova. - M.: Gnosis, 2007. - 320 p.
Krysin, L.P. Euphemisms in modern Russian speech [Electronic resource] // Russian philological Internet portal " Philology.ru". - Access mode: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/krysin-94.html
Kurkiev, A. S. On the classification of euphemistic names in the Russian language. Classification of euphemisms by generating motives [Text] / A. S. Kurkiev. - Grozny, 1977.
Larin, B. A. About euphemisms [Text] / Boris Aleksandrovich Larin // Larin B. A. Problems of linguistics: Collection. articles dedicated to 75th anniversary of academician I. I. Meshchaninova. - Leningrad: Leningrad State University, 1961. - (Uch. Zap. Leningrad. University, No. 301: Ser. Philol. Sciences: Issue 60). - P. 110-124.
Moskvin, V.P. Euphemisms in the lexical system of the modern Russian language [Text] / Vasily Pavlovich Moskvin. - 2nd ed. - M.: Lenard, 2007. - 264 p.
Paul, G. Principles of the history of language / Trans. with him. ; Ed. A.A. Kholodovich. - M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1960. - 500 p.
Shore, R.O. Language and society / Rozalia Osipovna Shor. - M.: Education worker, 1926. - 152 p.

Extralinguistic ( from lat. extra - outside + lingua - language) - extralinguistic, extralinguistic; belonging to real or imaginary reality, but not to language or linguistic reality.

Obscene vocabulary - from Lat. obscenus (disgusting, obscene, indecent) - a segment of abusive vocabulary, including the grossest (obscene, obscenely vile, vulgar) abusive expressions, often expressing a spontaneous verbal reaction to an unexpected (usually unpleasant) situation. Linguists share concepts profanity And taboo vocabulary from obscene language. Obscene vocabulary is only one type of these two linguistic phenomena.

One should not mix swearing and obscenity. Swearing may not be obscene (go to hell!), One of the varieties of obscene vocabulary in the Russian language is Russian swearing.

Preface

The state of the modern Russian language at the end of the 20th century, the changes that are actively taking place in it, require careful study and coverage in order to develop assessments and recommendations from the standpoint of objectivity and historical expediency.

The dynamics of language development are so noticeable that they do not leave anyone indifferent either among the linguistic community, or among journalists and publicists, or among ordinary citizens not professionally associated with the language.

The media provide a truly impressive picture of the use of language, which causes conflicting judgments and assessments of what is happening. Some scrupulously collect gross errors in speech, focusing on the traditional literary norm of the past; others welcome and unconditionally accept “verbal freedom”, discarding any restrictions in the use of language - up to the admissibility of printed use of coarse vernacular, jargon and obscene words and expressions in the language.

The public's concern about the fate of language, although it has serious grounds, does not take into account that they lie somewhat apart from the linguistic essence itself. Indeed, the style of modern media causes alarm and concern. However, this often equates real dynamic processes in the language itself, in particular in the stormy growth of variant forms and the avalanche growth of word-formation types and models, and phenomena explained by the insufficient culture of oral and written public speech. The latter has a completely realistic justification: the democratization of society has incredibly expanded the circle of public speakers - in parliament, in the press, at rallies and in other spheres of mass communication. Freedom of speech, understood literally and in relation to the manner of expression, broke all social and ethical prohibitions and canons. But this is another problem - the problem of speech culture, the problem of ethics public speaking finally, the problem of language education. In this sense, we have indeed lost a lot, at least the practice of editing and polishing printed and sounding word. But, on the other hand, it is obvious that the literary smooth “reading of a written text” in the past could not serve as an exemplary manifestation of the culture of speech in its essence. A lively, spontaneously delivered speech is more attractive, but it, naturally, is fraught with many surprises.

Thus, when discussing the state of the Russian language today, it is necessary to distinguish between linguistic issues proper and issues of speech practice, issues of linguistic taste of the historical moment.

Language and time - eternal problem researchers. Language lives in time (this does not mean abstract time, but the society of a certain era), but time is also reflected in language. Language changes. This evolutionary quality is inherent in him. But how does it change? It is hardly legitimate to believe that it is constantly and steadily improving. Assessments of “good” or “bad” are inappropriate here. There is too much subjectivity in them. For example, contemporaries A.S. There were many, many things that Pushkin did not like about his linguistic innovations. However, it was they who subsequently turned out to be the most promising and productive (let us recall, at least, the attacks on the language of “Ruslan and Lyudmila”, up to its complete rejection).

Modern science of language, when characterizing changes in it “for the better,” prefers to use the principle of expediency. In this case, the functional-pragmatic essence of the language is taken into account, and not an abstractly and separately existing code model. Such a clear quality of modern language as the increasing variability of linguistic signs can be perceived as a positive phenomenon, since it provides language users with choices, which, in turn, indicates the expansion of the language’s capabilities in terms of satisfying specific communicative tasks. This means that the language becomes more mobile, subtly responding to the communication situation, i.e. The stylistics of the language are enriched. And this adds something to the resources already available in the language and expands its capabilities.

Despite the fact that the language of modern media often produces a negative impression due to a falsely understood thesis about freedom of speech, it must be admitted that the modern Russian language, due to the prevailing historical circumstances, today draws resources for updating the literary norm here - in the media, in colloquial speech, although for a long time such a source was fiction; it is not for nothing that a standardized language is called a literary language (according to M. Gorky - processed by masters of words). The change in the sources of the formation of a literary norm also explains the loss of the norm’s former rigidity and unambiguity. Such a phenomenon in modern language, as a variation of the norm, is not a sign of its loosening and loss of stability, but an indicator of the flexibility and expedient adaptability of the norm to life situation communication.

Life has changed a lot. And not only the idea of the inviolability of the literary model in establishing the norm. The speech behavior of representatives of modern society has changed, speech stereotypes of the past have been eliminated, the language of the press has become more natural and lifelike; The style of the mass press has changed - there is more irony and sarcasm, and this awakens and develops subtle nuances in the word. But at the same time and nearby there is linguistic vulgarity and the nakedness of the direct, crude meaning of the taboo word. The picture is contradictory and ambiguous, requiring careful analysis and painstaking, long-term work on cultivating linguistic taste.

An interesting idea was expressed by I. Volgin back in 1993 (Lit. newspaper, August 25), quoting I. Brodsky: “Only if we have decided that it is time for “sapiens” to stop in its development, literature should speak the language of the people. Otherwise, the people should speak the language of literature.” As for the “obscene literature” that has so flooded our modern press, then for its own good it is better for it to remain marginal, fundamentally unbookish, inexpressible in the written word (I. Volgin’s advice). “There is no need to artificially pull this fragile object out of natural environment habitat - from the element of oral speech, where only he is able to carry out his cultural mission.” And further: “This outstanding national phenomenon deserves to live an independent life. Cultural integration is killer for him.”

It must be said that the general decline in the style of the mass press, the loss of literary purity and stylistic “sublimity”, to a certain extent, removes neutrality in the assessment of events. Stylistic illegibility, as a protest against the pathos and show-off of past times, gives rise at the same time to stylistic deafness and loss of the sense of language.

However, it is not our task to analyze the language of the mass press as such. These materials are used only as an illustration of one’s own processes in language, since this area of application of language most quickly responds to new phenomena in language and, in a certain sense, actualizes them. The manual does not set the task of a normalization plan. This requires enormous statistical data and end-to-end analysis of modern texts and spoken speech. Even the authors of the collective monograph “The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century,” prepared at the Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, officially declare that they are not normalizers.

The purpose of the manual is to introduce important patterns in modern language, with the sprouts of something new in it; help you see this new thing and correlate it with internal processes in the language; help establish connections between the self-development of language and the changes that stimulate it in the real life of modern society. Particular assessments of linguistic facts and corresponding recommendations can help to understand the complex “language economy” of our time and, possibly, influence the development of a sense of language.

The manual focuses on a conscious, thoughtful attitude to the processes in language, on the perception of language as a dynamic, functionally developed system.

The description of the material requires knowledge of the multi-level system of the Russian language and its modern style and stylistic differentiation.

Vocabulary, the lexical fund of a language, as an integral part of a unified language system, differs significantly from other aspects of the language - phonetic structure, morphological, syntactic. This difference lies in the direct appeal to reality. Therefore, it is in vocabulary that, first of all, the changes that occur in the life of society are reflected [Lekant 2007].

Language is in constant motion, its evolution is closely connected with the history and culture of the people. Each new generation brings something new not only to the philosophical and aesthetic understanding of reality, but also to the ways of expressing this understanding through the means of language. And, first of all, such means are new words, new meanings of words, a new assessment of the meaning contained in known words.

The vocabulary of the language is currently literally experiencing a neological boom. The unprecedented popularity of the media has now dramatically changed the emphasis in the spheres of influence on the development of language, especially in literary form. The activity of the media, their focus on lively, relaxed communication not only influenced the change in the norms of the literary language towards their liberality, but also changed the psychological attitude of the population towards the language, clearly stimulating the loosening of literary norms, calling into question their firmness and binding nature. The expansion of the sphere of spontaneous communication has sharply narrowed officially prepared, verified and adjusted communication. This is the opening of the borders of the Russian language for colloquial, colloquial, slang vocabulary. Freedom of forms of expression has given rise to a tendency towards unprecedented word creativity. Modern author's texts, oral and written, are not constrained by literary traditions and are not limited by the careful choice of words. In the sphere of publications, communication is erased and officiality is weakened [Valgina 2012].

Among external reasons changes in the vocabulary of a language are usually referred to as the development of science and technology, the expansion of international contacts, the specialization of professional productive activities, changes in economic and political life. All these are social reasons. But a word is not only a name (of new objects, concepts), but also a unit of language. Consequently, there are also internal reasons for changes arising from the internal essence of the object - the very phenomenon of language [Lekant 2007].

The basic processes in vocabulary are known. They always occur in a language with a greater or lesser degree of intensity, during all periods of its functioning. But at present, these processes are at a high level of activity, since our lives are actively changing. This is obsolescence outdated words, expressing concepts that are irrelevant for today; this is the appearance of new words, conceptually active, previously absent in the language; this is a return to life of previously inactive lexemes associated with the concepts of religion, pre-revolutionary image, administrative-territorial pressure, social structures of society; this is a revaluation of a certain range of words related to the socio-economic reorganization of Russian society; these are foreign language borrowings and expansion of the spheres of distribution of slang vocabulary and the expansion of the vocabulary of groups of social and professional use.

Thus, there was an intensification of astral-futuristic and religious vocabulary. Most of all, the economic vocabulary of the Russian language expanded ( mortgage, liquidity). The political ( sovereign, summit) and administrative ( governor) vocabulary, most of which are words of foreign origin. Despite the fact that a number of innovations have appeared in the vocabulary of the social sphere ( disaster, chaos, sleepover), a number of words have disappeared from social usage ( welfare, friendship, equality), everyday colloquial words describing bygone realities have been eliminated ( cronyism, deficit, get). New words have appeared in the field of education ( grant) and in the field of culture ( music video director), and some words are gone ( VIA, light music, show). In the names of stores (such as « The best place» ) and in advertising there appear elements of a language game, which often becomes rude ( We will cover the whole country!). The appeal was officially rejected comrade, did not take root sir, sir, southern Russians are still used man Woman[Belyanin 2012].

Along with the process of neutralizing lofty words, there is a process of entry into the neutral common vocabulary of elements of colloquial, slang, and highly professional words. And if colloquial words lose their syntactic coloring, that is, stylistic expression in a neutral context, then jargon and professional words not only transform stylistically, but also change semantically, expanding their semantics by entering a new context.

Along with colloquial, colloquial and slang vocabulary, the literary language includes professionalisms: overlay, solder, bow, layer, blunder and others. In this group, stylistic neutralization is accompanied by an expansion of meaning, a loss of special meaning.

The language of the mass media of the early twenty-first century further expands metaphorical contexts with political and social content. Such metaphorization is often accompanied by serious processes in the field of semantics of words, in particular, a special active process of desemantization of terms (the process of determinologization).

The methods of using terminological vocabulary reflect general trends in the language. The combination of words - terms with vocabulary of a different semantic nature or vocabulary of a special stylistic coloring made it possible to create bright, memorable phrases that destroy characteristics , political acute forms.

Terminological contexts modern literature wide in content and application. First of all, the volume of special vocabulary representing different branches of knowledge is wide: terms medical, military, sports, geographical, economic, philosophical, terms of various types of art. The thematic range created on the basis of terminological metaphors is also wide. This is a reflection and government system, and the moral and ethical state of society, and the political and ideological consciousness of society, etc. Here are some examples from modern newspaper publications: sclerosis of conscience, entropy of thought, corrosion of the soul, artificial injection of optimism, political glaucoma, anatomy of love, virus of mistrust, inflation of words, etc. As you can see, the terms given here are, in principle, not new; they are known for belonging to a special scientific composition. Today, speech practice only expands the scope of their application. Judging by the content of phrases, most of them are evaluative in nature, and their assessment is negative (with sclerosis of conscience, agony of humanism), but there are also neutral ones that do not carry an evaluative meaning ( algebra of love, vocabulary of ballet). The result of the entry of terms into the general literary language determines the shift in meaning towards its expansion due to figurative use [Valgina 2012].

The most active processes of semantic change occur in the political sphere. Words that previously had no relation to politics take on a political meaning. Most often, words acquire new meanings as a result of metaphorical rethinking, while they are characterized by a pronounced connotation, most often negative, expressing an assessment of the modern social situation. Such formations are represented by two groups of words: the first consists of words that in a new, metaphorical meaning are used only in the socio-political sphere, which is reflected in dictionary definitions, and the second consists of words that have a wider sphere of use and are used both in the sphere of politics, as well as economics, technology, etc.

Lexemes representing different stylistic and functional spheres of language act as the basis of a political metaphor. The model of semantic transfer concrete - abstract in relation to phenomena is updated public life. At the same time, new meanings are developed as stylistically neutral words that have a metaphorical meaning in the popular language, which is transferred to the political sphere, for example: wave- “about any phenomenon in the life of society that arises periodically and with great force”; explosion -"social explosion"; war- “organized fight against someone”; and stylistically marked words that denoted concepts and realities that are beyond the boundaries of everyday life, for example the word Bacchanalia, which had the mark book in pre-perestroika dictionaries, is widely used in journalism as a designation of “the extreme degree of manifestation of something, the extreme degree of disorder”; stylistically marked formation power in the meaning of “independent state”, which in the modern period is developing new shades in semantics, without losing the positive connotation and denoting “a country that has globally significant achievements in any field”, etc. At the same time, the opposite process is taking place - the formation of new stable expressions, which contain words that have undergone semantic rethinking. A number of words realize metaphorical meaning as part of phraseological units, for example credit of confidence“the authority of government bodies, the media, etc., secured by tradition”; tug of war“the desire to resolve any issue in one’s favor.” Individual words are used both syntactically freely and connected, for example the word oxygen is an independent metaphor, calling “something vital, necessary for spiritual life”; and is also part of the phraseological unit cut off oxygen"to deprive someone of life necessary funds stop any activity."

Words related to special terms in the most diverse spheres of human activity are actively involved in the sphere of political vocabulary. Many lexemes have a wider scope of use and are used in both the political and economic fields. For example, a number of verbs like block“to limit the spread, development of something, to prevent something.” [Erofeeva 2012]

Thus, dynamic changes are taking place in the vocabulary of the modern Russian language, which are a striking feature of the development of the language.

Preface

2. Laws of language development

3. Variation of a linguistic sign

3.1. The concept of variation and its origins

3.2. Classification of options

4. Language norm

4.1. The concept of the norm and its signs

4.2. Norm and occasionalism. General linguistic and situational norm

4.3. Motivated deviations from the norm

4.4. Basic processes in the normalization of linguistic phenomena

5. Changes in Russian pronunciation

6. Active processes in the area of stress

7. Active processes in vocabulary and phraseology

7.1. Basic lexical processes

7.2. Semantic processes in vocabulary

7.3. Stylistic transformations in vocabulary

7.4. Determinologization

7.5. Foreign language borrowings

7.6. Computer language

7.7. Foreign language lexemes in Russian vernacular

7.8. Extraliterary vocabulary in the language of modern press

8. Active processes in word formation

8.1. The growth of agglutinative features in the process of word formation

8.2. The most productive word-formation types

8.2.1. Production of names of persons

8.2.2. Abstract names and named processes

8.2.3. Prefix formations and Difficult words

8.3. Specialization of word-forming means

8.4. Intergradational word formation

8.5. Collapse of titles

8.6. Abbreviation

8.7. Expressive names

8.8. Occasional words

9. Active processes in morphology

9.1. The growth of analyticism in morphology

9.2. Shifts in forms of grammatical gender

9.3. Forms of grammatical number

9.4. Changes in case forms

9.5. Changes in verb forms

9.6. Some changes in adjective forms

10. Active processes in syntax

10.1. Dismemberment and segmentation of syntactic structures

10.1.1. Connecting members and parceled structures

10.1.2. Binomial constructions

10.2. Predicative complexity of a sentence

10.3. Activation of inconsistent and uncontrollable word forms

10.4. The growth of prepositional combinations

10.5. Tendency towards semantic accuracy of statements

10.6. Syntactic compression and syntactic reduction

10.7. Weakening of syntactic connection

10.8. The relationship between affective and intellectual in the sphere of syntax

11. Some trends in modern Russian punctuation

11.1. Dot

11.2. Semicolon

11.3. Colon

11.4. Dash

11.5. Ellipsis

11.6. Functional and purposeful use of punctuation

11.7. Unregulated punctuation. Author's punctuation

Conclusion

Literature

12. Approximate program of the discipline “Active processes in the modern Russian language”

12.1. The purpose and objectives of the discipline, requirements for knowledge and skills

12.1.1. The purpose of teaching the discipline

12.1.2. Requirements for knowledge and skills

12.1.3. List of disciplines, the mastery of which is necessary to study this discipline

12.2. Contents of the discipline

12.2.1. Name of topics, their content

12.3. Sample list practical classes

12.4. Sample list of homework

Preface

The public's concern about the fate of language, although it has serious grounds, does not take into account that they lie somewhat apart from the linguistic essence itself. Indeed, the style of modern media causes alarm and concern. However, this often equates real dynamic processes in the language itself, in particular in the stormy growth of variant forms and the avalanche growth of word-formation types and models, and phenomena explained by the insufficient culture of oral and written public speech. The latter has a completely realistic justification: the democratization of society has incredibly expanded the circle of public speakers - in parliament, in the press, at rallies and in other spheres of mass communication. Freedom of speech, understood literally and in relation to the manner of expression, broke all social and ethical prohibitions and canons. But this is another problem - the problem of speech culture, the problem of ethics of public speaking, and finally, the problem of language education. In this sense, we have indeed lost a lot, at least the practice of editing and polishing the printed and spoken word. But, on the other hand, it is obvious that the literary smooth “reading of a written text” in the past could not serve as an exemplary manifestation of the culture of speech in its essence. A lively, spontaneously delivered speech is more attractive, but it, naturally, is fraught with many surprises.

Language and time are an eternal problem for researchers. Language lives in time (this does not mean abstract time, but the society of a certain era), but time is also reflected in language. Language changes. This evolutionary quality is inherent in him. But how does it change? It is hardly legitimate to believe that it is constantly and steadily improving. Assessments of “good” or “bad” are inappropriate here. There is too much subjectivity in them. For example, contemporaries A.S. There were many, many things that Pushkin did not like about his linguistic innovations. However, it was they who subsequently turned out to be the most promising and productive (let us recall, at least, the attacks on the language of “Ruslan and Lyudmila”, up to its complete rejection).

Despite the fact that the language of modern media often produces a negative impression due to a falsely understood thesis about freedom of speech, it must be admitted that the modern Russian language, due to the prevailing historical circumstances, today draws resources for updating the literary norm here - in the media, in colloquial speech, although for a long time such a source was fiction, it is not without reason that the standardized language is called the literary language (according to M. Gorky - processed by masters of words). The change in the sources of the formation of a literary norm also explains the loss of the norm’s former rigidity and unambiguity. Such a phenomenon in modern language as the variation of a norm is not a sign of its loosening and loss of stability, but an indicator of the flexibility and expedient adaptability of the norm to the life situation of communication.

An interesting idea was expressed by I. Volgin back in 1993 (Lit. newspaper, August 25), quoting I. Brodsky: “Only if we have decided that it is time for “sapiens” to stop in its development, literature should speak the language of the people. Otherwise, the people should speak the language of literature.” As for the “obscene literature” that has so flooded our modern press, then for its own good it is better for it to remain marginal, fundamentally unbookish, inexpressible in the written word (I. Volgin’s advice). “There is no need to artificially pull this fragile object out of its natural habitat - from the element of oral speech, where only it is able to carry out its cultural mission.” And further: “This outstanding national phenomenon deserves to live an independent life. Cultural integration is killer for him.”

The manual focuses on a conscious, thoughtful attitude to the processes in language, on the perception of language as a dynamic, functionally developed system.

The description of the material requires knowledge of the multi-level system of the Russian language and its modern style and stylistic differentiation.

Principles of sociological study of language

The language that society actively and daily uses as a means of communication lives and develops. Diachronically, this is revealed through the replacement of some linguistic signs by others (outdated ones are replaced by new ones), synchronously - through the struggle of options that coexist and claim to be normative. The life of a language is carried out in a society that creates conditions for certain changes and stimulates language processes that lead to the satisfaction of the needs of society. However, processes of self-development are also characteristic of language, since the signs of language (morphemes, words, constructions) are systemically connected and respond to changes in their own “organism”. Specific linguistic units have to varying degrees stability and viability. Some live for centuries, others are more mobile and show an active need for change, adaptation to the needs of changing communication.

Changes in language are possible thanks to the internal potentials inherent in it, which are revealed under the influence of an external, social “push”. Consequently, the internal laws of language development can remain “silent” for the time being, awaiting an external stimulus that will set the entire system or its individual links in motion. For example, the intrasystemic quality of nouns of a general grammatical gender (such as orphan, bully, sweetheart, slob), explained by the asymmetry of the linguistic sign (one form - two meanings), assumes double agreement: masculine and feminine. By analogy with such nouns, under the influence of the social factor, other classes of names acquired the same ability: good doctor, good doctor; the director came, the director came. Such a correlation of forms was impossible when the corresponding professions and positions were predominantly male. Interaction between external and internal factors- the main law in the development of language, and without taking into account this interaction, the study of language in the sociological aspect has no prospects.

In the process of developing a new quality, external and internal factors can manifest themselves with different strengths, and the unevenness of their interaction is usually found in the fact that the stimulating force of the external, social factor either activates internal processes in the language, or, conversely, slows them down. The reasons for both are rooted in the changes that society itself, the native speaker of the language, undergoes.

The increased pace of linguistic dynamics in the 90s is explained primarily by the changing composition and appearance of Russian society, changes in social, political, economic, and psychological attitudes. Renewal in the language, especially in its literary form, is taking place very actively and noticeably today. Traditional normativity, previously supported by examples of classical fiction, is clearly destroyed. And the new norm, freer and at the same time less defined and unambiguous, is under the influence of the mass press. Television, radio, periodicals, and mass culture in general are increasingly becoming “trendsetters” and “educators” of a new linguistic taste. Unfortunately, the taste is not always high class. However, these processes cannot be ignored; they contain the objective needs of a new society, a new generation - more relaxed, more technically educated, more in contact with speakers of other languages.

Against such a background, the importance of the social factor in language processes increases, but this also removes some inhibition in the manifestation of internal patterns in language, and, as a result, the entire mechanism of language begins to work at an accelerated speed. Thanks to the emergence of new linguistic units (the development of technology, science, contacts between languages), the expansion of the range of variant forms, as well as stylistic movements within the language, the old norm is losing its inviolability.

The problem of the interaction of external and internal factors in the development of language has repeatedly interested researchers, both in a broad theoretical sense and when considering linguistic particulars. For example, the operation of the general law of speech economy for our time is directly related to the acceleration of the pace of life. This process has been noted more than once in the literature as an active process of the 20th century.

General characteristics The work of V.K. is devoted to the processes observed in the modern Russian language. Zhuravleva, whose name directly indicates the noted interaction. The connection between the social and the intralingual can be seen at any level of linguistic expression, although, naturally, vocabulary provides the most obvious and extensive material. Here even particulars can serve to illustrate this connection. For example, in the Eskimo language, as V.M. testifies. Leichik, there are about a hundred names of shades of snow color, which could hardly be relevant for the languages of residents of the southern regions, and in Kazakh language- several dozen names of horse colors. Social and sometimes even purely political reasons may be important for various naming and renaming of cities and streets. The development of science, technology, contacts with other languages - all these reasons external to the language influence language processes, especially in terms of expanding the vocabulary and clarifying or changing the meaning of lexical units.

It is obvious that the influence of the social factor on changes in language is active and noticeable in the most dynamic periods of society’s life, associated with significant transformations in different areas life activity. Although technical progress does not lead to the creation of a fundamentally new language, but significantly increases the terminological fund, which, in turn, enriches the general literary dictionary through determinologization. It is known, in particular, that the development of electronics alone has led to the appearance of 60,000 names, and in chemistry, according to experts, about five million nomenclature and terminological names are used.

For comparison: in the latest editions of the dictionary S.I. Ozhegova recorded 72,500 words and 80,000 words and phraseological expressions.

The sociological study of language involves uncovering problems related to the social nature of language, the mechanism of influence of social factors on language and its role in the life of society. Therefore, causal connections between language and the facts of social life are important. At the same time, the issue of social differentiation of language comes to the fore, with indispensable consideration when registering linguistic phenomena of a speech situation. In general terms, sociolinguistics aims to answer mutually directed questions: how the history of society gives rise to linguistic changes and how social development is reflected in language.

The sociological aspect in the study of language becomes especially fruitful if research is not limited only to collecting linguistic facts (empirical level), but reaches theoretical generalizations and explanations, the latter is possible only by taking into account the interaction of internal and external factors in the development of language, as well as its systemic nature. It is known that exaggerating the importance of the social factor can lead to vulgar sociologism, which was observed in the history of Russian philology (for example, “The New Doctrine of Language” by Academician N.Ya. Marr in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century, which was then declared the last word in “Marxist linguistics”), when language was completely “denied” self-development and was assigned the role of a recorder of changes in social formations.

The other extreme in the approach to linguistic changes is attention only to individual particulars that arose under the influence of the new social reality. In this case, the position that linguistic particulars are links in the system is forgotten, and therefore changes in a particular, separate link can set the entire system in motion.

If we discard both extremes, then there remains the need to recognize as the basic principles of the sociological study of language - taking into account the interaction of external and internal factors and the systemic nature of language. It is important to note that the language system is dynamic, not rigid, it is characterized by the coexistence of old and new, stable and mobile, which ensures gradual accumulation of new quality and the absence of fundamental, revolutionary changes. Language is characterized not simply by the desire for improvement (improvement is generally a relative concept here), but by the desire for convenient and appropriate forms of expression. Language seems to be groping for these forms, and therefore it needs a choice, which is provided by the presence of transitional linguistic cases, peripheral phenomena, and variant forms.

For sociolinguistics, the problem of social differentiation of language is important, which has a two-aspect structure: on the one hand, it is due to the heterogeneity of the social structure itself (reflection in the language of the speech characteristics of different social groups of society), on the other hand, it reflects the diversity of the social situations themselves, which leave an imprint on speech behavior representatives of different social groups in similar circumstances. The concept of a language situation is defined as a set of forms of language existence that serve communication in a certain ethnic community or administrative-territorial association. Moreover Special attention is given to situations reflecting different spheres of communication and the speech behavior of different social groups in different spheres of communication. Sociolinguistics is also interested in the question of the interaction of language and culture. "Processes of contact different cultures are reflected in lexical borrowings." In any case, when sociological research The correlation between language and society is taken into account. At the same time, society can be presented both as an integral ethnic group and as a separate social group in this totality. The range of problems of sociolinguistics also includes the problem of language policy, which primarily consists of taking measures to ensure the preservation of old language norms or the introduction of new ones. Consequently, the question of the literary norm, its variants and deviations from the norm is also within the competence of sociolinguistics. In this case, the very fact of establishing social basis norm, which depends on which social strata of society are most active in the historical process of formation of a literary norm. This may be a norm cultivated by the social elite of society or its democratic strata. Everything depends on a certain historical moment in the life of society. Therefore, a norm can be extremely rigid, strictly oriented towards tradition, and, in another case, deviating from tradition, accepting former non-literary linguistic means, i.e. norm is a socio-historical and dynamic concept, capable of qualitative change within the capabilities of the language system. In this sense, a norm can be defined as a realized possibility of language. The change in the norm is determined both by external (social) factors and internal trends in the development of language on the path of its movement towards acquiring means of expressing greater expediency.

For sociolinguistics, the statistical method turns out to be important. It helps to establish the degree of distribution and, therefore, assimilation of a linguistic phenomenon. However, this method, taken separately, does not have indisputable objective significance based on the results of its application. The widespread occurrence of a phenomenon is not always an indicator of its vital necessity and “luck” for the language. More important are its systemic qualities, which contribute to the development of more appropriate and convenient means of expression. The development of such means is a constant process in language, and it is carried out thanks to the action of specific linguistic laws.

Laws of language development

Serving society as a means of communication, language is constantly undergoing changes, increasingly accumulating its resources to adequately express the meaning of the changes taking place in society. For a living language this process is natural and natural. However, the intensity of this process may vary. And there is an objective reason for this: society itself - the bearer and creator of the language - experiences differently different periods of its existence. During periods of sharp disruption of established stereotypes, the processes of linguistic transformations also intensify. This was the case at the beginning of the 20th century, when the economic, political and social structure of Russian society changed dramatically. Under the influence of these changes, it changes, albeit more slowly, and psychological type representative of a new society, which also takes on the character of an objective factor influencing processes in language.

The modern era has updated many processes in language, which in other conditions might have been less noticeable and more smoothed out. A social explosion does not make a revolution in language as such, but actively influences the speech practice of a contemporary, revealing linguistic possibilities, bringing them to the surface. Under the influence of an external social factor, the internal resources of the language, developed by intrasystem relations, which were not previously in demand, come into motion. various reasons, including, again, for socio-political reasons. For example, semantic and semantic-stylistic transformations were discovered in many lexical layers of the Russian language, in grammatical forms, etc.

In general, language changes occur through the interaction of external and internal causes. Moreover, the basis for changes is laid in the language itself, where internal patterns operate, the cause of which, their driving force, lies in the systematic nature of the language. But a kind of stimulator (or, conversely, “extinguisher”) of these changes is an external factor - processes in the life of society. Language and society, as a language user, are inextricably linked, but at the same time they have their own, separate laws of life support.

Thus, the life of a language, its history, is organically connected with the history of society, but is not completely subordinate to it due to its own systemic organization. Thus, in the language movement, processes of self-development collide with processes stimulated from the outside.

What are the internal laws of language development?

Usually internal laws include law of consistency(global law, which is at the same time a property, quality of language); law of tradition, which usually restrains innovation processes; law of analogy(a stimulant for undermining traditionalism); the law of economy (or the law of “least effort”), especially actively focused on accelerating the pace of social life; laws of contradictions (antinomies), which are essentially the “initiators” of the struggle of opposites inherent in the language system itself. Being inherent in the object (language) itself, antinomies seem to be preparing an explosion from within.

The external factors involved in the accumulation of elements of a new quality by a language may include the following: a change in the circle of native speakers, the spread of education, territorial movements of the masses, the creation of a new statehood, the development of science, technology, international contacts, etc. This also includes the factor of the active action of the media (print, radio, television), as well as the factor of socio-psychological restructuring of the individual in the conditions of the new statehood and, accordingly, the degree of adaptation to new conditions.

When considering the processes of self-regulation in language that occur as a result of internal laws, and taking into account the impact of external factors on these processes, it is necessary to observe a certain measure of the interaction of these factors: exaggerating the action and significance of one (self-development) can lead to a separation of the language from the society that gave birth to it; exaggeration of the role of the social factor (sometimes while completely forgetting the first) leads to vulgar sociologism.

The answer to the question of why the action of internal laws is a decisive (decisive, but not the only) factor in language development lies in the fact that language is a systemic formation. Language is not just a set, a sum of linguistic signs (morphemes, words, phrases, etc.), but also the relationships between them, so a failure in one link of signs can set in motion not only nearby links, but also the entire chain in whole (or a certain part of it).

Law of consistency is found at different language levels (morphological, lexical, syntactic) and manifests itself both within each level and in their interaction with each other. For example, a reduction in the number of cases in the Russian language (six out of nine) led to an increase in analytical features in the syntactic structure of the language - the function of the case form began to be determined by the position of the word in a sentence and its relationship with other forms. A change in the semantics of a word can affect its syntactic connections and even its form. And, conversely, a new syntactic compatibility can lead to a change in the meaning of the word (its expansion or narrowing). Often these processes are interdependent processes. For example, in modern use, the term “ecology”, due to expanded syntactic connections, has significantly expanded its semantics: ecology (from the Greek óikos - house, dwelling, residence and...logy) is the science of the relationships of plant and animal organisms and the communities they form between myself and with environment(BES. T. 2. M., 1991). From the middle of the 20th century. In connection with the increased human impact on nature, ecology has acquired importance as the scientific basis for rational environmental management and the protection of living organisms. At the end of the 20th century. a section of ecology is being formed - human ecology (social ecology); Accordingly, aspects of urban ecology, environmental ethics, etc. appear. In general, we can already talk about the greening of modern science. Environmental problems have given rise to socio-political movements (for example, the Greens, etc.). From the point of view of language, there was an expansion of the semantic field, as a result of which another meaning (more abstract) appeared - “requiring protection.” The latter is visible in new syntactic contexts: ecological culture, industrial ecology, greening of production, ecology of life, words, ecology of spirit; environmental situation, environmental disaster, etc. In the last two cases, a new shade of meaning appears - “danger, trouble.” Thus, a word with a special meaning becomes widely used, in which semantic transformations occur by expanding syntactic compatibility.

Systemic relationships are also revealed in a number of other cases, in particular, when choosing predicate forms for subject nouns denoting positions, titles, professions, etc. For modern consciousness, say, the combination Doctor has come sounds quite normal, although there is an obvious formal and grammatical discrepancy here. The form changes, focusing on specific content (the doctor is a woman). By the way, in in this case Along with semantic-syntactic transformations, one can also note the influence of the social factor: the profession of a doctor in modern conditions is as widespread among women as among men, and the doctor-doctor correlation is carried out at a different linguistic level - stylistic.

Systematicity as a property of language and an individual sign in it, discovered by F. de Saussure, also exhibits deeper relationships, in particular the relationship between the sign (signifier) and the signified, which turned out to be not indifferent.

Law of linguistic tradition, on the one hand, appears as something lying on the surface, completely understandable and obvious. On the other hand, its action reveals a complex interweaving of external and internal stimuli that delay transformations in language. The understandability of the law is explained by the objective desire of language for stability, the “security” of what has already been achieved, acquired, but the potency of language just as objectively acts in the direction of shaking this stability, and a breakthrough in the weak link of the system turns out to be quite natural. But here forces that have no power come into play. direct relationship to the language itself, but can impose a kind of taboo on innovation. Such prohibitive measures come from linguists and special institutions with the appropriate legal status; in dictionaries, manuals, reference books, official regulations, perceived as a social establishment, there are indications of the legitimacy or incompetence of the use of certain linguistic signs. There is, as it were, an artificial delay in the obvious process, the preservation of tradition contrary to the objective state of affairs. Take, for example, a textbook example with the widespread use of the verb to call in the forms calling, calling instead of calling, calling. The rules preserve the tradition, cf.: fry - you fry, boil - you cook - you cook, in the latter case (cook) the tradition is overcome (formerly: Crows are not fried, they are not boiled. - I. Krylov; The stove pot is more valuable to you: you feed yourself food in it cook. - A. Pushkin), but in the verb to call the tradition is stubbornly preserved, not by language, but by codifiers, “establishers” of the literary norm. Such preservation of tradition is justified by other, similar cases, for example, the preservation of the traditional stress in the verb forms include - turn on, turn on, hand over - hand over, hand over (cf.: incorrect, unconventional use of the forms turn on, hand over by the presenters of the TV shows “Itogi” and “Vremya”, although such an error has a certain basis - this is the general tendency to shift the stress of verbs to the root part: cook - cook, cook cook, cook; beckon - beckon, beckon beckon, beckon). So tradition can act selectively and not always motivated. Another example: two pairs of felt boots (felt boots), boots (boots), boots (bot), stockings (stockings) have not been spoken for a long time. But the shape of the socks is stubbornly preserved (and the shape of the socks is traditionally classified as vernacular). The tradition is especially protected by the rules of writing words. Compare, for example, numerous exceptions in the spelling of adverbs, adjectives, etc. Main criterion here is tradition. Why, for example, is it written separately with pantalyku, although the rule states that adverbs formed from nouns that have disappeared from use are written together with prepositions (prefixes)? The answer is incomprehensible - according to tradition, but tradition is a safe conduct for something long gone. Of course, the global destruction of tradition can seriously harm a language, depriving it of such necessary qualities as continuity, stability, and solidity in the end. But partial periodic adjustments of assessments and recommendations are necessary.

On this moment The state of the Russian language causes a lot of discussion and controversy, since its state cannot have an unambiguous assessment. Since the relationship between language and society is quite complex, it is not so easy to determine the specific direction in which the Russian language is moving.

Many philologists, linguists, journalists and politicians are in favor of cleansing the Russian language from foreign words and slang expressions that have already seeped into the speech used in the media.

But there is another opinion - it is believed that such a movement of the language is useful and natural; it is precisely such transformations that will make the Russian language more accessible and expressive. Also, many pay attention to the ubiquitous speech errors and print illiteracy.

It is obvious that language serves as a reflection of everything that happens in society. And Russia has gone through many transformations over Lately: perestroika, post-perestroika, the formation of a new, separate state and its accelerated development.

These moments had a huge impact for a revolutionary transformation of the Russian language. At the moment, such active processes in the Russian language are distinguished - changes in the conditions of the functioning of the language, in the construction of the text and in the language system.

Problems of language ecology

The most obvious changes are changes in the conditions of language functioning. The widespread use of public speech makes the Russian language for most people a means of expressing their individuality and their personal opinions.

The language becomes relaxed and liberated, and at the same time reveals all its pronounced defects. This is the main problem of the ecology of the Russian language.

Lack of culture and ignorance are manifested through language. This is not to say that the emancipation of language is definitely bad; on the contrary, it has its own positive sides, which will help the language improve. But the Russian language should not become loose and personify permissiveness.

The abundance of speech and spelling errors indicates that people disrespect their own language and do not take into account its historical significance. In modern society, they have stopped paying attention to the criteria for correct speech; this is not a mandatory attribute for those who constantly speak in public.

But the grace of speech and its artistry speaks volumes and makes a person more educated, and therefore more successful, and someone who could become a role model. But it is important to note that this situation did not change the language system, and language norms remained the same.

A similar process refers to the lack of speech culture, which modern society does not strive to develop and improve. This leads to constant contamination of the language, and even those who are not prone to speech errors gradually adopt a similar format of communication from others.