home/ Photos

Specificity of the representation of the language game. Criteria and properties, types and methods of language play. Types and types of linguistic personality

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

"KUBAN STATE UNIVERSITY"

(FSBEI HPE "KubGU")

Department of General and Slavic-Russian Linguistics

BACHELOR'S GRADUATE QUALIFICATION PAPER

Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality

Work completed

4th year student K.N. Zabunova

Faculty of Philology

Specialty 031000.62 philology

scientific adviser

d. f. Sci., Professor E.N. Ryadchikova

Normocontroller

Ph.D., associate professor V.V. Roan

Krasnodar 2014

Introduction

Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality

1 Understanding the linguistic personality in modern linguistics

2 Types and types of linguistic personality (weak, average, strong)

Linguistic studies of the language game

2 Definition of a language game

4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of language play

5 Language game functions

6 Means and techniques of a language game used in the speech of a strong language personality

7 Basic means and techniques of language play in the speech of a strong language personality

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The relevance of the research topic is largely due to the fact that the language game needs a comprehensive study. Currently, many works have been written devoted to the study of the language game in the speech of linguistic individuals. However, there are still no definite criteria for assessing the linguistic personality and a unified classification of the linguistic game.

There are a huge number of linguistic personalities, whose language game can be the most interesting material for learning. For example, the language of M.M. Zhvanetsky and F.G. Ranevskaya. There are practically no linguistic studies devoted to the linguistic analysis of their work. Meanwhile, the language game in the work of these outstanding linguistic personalities is diverse and unique. The turns of their speech became catchwords and quotes. We come across them on the pages of newspapers, on social networks, in the media, we hear from friends. Their popularity is growing every day. Collections of their works and sayings have been published. The speech patterns of these outstanding people are characterized by a deep meaning, which is not always immediately clear, therefore, their linguistic analysis can contribute to the comprehension of the hidden meanings expressed in game form, and the individuals themselves.

The object of the research is speech parameters and features of speech use of linguistic personalities who can be classified as strong.

The subject of the study was the statements of the Soviet theater and film actress Faina Georgievna Ranevskaya and the contemporary satirist Mikhail Mikhailovich Zhvanetsky.

The aim of the study is to identify the features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality.

The tasks are defined by the goal and boil down to the following:

to identify the main means and techniques of a language game used in the speech of a strong language personality;

characterize a weak, average and strong linguistic personality;

to determine the main criteria and properties, types and methods of a language game; language game speech

explore the basic functions of a language game;

The methodological basis of the research is the works in the field of studying the language game and the linguistic personality of M.M. Bakhtin, V.V. Vinogradov, L. Wittgenstein, V.I. Karasik, E.N. Ryadchikova, V.Z. Sannikov, J. Heizingi and other scientists.

Illustrative material was extracted from the book by I.V. Zakharov (Zakharov, 2002), M. Zhvanetsky's official website and Internet resources. The file contains more than 250 items.

Scientific methods used in the research: component analysis method, descriptive method, method semantic analysis, classification.

The theoretical significance is determined by the appeal to the concepts of "language game", "language personality", "syntactic-semantic morphology", their development and structuring, as well as the possibility of applying the results achieved in scientific works devoted to the language game in the speech of a linguistic personality.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that a direction has not yet been developed in linguistics that would study the language game in the speech of a linguistic personality from the point of view of syntactic-semantic morphology. This work is one of the first systemic studies in this direction.

The practical value of the study lies in the fact that its materials can be used in teaching university courses and special courses on the theory and practice of speech communication, rhetoric, imageology, speech play, text analysis, syntactic semantics, and also become the basis for further study of language play in speech. other linguistic personalities.

The approbation of the work was carried out at the annual student scientific conference "Science and creativity of young researchers of KubSU: results and prospects" (April 2012, April 2013).

1. Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality

1 Understanding linguistic personality

A person's speech is his inner portrait. D. Carnegie argued that a person is always judged by his speech, which can tell discerning listeners about the society in which he moves, about the level of intelligence, education and culture (Carnegie, 1989).

The term "linguistic personality" was first used by V.V. Vinogradov in 1930. He wrote: “... If we rise from the external grammatical forms of the language to the more internal (“ Ideological ”) and to more complex constructive forms of words and their combinations; if we recognize that not only the elements of speech, but also the compositional techniques of their combinations, associated with the peculiarities of verbal thinking, are essential signs of linguistic associations, then the structure of the literary language appears in a much more complex form than Saussure's planar system of linguistic relations. And the personality, included in different of these "subjective" spheres and itself including them, combines them into a special structure. Objectively, all that has been said can be transferred to speech as a sphere of creative disclosure of the linguistic personality ”(Vinogradov 1930, pp. 91-92).

In modern linguistics, the problem of studying a linguistic personality is one of the very topical ones, since “you cannot learn a language by itself without going beyond it, without turning to its creator, carrier, user - to a person, to a specific linguistic personality” (Karaulov, 1987 ). According to V.I. Karasik, the science of linguistic personality, or linguopersonology, is one of the new directions of linguistic knowledge. The founder of this trend in Russian linguistics is rightfully considered Yu.N. Karaulov, whose book focused the interests of linguists on the development of the problem of linguistic consciousness and communicative behavior (Karaulov, 1987). The term “linguopersonology” was introduced and substantiated by V.P. Unknown (1996). Linguopersonology as an integrative area of humanitarian knowledge is based on the achievements of linguistics, literary criticism, psychology, sociology, and cultural studies (Karasik, 2007).

To date, a global, interdisciplinary approach to the interpretation of the essence of language as a specific human phenomenon has been formed, through which it is possible to understand the nature of the personality, its place in society and ethnos, its intellectual and creative potential, i.e. to comprehend more deeply for yourself what a Man is (Susov, 1989). Dryangin, “ideas concerning the features of this concept were presented in the works of V.V. Vinogradov ("On Fictional Prose"), Slavcho Petkova ("The Ezik and the Personality"), R.A. Budagov (Man and His Language "). But in none of these works there is an outlet for a real integral linguistic personality as a linguistic object ”(Dryangina, 2006).

For modern science, interest is no longer just a person in general, but a personality, i.e. a concrete person, a bearer of consciousness, language, having a complex inner world and a certain attitude to fate, the world of things and the like. He occupies a special position in the Universe and on Earth, he constantly enters into dialogue with the world, himself and his own kind. Man is a social being by nature, human in man is generated by his life in the conditions of society, in the conditions of the culture created by mankind (Leontyev, 1996). The image of the world is formed in any person in the course of his contacts with the world and is the basic concept of the theory of linguistic personality (Samosenkova, 2006).

"The word personality, which has a bright coloration of the Russian national-linguistic structure of thought, contains elements of an international and, above all, European understanding of the corresponding range of ideas and ideas about man and society, about social individuality in its relation to the collective and the state" (Vinogradov, 1994).

E. Sapir spoke about the mutual influence of personality and her speech (Sapir, 1993).

One of the first appeals to the linguistic personality is associated with the name of the German scientist J.L. Weisgerber. The concept of a linguistic personality began to be developed in detail by G.I. Godin, who created a model of linguistic personality, where a person is viewed from the point of view of his “readiness to perform speech acts, create and accept works of speech” (Bogin, 1986). The active, activity aspect is also emphasized by other scientists as the most important for a linguistic personality: “A linguistic personality is characterized not so much by what she knows in the language, but by what she can do with the language” (Biryukova, 2008). G.I. By a linguistic personality, a goddess understands a person as a bearer of speech who has the ability to use the language system as a whole in his activities (Bogin, 1986). A similar understanding is given by Yu.N. Karaulov: “A linguistic personality is a personality expressed in language (texts) and through language, there is a personality reconstructed in its main features on the basis of linguistic means” (Karaulov, 1987).

The study of a linguistic personality is currently multifaceted, large-scale, and attracts data from many related sciences (Krasilnikova, 1989). “Concept? Linguistic personality? formed by a projection into the field of linguistics of the corresponding interdisciplinary term, in the meaning of which philosophical, sociological and psychological views on the socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person are refracted, which make up his qualitative determination ”(Vorkachev, 2001).

Language personality - social phenomenon but it also has an individual aspect. The individual in the linguistic personality is formed through the internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings, while the linguistic personality influences the formation of linguistic traditions. Each linguistic personality is formed on the basis of the appropriation by a specific person of all the linguistic wealth created by predecessors. The language of a particular person consists largely of common language and to a lesser extent - from individual linguistic characteristics (Mignenko, 2007).

Yu.N. Karaulov identifies three levels of linguistic personality: verbal-semantic, linguo-cognitive (thesaurus), and pragmatic (or motivational) (Karaulov, 1987). He speaks of “three ways, three ways of representing the linguistic personality, which is the focus of linguodidactic descriptions of the language. One of them comes from the three-level organization described above (consisting of the verbal-semantic, or structural-system, linguo-cognitive, or thesaurus, and motivational levels) of the linguistic personality; the other relies on a set of skills, or readiness, of a linguistic personality to implement different types speech-thinking activity and the performance of various kinds of communicative roles; finally, the third is an attempt to recreate a linguistic personality in a three-dimensional space a) data on the level structure of the language (phonetics, grammar, vocabulary), b) types of speech activity (speaking, listening, writing, reading), c) degrees of language acquisition ”(Karaulov , 1987).

So, already from the definitions of a linguistic personality presented by Yu.N. Karaulov, followed by the fact of heterogeneity, a difference in the "qualitative relation" of linguistic personalities. The scientist wrote: “A linguistic personality is understood as a set of abilities for the creation and perception of speech works (texts), differing in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, accuracy and depth of reflection of reality, a certain purposefulness” (Karaulov, 1987). It is quite obvious that not only speech works differ in complexity, but also these abilities are different in people. Accordingly, the linguistic personality should be considered not as something homogeneous, but to produce a certain gradation, to create a hierarchy of types of linguistic personality. “The very choice of means of designation can be interpreted as a speech act that characterizes, as such, the one who performs this act, according to his personal (intersubjective), interpersonal and social aspects” (Telia, 1986). It follows that the speech actions of the individual are able to differentiate the speaking / writing person. A person in communication, in communicative discourse, can manifest itself “as contact and non-contact, conformist and non-conformist, cooperative and non-cooperative, tough and soft, straightforward and maneuvering. It is the person who is the subject of discourse that gives the speech act this or that illocutionary force or direction. Personality is an integral part of discourse, but at the same time it creates it, embodying in it its temperament, abilities, feelings, motives of activity, individual characteristics of the course of mental processes ”(Zakutskaya, 2001).

A.V. Puzyrev also defends the idea of a multilevel linguistic personality, pointing out such hypostases as thinking (the archetypes of consciousness dominating in society), linguistic (the degree of "development and features of the language used"), speech (the nature of the texts that filled time and space), communicative (the ratio of communicative and quasi-communicative, actualizing and manipulative types of communication) (Puzyrev, 1997). This idea is supported and developed by S.A. Sukhikh and V.V. Zelenskaya, who understand the linguistic personality as a complex multi-level functional system, including levels of language proficiency (linguistic competence), proficiency in ways to carry out speech interaction (communicative competence) and knowledge of the world (thesaurus) (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya, 1998). Researchers believe that a linguistic personality necessarily has a feature of verbal behavior (linguistic trait), which is repeated at the exponential (formal), substantial and intentional levels of discourse. At the exponential (formal) level, the linguistic personality manifests itself as active or conscious, persuasive, hasitive or unfounded; at the substantial level, it has the qualities of concreteness or abstractness; on the intentional level, the linguistic personality is characterized by such traits as humor or literality, conflict or cooperativeness, directiveness or decentralization (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998). Each of the levels of a linguistic personality is reflected in the structure of discourse, which has, respectively, formal or exponential, substantial and intentional aspects.

In linguistics, a linguistic personality finds itself at the crossroads of study from two positions: from the standpoint of its ideolecticity, that is, individual characteristics in speech activity, and from the standpoint of the reproduction of a cultural prototype (see: Kulishova, 2001).

2 Types and types of linguistic personality

A linguistic personality is a heterogeneous concept, not only multilevel, but also multifaceted, diversified.

V.B. Goldin and O.B. Sirotinin, seven types of speech cultures are distinguished: elite speech culture, "average literary", literary colloquial, familiar colloquial, vernacular, folk speech, professionally limited. The first four types are the speech cultures of the native speakers of the literary language (Goldin, Sirotinina, 1993).

The level division of speech ability (G.I. feelings, developed general and speech culture of a person (Biryukova, 2008). Yu.V. Betz characterizes the three levels of language proficiency as “pre-systemic”, systemic and “super-systemic”. “Error tends to the first level of language acquisition, deliberate deviation from the norm - to the third level, and correct speech (and latent speech individuality) - to the second” (Betz, 2009). All linguistic facts can be distributed, the researcher believes, into three categories: 1) errors and shortcomings; 2) the right choices; and 3) innovation that testifies to the creative use of the language system. “A noticeable predominance of one of the categories indicates the level of development of the linguistic personality, the degree of language acquisition” (Betz, 2009).

N. D. Golev proposes to classify the types of a linguistic personality according to the strength and weakness of the manifestation of signs, depending on its ability to produce and analyze a speech work as "creative" and "hoarding", "meaningful" and "formal", "onomasiological" and "semasiological", "mnemonic "And" deductive "," associative "and" logical-analytical "types (Golev, 2004). The possibility of expanding the concept of a linguistic personality occurred due to the inclusion of the provisions of social psychology about its formation in communication and understood as a "model of interpersonal relations" (Obozov, 1981; Reinwald, 1972).

As V.I. Karasik, linguistic classifications of individuals are based on the attitude of the individual to the language. There are people with high, medium and low levels of communicative competence, carriers of high or mass speech culture who speak the same language, and bilinguals who use a foreign language in natural or educational communication, capable and less capable of linguistic creativity, using standard and non-standard means of communication (Karasik, 2007). At the same time, the degree of competence is represented by the concept that is designed to regulate both successes and failures in the communication process, since competence is felt both ontologically and phylogenetically (Tkhorik, Fanyan, 1999).

V.P. Non-sign identifies two main types of a particular human linguistic personality: 1) standard, reflecting the average literary processed norm of the language, and 2) non-standard, which combines the “top” and “bottom” of the culture of the language. The researcher classifies writers and masters of artistic speech as the top of culture. The lower classes of culture unite carriers, producers and users of a marginal linguistic culture (anticulture) (Neroznak, 1996).

According to G.G. Infantova, within the limits of the literary language, on the basis of the level of its development, three types of speech cultures are clearly distinguished: elite culture (super-high), “average literary” culture (generally quite high), and literary-diminished culture. However, these terms, the researcher notes, are rather arbitrary. Each of the types of speech cultures has subtypes, and between them there are syncretic, intermediate varieties. Based on the profession, occupation, linguistic personalities of different types can be distinguished, for example: individuals for whom language learning, speech activity is an element of the profession (philologists, teachers, actors, announcers, writers, etc.), and linguistic personalities who they implement the language system in speech not as a component of their own professional activity. At the same time, people of the same specialty can be fluent in the language / speech at different levels. Thus, teachers can be carriers of both elite and "average literary" speech culture (Infantova, 2000).

O.A. Kadilina offers a classification of linguistic personalities, which includes three components: 1) weak linguistic personality; 2) an average linguistic personality; 3) a strong (elite) linguistic personality (Kadilina, 2011). To us, this classification seems to be the most accurate.

Let's consider the main parameters of each of the named types.

Average linguistic personality

The concept of an average native speaker in linguistic literature has not yet been defined, the volume of his regional knowledge for any language has not been exhaustively described. (On the "theory of the middle level" in modern linguistics, see, for example: Frumkina, 1996; Fedyaeva, 2003). There is also no single answer to the question of how much the average native speaker knows about this or that fact. Whether his knowledge is limited by the volume of an explanatory dictionary, to what extent encyclopedic information is presented, where the border between individual and social associations is difficult to determine (Ivanishcheva, 2002).

Perhaps, the study of an “average” native speaker does not arouse particular interest among Russian linguists, not only because of the blurred boundaries and criteria of such a person, but also because “in the Russian language, the mediocrity of the personality, its averaging, and the absence of clear individual traits are negatively assessed; in the cultural and linguistic society of Russian speakers, the qualitative uncertainty of the personality is negatively assessed - the half-heartedness, instability of its value-motivational structure ”(Zelenskaya, Tkhorik, Golubtsov, 2000).

HE. Ivanischeva notes that “for? An average native speaker? our contemporary with secondary education (who graduated from school at least ten years ago) is accepted, without regard to age, gender, occupation, field of activity (E.M. Vereshchagin), the author of the study (V.Ts.Vuchkova), an average linguistic personality those. one abstract native speaker instead of a set of individuals in a mass linguistic study (you, me, them, the old man, Napoleon, Mohammed ... in one) (Yu.N. Karaulov). “I think, - writes ON. Ivanischeva, - that the concept of an average native speaker includes two aspects - the content (level) of knowledge and its volume. Determining what an average native speaker should know can mean, on the one hand, determining the "minimum cultural literacy", i.e. what everyone who was born, grew up and graduated from high school in a given country should know, and on the other hand, what a native speaker really knows ”(Ivanishcheva, 2002).

In the article “Correct sounding is a necessary attribute of Russian speech” Z.U. Blagoz addresses all speakers, without exception, and rightly speaks of the peculiar speech duty of any native speaker: “So is it necessary to monitor the correctness of your speech behavior? It is imperative, although it is not easy. Why is it necessary? Because competent speech is needed not only on the stage of the theater, it is needed by everyone who is preparing to communicate with the public. Competent, intelligible speech with clear diction is an indicator of respectful attitude both to the interlocutor and to oneself. Speech, correct from the point of view of the norm, raises our image and authority. Stress is an integral part of our speech culture, adherence to the norms of verbal stress is the duty of every speaker in Russian, an indispensable condition for the culture of speech ”(Blyagoz, 2008).

O.A. Kadilina says that in interpersonal speech communication, the average linguistic personality, as a rule, does not think about oratorical skills, what impression her words make, about the comfort of communication, about techniques and means that help to win and keep the attention of the interlocutor (Kadilina, 2011).

expressive means at all language levels); adequate

choice (in terms of matching language means

communicative situation and the roles of communicants); adequate synthesis (correspondence of the gesture generated by the personality to everything

a complex of communicative and meaningful tasks) (see: Bogin 1975; Bogin 1984; Bogin 1986). Reflection of a number of parameters of a strong linguistic personality is presented, for example, in articles (Abdulfanova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Kuznetsova, 2000; Lipatov, 2000; Lipatov, 2002).

Weak linguistic personality

The reasons for the appearance of a large number of weak linguistic personalities and the consequences of this are written by E. Ryadchikova: “Despite many indisputable merits, the policy of the Soviet state, nevertheless, was aimed at eradicating the intelligentsia as a class and humiliating it in every way. For decades, a stereotype of a dismissive, ironic attitude towards culture has been developed. The concepts of "etiquette", "politeness", "rhetoric" are still considered by many people, if not as bourgeois as at the dawn of Soviet power, then, at least, abstruse, incomprehensible and unnecessary. However, such denial and ridicule lasts only as long as the person silently watches someone. As soon as it comes to the need to speak oneself, especially for a large audience or in front of a television camera, conscious or unconscious "self-exposure" begins, the person himself begins to experience inconvenience, or even suffering, even neurotic reactions from inability to communicate "(Ryadchikova, 2001 (a) ). It is no secret that in our country there are often cases when even completely adult, finally formed specialists with higher education do not know the forms of speech etiquette (even such simple clichéd forms as greeting, expression of sympathy, congratulations, compliments, etc.) do not they know how to communicate with elders in age and position (including by phone), do not consider it necessary to simply listen to another person, do not know how to read kinetic information. Are afraid or do not know how to resist the rudeness and rudeness of opponents. This leads to stiffness, constriction, fear and avoidance of communication, inability, not only to conduct a conversation in the right track, calmly, with dignity to defend your point of view, but even simply to state it in a form accessible to other people is fraught with conflicts with management and with clients (Ibid.).

In relation to a weak linguistic personality, there is "a mismatch (at the semantic level) between the sign formation, postulated as a text, and its projections (Rubakin, 1929), formed in the process of perception, understanding and evaluation of the text by recipients" (Sorokin, 1985). Therefore, like a strong linguistic personality, a weak linguistic personality acts both as an author and as a recipient of speech.

The main sign of a weak linguistic personality is bad speech. “Bad (semantic, communicative, linguistic) speech is evidence of unformed cognitive models, the absence of information fragments, the connection between mental and verbal structures. In the same way, both "good" and? average? speech ”(Butakova, 2004).

Research by Yu.V. Betz convincingly prove that at the beginning of its formation, a linguistic personality first of all assimilates the language system, and only then - the norm and usus. At the first stage of mastering the language, the structure of the language, its norms and usus have not yet been mastered, which manifests itself in the presence of a large number of errors, poverty of speech - in a word, in the raw speech of a particular person. Conventionally, this level can be called “pre-systemic”. The specificity of this period is illustrated by children's speech and the speech of people mastering a second language. Deviation from the norm and usus may be in the nature of an error. At the same time, errors in generating an utterance can be due to the complexity of the speech production process itself or to its failures, then they do not depend on the level of mastery of the language system, its norm or usus (Betz, 2009). S.N. Zeitlin recognizes the “pressure of the language system” as the main cause of speech errors (Zeitlin, 1982).

Since speech communication is the basis (a kind of means of production and an instrument of labor) of a number of humanitarian types of social activity, such as, for example, jurisprudence, teaching, politics, it is obvious that the specifics of their speech should be comprehensively studied in order to be able to create samples of both norms and “anti-norms” of such communication, to warn people against mistakes that they themselves, probably, do not notice, but having done, they often discredit themselves as a speaking person, as a specialist (Ryadchikova, Kushu, 2007).

Like a strong linguistic personality, a weak linguistic personality can manifest itself at almost all speech-communicative levels: phonetic (orthoepic), lexical, semantic, phraseological, grammatical, stylistic, logical, pragmatic. However, in this regard, as V.I. Karasik, “it is not so much the hierarchy of levels that is important as the idea of an inextricable connection between different signals that characterize either prestigious or non-prestigious speech” (Karasik, 2001).

Speech needs constant improvement. D. Carnegie suggests that any speaker can carefully follow the rules and patterns of building a public speech, but still make a lot of mistakes. He may speak in front of an audience exactly as in a private conversation, and still speak in an unpleasant voice, make grammatical errors, be awkward, act insulting and do many inappropriate things. Carnegie suggests that everyone’s natural, everyday manner of speaking needs many corrections, and that it is necessary first to improve the natural manner of speaking and only then to transfer this method to the podium (Carnegie, 1989).

It is possible to determine the speaker's belonging to a low social stratum of society (which in the overwhelming majority of countries of the world correlates with the concept of a weak linguistic personality) already at the level of pronunciation and intonation. IN AND. Karasik speaks of a low educational level and provincial background and lists a number of signs of “despised pronunciation” (Karasik, 2001). “Pronunciation should not be illiterate, on the one hand, and pretentious, on the other” (Karasik, 2001).

Logical impairments are also a sign of a weak linguistic personality. “Observations show that people tend to lose sight of any essential (most often not categorical, but characteristic) feature of an object for a short time: thus, the object is more or less identified in the consciousness of the subject, involuntarily does not belong to its class, in as a result, the subject behaves in relation to object A as if he were not-A ”(Savitsky, 2000).

Strong language personality

In rhetoric as the art of logical argumentation and verbal communication, the concept of "strong linguistic personality" usually includes: 1) possession of fundamental knowledge; 2) the presence of a rich information reserve and the desire to replenish it; 3) mastery of the basics of building speech in accordance with a certain communicative intention; 4) speech culture (the idea of the forms of speech corresponding to the communicative intention) (Bezmenova, 1991).

G.G. Infantova notes that the composition of the characteristic features of a strong linguistic personality should include extralinguistic and linguistic indicators. The researcher notes that “among the extralinguistic signs of a strong linguistic personality, it is advisable, first of all, to include the social characteristics of the personality (here the social activity of the individual should be considered a constant feature, and the variables - social status, educational level and general development, age, profession and occupation, ideological orientation personality - democratic, anti-democratic, etc.); extralinguistic awareness (permanent features here include the fundamental ability to take into account a speech situation, and variable - the level of ability to take into account all the components and parameters of this situation, including the participants in the communicative act) ”(Infantova, 2000).

Among the linguistic features, linguistic and speech features should be distinguished. They can be constant or variable.

According to G.G. Infant, to include mastery of the means of all language levels, oral and written forms of speech, dialogical and monologic type of speech; means of all styles of speech (meaning their abstract, vocabulary and grammatical aspect; in the terminology of Yu.N. Karaulov - the verbal-semantic, zero level of development of the linguistic personality, or the associative-verbal network, - units: words and grammatical models, text parameters ) in their normative variety. The composition of permanent speech features includes the implementation of an utterance in accordance with its internal program, mastery of all the communicative qualities of speech (accuracy, expressiveness, etc.), the correspondence of the utterance as a whole to all parameters of the communicative act, the ability to perceive utterances in accordance with such parameters and adequately to react to them. All this applies to both one statement and the entire text (Kadilina, 2011).

Variable speech features include, for example, quantitative and qualitative indicators such as the degree of knowledge of the norms of speech communication, the degree of diversity of the means used, the degree of richness of the text by expressive means of all language levels, the percentage of deviation from language norms and the percentage of communicative failures, as well as standard / non-standard speech; simple reproduction of the language system or its creative use, enrichment (Infantova, 2000). In addition, writes G.G. Infantov, when forming a multi-aspect model of a linguistic personality, it is advisable to single out constant and variable not only linguistic and speech characteristics, but also characteristics that characterize a linguistic personality from other points of view (for example, from the point of view of activity-communicative needs) (Infantova, 2000).

"Of course, a strong linguistic personality must know and skillfully apply the entire range of linguistic means that enrich and decorate speech - comparisons, contrasts, metaphors, synonyms, antonyms, paremias, aphorisms, etc." (Kadilina, 2011).

The use of word-symbols, from the point of view of E.A. Dryangina, reveals the richness of the linguistic personality. “At the same time, it is obvious that words-symbols help convey the peculiarities of the world perception and worldview of both the author and the addressee, thereby helping to establish a dialogue both between them and with the culture as a whole” (Dryangina, 2006).

A.A. Vorozhbitova, as an example of a strong linguistic personality, names a future teacher of a democratic type who has ethical responsibility, general educational and professional training and high linguistic competence, which ensures effective speech activity in Russian (foreign) language (Vorozhbitova, 2000).

The concept of a linguistic personality includes not only linguistic competence and certain knowledge, but also "the intellectual ability to create new knowledge on the basis of the accumulated in order to motivate their actions and the actions of other linguistic individuals" (Tameryan, 2006). It follows that a strong linguistic personality is incompatible with an underdeveloped intellectual activity, that a highly developed intellect is an indispensable condition for a strong linguistic personality. Moreover, Yu.N. Karaulov believes that "the linguistic personality begins on the other side of the ordinary language, when intellectual forces come into play, and the first level (after zero) of its study is the identification, establishment of a hierarchy of meanings and values in her picture of the world, in her thesaurus" (Karaulov, 1987). Therefore, creativity is a necessary characteristic of a strong linguistic personality, as pointed out by Yu.N. Karaulov (1987). Linguistic creativity is understood as the ability to use not only knowledge of the idiomatic component, but also to use linguistic means in an individual or figurative sense (Kulishova, 2001).

A number of linguistic scholars interpret communication as the joint creation of meanings (Dyck and Kinch, 1988; Vodak, 1997; Leontovich, 2005). So, for example, A. Schütz writes about the “social world of everyday intersubjectivity” of the communicant, which is erected in reciprocal mutually directed acts of expressing and interpreting meanings (Quoted from: Makarov, 1998). Similarly, the “hermeneutics of play” by the German culturologist V. Isera, creatively developed by the American scientist P. Armstrong, presupposes “an alternating movement of meanings open to each other for questioning” (see: Venediktova, 1997).

The researchers note that the linguistic personality appears in four of its hypostases: 1) mental personality, 2) linguistic personality, 3) speech, 4) communicative (Puzyrev, 1997). On this basis, it seems completely fair to conclude that “if the area of competence of a linguistic personality is expanded, then, as a person with a decent status, she should follow one or another principle of not only word use, but also speech use, and further - thought use” (Tkhorik, Fanyan, 1999).

The development of good, competent speech, the ability to explain, persuade, defend certain positions is a requirement of modern life.

In the types of speech culture, i.e. the degree of approach of the linguistic consciousness of an individual to the ideal completeness of linguistic richness in one form or another of the language, O.B. Sirotinina delimits and contrasts such linguistic personalities as a bearer of an elite speech culture in relation to the literary norm, a bearer of a dialectal speech culture, a bearer of urban vernacular, etc. (Sirotinina, 1998). In the 90s of the twentieth century. dissertation studies and articles appeared with speech portraits of individual native speakers who know the elite speech culture (see: Kuprina 1998; Kochetkova 1999; Infantova 1999; Infantova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Isaeva, Sichinava, 2007). The principle of intellectualism is especially important for understanding such objects (see: Kotova 2008).

IN AND. Karasik believes that we will get a more complete picture of non-standard linguistic personalities if we turn to the study of speech not only of writers, but also of scientists, journalists, and teachers (Karasik, 2002). According to the prevailing opinion in society, “it is the teacher-language teacher who should act as a bearer of an elite type of speech culture, own all the norms of the literary language, fulfill ethical and communication requirements? (OB Sirotinina), since by the nature of his professional activity he is prepared not only for the use of the language, but also for the comprehension of linguistic facts and the very process of speech activity ”(Grigorieva, 2006).

The problem of the linguistic personality as a personality, considered from the point of view of its readiness and ability to produce and interpret texts, is being actively developed in modern linguistic literature, starting with the works of G.I. Bogina and Yu.N. Karaulova. One of the most interesting objects of theoretical understanding here, of course, is the concept of a strong linguistic personality - one for which a significant part of the production of modern artistic discourse is designed, and one that is able to apply adequate orientation strategies in this area of cultural communication. The problem of a strong linguistic personality was mostly covered in relation to the creators of texts - writers, literary men, poets (see, for example: Kuznetsova, 2000).

“In general terms, the secrets of the speech image can be summarized in the following list. This is knowledge of the basic norms of language and the rules of rhetoric, the principles of mutual understanding in communication, the rules of etiquette - behavioral, including official, and speech; understanding the essence of persuasion techniques, the ability to qualify (for acceptable and unacceptable) and correctly apply tricks in a dispute and measures against them, knowledge of techniques for counteracting difficult interlocutors; skillful and timely isolation of positive and negative in the psychology of communication, what leads to the emergence of psychological barriers in communication; avoidance of logical and speech errors; the art of drawing up normative documents, preparing written and oral speech, knowing the reasons for unsuccessful argumentation, etc. " (Ryadchikova, 2001 (a)).

A speech delivered on the same occasion on the same topic will differ on the lips of a weak, average and weak linguistic personality. “Only great artists of the word are capable of subordinating to themselves - partially and, of course, temporarily - the associative-verbal network of their native language. This is due to the emergence of a double semantic perspective, characteristic of irony, metaphor, symbol ”(Zinchenko, Zuzman, Kirnoze, 2003).

2. Linguistic studies of the language game

1 The role of the language game in world culture and the language of works of art

A great contribution to the development of the theory of the language game belongs to the Dutch philosopher I. Huizinga. The game, in his opinion, is older than the cultural forms of society. Civilization comes from the game, not the other way around. Based on the analysis of the meanings of the word "game" in different languages and civilizations, I. Huizinga came to the conclusion that in most of them "game" has a relationship with struggle, competition, competition, as well as with love game(forbidden), which explains the tendency to play on forbidden topics (taboos) in modern jokes. The game is based on struggle or hostility, held back by friendships. The roots of play in philosophy begin in the sacred play of riddles; the roots of play in poetry are mocking songs that taunt the object of ridicule. Myth and poetry were recognized as linguistic games, Huizinga believes that the language game is identical to magic. Despite Huizing's claims that the concept of play is not reducible with other terms and that a biological approach is not applicable to it, it still seems possible to question some of his claims. For example, his assumption that competition and competition are the basis that prompts the subject to ridicule an object does not apply to all utterances.

A language game as operating with linguistic means in order to achieve a psychological and aesthetic effect in the mind of a thinking person is considered by many foreign and domestic scientists (Brainina, 1996; Vezhbitskaya, 1996; Sannikov, 1994; Huizinga, 1997; Bogin, 1998; Nikolina, 1998; Beregovskaya, 1999; Ilyasova, 2000a; Lisochenko, 2000).

In the works of a philosophical warehouse, for example, by J. Huizinga, the language game acts as a particular realization of the game as an element of culture. It reveals features in common with the games of sports, music, picturesque, etc. plan.

Realizing that language is a special sphere of human life, literary scholars and linguists devote special studies to the language game. There are known works in which the consideration of the game is subordinated to the methods of its implementation. As a rule, the main such technique is a pun (Vinogradov, 1953; Shcherbina, 1958; Khodakova, 1968; Kolesnikov, 1971; Furstenberg, 1987; Tereshchenkova, 1988; Luxemburg, Rakhimkulova, 1992; 1996; Sannikov, 1997; Lyubich, 1998 ).

The researchers note that a language game is implemented within the framework of various functional types of language. It can be colloquial speech (Zemskaya, Kitaygorodskaya, Rozanova, 1983; Bondarenko, 2000), journalistic texts (Namitokova, 1986; Neflyasheva, 1988; Ilyasova, 1998, 1986; 2000), fictional speech (Vinokur, 1943; Krysin, 1966; Grigoriev, 1967; Bakina, 1977; Kulikova, 1986; Luxemburg, Rakhimkulova, 1996; Brainina, 1996; Nikolina, 1998; Novikova, 2000; Rakhimkulova, 2000).

It seems that it is fiction that turns out to be the very space in which the language game can be fully realized. Moreover, there are authors who largely gravitate towards the playful manner of transmitting thoughts. Fiction speech of the 18th - 19th centuries realized the possibilities of playing with linguistic means, primarily by creating a comic effect. Linguists point out that among the masters of laughter in the Russian classics, A.C. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin has long been considered a recognized master of puns created through both the collision of meanings and play with the form of expression (Khodakova, 1964; Lukyanov, 2000). It is interesting that puns and, in general, the playful manner of constructing the text is embodied in Gogol not only at the lexico-semantic, but also at the syntactic level. In the second case, it is created by the “unskilfully interrupted, syntactically helpless speech of the characters, coinciding (similar) ends of two or more sentences or phrases that in a funny way emphasize the object of conversation or characteristic, and unexpected transitions from one key to another (Bulakhovsky, 1954). Obviously, the language game, embodied in Russian literary and artistic texts, has its roots in the buffoonery culture, the traditions of the Russian folk balagan theater, and folklore in general. Without any doubt, ditties, anecdotes, jokes, tongue twisters, riddles belong to the game genres. In the circle of authorized works, as scientists point out, the language of vaudeville is located to it (Bulakhovsky, 1954). Authors of comedies of the 18th century gravitate towards the language game (Khodakova, 1968).

It must be emphasized that a language game presupposes two fundamentally different forms of existence.

First, one can find literary genres specially designed for its implementation, aimed at drawing the perceiving (reader, viewer) into the creative process, at generating multiple allusions from the recipient, and capturing hidden meanings hidden in the text. This is not only the already mentioned comedy, vaudeville, but also an epigram, parody, palindrome, acrostic.

Secondly, a language game can appear on the pages of works that do not have it in the list of obligatory elements, unconditional signs of the genre. It is this form of manifestation of the language game that depends on the intentions of the author, on the structure of his consciousness. As it seems, it is most significant in characterizing the idiostyle of the writer, the specifics of his linguistic personality. A variety of methods of a language game, adherence to certain methods of its implementation makes the writer's work individual, unique, and therefore recognizable. Thus, for the artistic manner of M. Zoshchenko, a clash of the literary version of language and vernacular is characteristic (Bryakin, 1980), i.e. game at the lexico-semantic and syntactic level. The paradoxical compatibility of linguistic units turns out to be extremely significant for A. Platonov (Bobylev, 1991; Skobelev, 1981). Therefore, he embodies play in a syntagmatic way.

E. Bern believes that the game has two main characteristics: ulterior motives and the presence of a payoff (Berne, 1996).

It should be noted that a language game does not necessarily mean that it is funny. Apparently, the creation of such texts, where everything is deliberately unclear, should be considered a kind of language game with the reader. One of the methods of generating a game text with a general unclear semantics, researchers call nonsense. V.P. Rakov notes that nonsense (the absurdity of the meaning created in the text) can exist in different types, being generated either only at the semantic level, or at the formal level, but at the same time has the same goal - to influence the reader, to create an impression with its paradoxicality. The semantic “darkness” of works containing nonsense prompts the reader, who is forced to seek clarity in the foggy, to activate the thought process. This manner of creating works is especially characteristic of literature of the “non-classical paradigm. It consists in “the destruction of the lexical cohesion of the aesthetic utterance, its continuity, deformation of the syntax and the strict optical geometrism of the text” (Rakov, 2001).

This fact in modern literature is primarily characteristic of the postmodern trend. No wonder its representatives operate with the concepts of "world as chaos", "world as text", "double coding", "inconsistency", etc. (Bakhtin, 1986). There is an orientation towards working with methods of constructing a text, expressive and pictorial means, and not with meanings. Therefore, playing with language, focused on using the potential of linguistic units, becomes an integral part of the texts of postmodernism. This leads to the appearance of works that are distinguished by an overly complex and sometimes confusing structure, which in turn affects the perception of their content (compare: works by Borges, Cortazar, Hesse, Joyce, etc.). Such a dominance of form over content is determined by the essence of the game as such, its self-sufficiency, which presupposes “playing for the sake of the game itself,” the absence of any goals that matter outside the playing space.

A. Vezhbitskaya believes that “there is a special goal or task in the game”, but “this goal has no meaning outside the game” (Vezhbitskaya, 1996). Thus, we can talk about playing with the form, which is achieved by linguistic means (Zalesova, 2002).

The language game is one of the leading communication categories. It is provoked by emotional categorical situations, which force the communicants to play the language. Any language game is a manipulation of the speaker with the language, which most often pursues a hedonistic goal (obtaining psychological and aesthetic pleasure). This is also observed in those cases when the language game is ritual, i.e. passes according to well-known rules, and in those when it is unexpected. In both cases, it must be realized within the understanding of all communicants, which requires them to have emotional intelligence and emotional / emotive competence. If this is not the case, then an anecdote, for example, or a joke becomes incomprehensible, and between the system meanings of linguistic signs and their meanings for the sender and the recipient of a joke / anecdote, etc. semantic (emotional) dissonance arises (Shakhovsky, 2003).

2 Definition of a language game

Yazykov ?I'm game ?(German Sprachspiel) is the term of Ludwig Wittgenstein, introduced by him in Philosophical Investigations in 1953 to describe language as a system of conventional rules in which the speaker participates. The concept of a language game implies a pluralism of meanings. The concept of a language game is replacing the concept of a metalanguage.

In Philosophical Investigations, L. Wittgenstein tried to present the entire process of using words in language as one of those games with the help of which children master their native language.

L. Wittgenstein called a language game “also a single whole: language and actions with which it is intertwined” (Wittgenstein, 1997). Thus, not so much the cognitive (connection with thinking) as the instrumental (connection with action and impact) function of language is brought to the fore. L. Wittgenstein introduces the concept of a language game as "a single whole: language and actions with which it is intertwined," and "the term language game is intended to emphasize that speaking a language is a component of activity or a form of life" (Wittgenstein, 1997).

The object of L. Wittgenstein's analysis is everyday language, which requires a specific form of understanding and comprehension. He believed that a language game, grammar, rule and other "pseudo-concepts" have no definitions, not only defacto, but they are, in principle, impossible with a non-semantic approach to language. As a consequence, they also lack clear boundaries. For example, a language game embraces everything, extends to any human activity, a person is unthinkable without it. Following the rule, grammar, form of life and other "pseudo-concepts" of Wittgenstein only in various angles describe the given to us of this language game, imperceptibly passing into each other, resisting the attempt to clearly demarcate and outline them.

L. Wittgenstein offers a metaphor for play: “We call play very different types of activity, in them we see a complex network of similarities overlapping and intertwining with each other, similarities in large and small, for example, such spheres of similarity as entertainment, presence the winner, the type of skill, etc. Therefore, behind the word "game" there is no essence, the connection between the word and the meaning is carried out as a relationship of "family resemblance", similarity in a certain number of signs, and the scope of its concept is not enclosed in any boundaries " (L. Wittgenstein, 1997).

Pointing out that play is a specific factor of the entire surrounding world, J. Huizinga wrote about the elements of play in justice and political life, in war and in art, in philosophy and poetry, in language. Through language, he believed, things rise to the sphere of the spirit. Playing, the speaking spirit now and then jumps from the realm of the material to the realm of thought. Any abstract expression is a speech image, and any speech image, according to J. Huizinga, is nothing more than a play on words (Huizinga, 1997). He defines play as a free activity that is perceived as "wrong" and outside of everyday life. However, it can completely master the player, does not pursue any material interest, does not seek benefit; free activity, which takes place within a deliberately limited space and time, proceeds in an orderly manner, according to certain rules and brings to life social groups that prefer to surround themselves with secrecy, or to emphasize their difference from the rest of the world with all kinds of disguises (Huizinga, 1997).

The process of "creation" of speech (the process of preparation, actually the moment of internal action, theoretical work) was considered by MM. Bakhtin. Inside the game - work on creating a text - the researcher identified several stages: an invention, which, in fact, is an internal intellectual game; disposition, a preliminary trial of the results of this game, and the expression, so to speak, a business judgment of this court, formed in words as a deliberative result of their game - preparation. Provided that this internal speech work is skillfully carried out, a person gets the opportunity in a real situation of speech communication, freely playing with the form of this speech communication, to achieve the maximum deliberative effect of the content of this communication. An act (and speech activity is also an act) is considered by M.M. Bakhtin as a creative game in which the rules are overcome to some extent (Bakhtin, 1986).

MM Bakhtin is called the creator of the game concept of laughter culture and, moreover, it is believed that “it was the Bakhtin heritage that became the source of most of the domestic studies of the problem of play” (Isupov, 1971). The scientist treats play as “a dream, imagination, a surrogate for life,” excluding its aesthetic value (Bakhtin, 1992).

V.P. Rudnev notes that if we proceed from the understanding of language as a language game as a coupling of "language and action with which it is intertwined," then, firstly, the analysis can be carried out only on extremely specific material (actions are always specific), and , secondly, being limited only to specific examples of the use of words, we, in principle, cannot judge the structure of the language, grammar "in general", we can state that the grammar of such and such words is approximately the same, and such and such “does with us trick, ”deceives. Thus, this approach to the analysis of language, having its merits, as evidenced by the rapid development on its basis of the pragmatics of language and other related areas of research, suggests a radical uncertainty in understanding the functioning of language games (Rudnev, 1993). “The concept of a language game is based on the analogy between the behavior of people in games as such and in different systems of real action, into which language is woven. Their similarity is seen, in particular, in the fact that both here and there it is assumed a pre-developed set of rules that make up, say, a kind of "charter" of the game. These rules set possible combinations of "moves" or actions for a particular game (behavior system or life form). After all, a game without rules is not a game: an abrupt change in the rules can paralyze the game. At the same time, the rules define the "logic" of the game loosely, variations and creativity are envisaged. A system of actions subject to strict rules is no longer a game ”(Rudnev, 1993).

S.Zh. Nukhov offers the following definition of a language game: “A language game is a form of human speech behavior in which a language personality, realizing his linguocreative abilities, demonstrates his individual style. In a language game, it is important to share the point of view of the author, the addressee, and the point of view of the recipient, addressee. Both the one and the other get aesthetic pleasure from the game - the sender of the message from their wit and skill, the recipient from the ability to appreciate the game, the ability to guess an insoluble, at first glance, linguistic riddle ”(Nukhov, 1997). The author believes that “the speaker does not think about the dogmas of the norm and most often does not set himself specific goals of influencing the addressee of the utterance, but is guided only by the desire to express in linguistic means the thoughts and feelings that occupy him at the moment of speech, that is, it can be said, in the end, that he at the same time clothe his inner world in linguistic forms ”(Nukhov, 1997).

So mankind again and again creates its expression of being - a second, fictional, world next to the natural world, which is a kind of playing field and on this basis has a lot in common with the game.

A language game is a deliberate violation of the language norm for a specific purpose. A norm can never be absolutely imperative, “otherwise it would become a law and lose the meaning of a norm” (Mukarzhovsky, 1975). Thus, a deviation from the norm can be considered as a tendency inherent in speech activity. This thesis is confirmed by the words of A.G. Lykov, who points out that “speech is capable of any violations” (Lykov, 1977). The main thing is that these violations themselves do not violate the fundamental condition of any communication - mutual understanding between the addressee and the addressee. At the same time, as V.G. Kostomarov and A.A. Leont'ev, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the actual non-observance of the norms of different tiers, leading to various kinds of errors, and the “game” of non-observance of them, which does not lead to the perception of speech as abnormal, but, on the contrary, can be considered “the highest stage of speech culture” (Kostomarov, Leontyev , 1996). The purpose of this game is to create the impression of being unusual. It is based on the desire to beat the norm, to build an effect on a collision with it, which leads to a violation of the automatism of perception.

Exploring the phenomenon of language play in certain types of texts, L.G. Ponomareva relies on such factors as the creativity of speech-thinking activity, the pragmatic orientation of speech activity, the close relationship between language and culture. Based on the listed factors, the language game is determined by L.G. Ponomareva as follows: a language game is a phenomenon of speech-thinking activity, based on the creative movement of thought, focused on pragmatic impact on the addressee, implemented through a persuasive linguistic technique that uses non-canonical ways of combining form and meaning in linguistic structures, often using culturally specific concepts (Ponomareva , 2009).

I.V. Tsikusheva offers the following definition: a language game is a conscious and purposeful manipulation of the expressive resources of speech, conditioned by an attitude towards the realization of a comic effect (Tsikusheva, 2009).

Play as a concept is recognized as a "wandering", universal category that belongs to all spheres of human activity and therefore cannot have an unambiguous interpretation (Isupov, 1971). The dictionary speaks of play as a polysemantic word. Among its many meanings, we will single out: 2) an occupation conditioned by a set of certain rules, techniques and serving to fill leisure, for entertainment, which is a kind of sport; 7) a deliberate series of actions pursuing a specific goal: intrigue, secret plans (MAS, 1984).

A language game is one of the representations of the general philosophical concept of play, a kind of linguistic creativity, a type of speech behavior of speakers based on the deliberate destruction of speech norms in order to de-automate the stereotypes of speech activity and create non-canonical linguistic forms and structures using the means and techniques of various language levels (graphic-phonetic, morphological , lexical, syntactic) for the implementation of a stylistic task aimed at optimizing the mechanism of advertising communication, acquiring as a result of this destruction expressive meaning and the ability to cause a stylistic effect in the addressee of information, and its result is an occasional expansion of the semantics of linguistic signs.

3 Understanding the language game in various humanities

Linguo-sociological concepts emphasize that the social significance of a language game lies in the fact that it regulates the behavior of others, relieves boredom and everyday life, brings joy to its creator, and helps a person to learn reality, including language. The game is involved in the struggle of ideologies, in which such properties of communication as theatricality and dramaturgy are observed, which are used by the individual to exploit the possibilities inherent in the language for the presentation of human needs.

In linguosemiotics, the interpretation of the playful beginning of the language is associated with the concepts of non-canonical, anomalous, creative, non-normative use of a linguistic sign. From this point of view, a language game is a language experiment, the material of which is language anomalies, and the result is a witty (not necessarily comical) statement (Ponomareva, 2009). Linguistic creativity should be understood on the basis of the recognition of the non-rigidity of the very nature of the language system, the natural ability of the language to change. This property is a manifestation of the basic law of the sign - asymmetric dualism. The concept of asymmetric dualism was introduced by the outstanding Russian linguist and semioticist S.O. Kartsevsky (Kartsevsky, 1965). According to S.O. Kartsevsky, each sign seeks to go beyond the bounds of the form prepared for it, and the content seeks to find a new form, that is, each sign of the language is potentially a homonym for itself.

The linguo-stylistic understanding of the phenomenon of a language game is considered "narrow". In this regard, a language game is realized as a free, creative attitude to the form of speech, accompanied by an aesthetic task. In the "narrow sense" of the language game is a speech phenomenon with a setting for a comic effect, which embodies the cheerful, laughable facet of human speech activity. From this point of view, within the framework of traditional stylistics, anomalous phenomena, deviations from the norm - errors of speech practice, slips of the tongue, foreign language inclusions incomprehensible to native speakers, speech defects, various occasional formations, etc. If such deviations from the norm are deliberate or are considered by the addressee as such, then in the traditional style they are defined as a language game based on the principle of deliberate use of deviating from the norm and perceived against the background of the system and the norm of phenomena that serve to create an unexpected, as well as comic effect ( Ponomarev, 2009).

The inclusion of play in culture and the play foundations of culture (according to Huizinge) force us to pay attention to the role of culturally specific information in a language game. The linguocultural aspect of conceptualizing a language game is extremely important for studying the problem of translating the techniques of a language game, in particular, a pun, especially in connection with the problem of incorporating precedent phenomena into a pun - culturally specific nominations marking objects, events, facts of the history of culture, which are significant for a certain linguocultural community. etc.

2.4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of language play

The types and methods of language play are described quite fully using the material of the Russian language. There are attempts to analyze the linguistic essence of a language game. However, the mechanism of the language game is still unknown to science, and the cognitive approach of V.A. Pischalnikova may be fruitful for the explication of the internal mechanisms of the language game. In the meantime, linguists work only with their external manifestation (Shakhovsky, 2003).

“Everything and everyone can be tamed, except the language. It cannot be tamed, and the language game with its diversity and endless imagination is evidence of this ”(Shakhovsky, 2003).

An interesting theory of the language game was proposed by V.V. Vinogradov. According to his scheme, a language game consists of two components: a lexical base (pivotal component), which allows you to start the game, and a “rollover” (resulting component). V.V. Vinogradov identifies the following general features of a language game:

The informative structure of a language game is multicomponent and consists of a set of constant and variable elements. The first includes subject-specific, expressive-stylistic, associative-figurative and functional information. Variable components can be represented by varieties of socio-local and background information.

According to its contextual characteristics, a language game is divided into a dominant and a language game of limited action. The first contributes to the formation of the leading theme of the work and is usually located in the most significant sections of the text. The second participates in the creation of micro-themes of the work and contributes to the formation of a limited space of the text. Depending on the connection with the previous or subsequent context, the language game can be subdivided into nonproductive and summarizing types.

The essential components of the structure of any word play are the core (two elements combined or of a similar phonetic or graphic form, but different in content), and the basic context, which creates the minimum conditions for the implementation of the elements of the core of a language game (Vinogradov, 1978).

5 Language game functions

The function of comicism is inherent in most of all language games. Breaking the rules, brevity (brevity) of style, unexpectedness and the ability to closely relate different content to each other in a language game contribute to satisfying<#"justify">Abdulfanova A.A. Strong metalanguage personality // Language of education and language education: Mat-ly Mezhdunar. scientific. conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000.S. 5-7.

Baranov A.G. Forms of a language game // Man playing. Homoludens: language, personality, society. - M .; Tver .: Institute of Linguistics RAS. 1999.S. 5-11.

Bartley W.W. Language game // Ludwig Wittgenstein: man and thinker. - M., 1993.

Bakhtin. Literary critical articles. M., 1986.

Bogin G.I. Texts arising in the course of the language game // Philology-Philologika. - Krasnodar, 1998. No. 14.

N.A. Bezmenova Essays on the theory of the history of rhetoric. - M., 1991.

Bets Yu.V. Speech personality as semiotic system(on the material of written speech): author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Rostov n / a, 2009 .-- 23 p.

Biryukova T.G. Communicative needs of senior schoolchildren // Problems of Russian and General Linguistics: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific. tr., dedicated. Year of the Russian language. - Yelets: Yelets state. un-t them. I.A. Bunin, 2008. Issue. 6.P.155-161.

Blagoz Z.U. Correct sounding is a necessary attribute of Russian speech // Functional and pragmatic features of units of different levels: Sat. scientific. articles. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2008.S. 8-12.

Bogin G.I. Model of a linguistic personality in its relation to the varieties of text: author. dis. ... Dr. filol. sciences. - L., 1984.31 p.

Bogin G.I. Modern linguodidactics. - Kalinin, 1980.

Bogin G.I. Typology of text comprehension. - Kalinin, 1986.

Bogin G.I. Levels and components of human speech ability. - Kalinin, 1975.

Boldareva E.F. Language game in the titles of publicistic texts // Language personality: problems of cultural linguistics and functional semantics. - Volgograd, 1999.S. 45-50.

Boldareva E.F. Language play as a form of expression of emotions. - Volgograd. 2002.

Bryakin V.V. Language game in the works of V. Aksenov: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. Sciences. - Rostov - n / a, 1980.

Bulakhovsky L.A. Introduction to linguistics. - M. 1954.

L.O.Butakova Language ability - speech competence - language consciousness of the individual // Russian language: historical destinies and modernity: II Intern. Congress of Russian Language Researchers (Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University, March 18-21, 2004): Proceedings and materials. - M .: MGU, 2004.S. 13-14.

Buyanova L.Yu. Language personality as a text: the life of language and the language of life // Language personality: explication, perception and impact of language and speech: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 1999.S. 47-73.

Vezhbitskaya A. Russian as opposed to English // Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition / Resp. ed. and comp. M.A. Krongauz. - M .: Russian dictionaries, 1997.S. 70-73.

Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. - M., 1996

Venediktova T.D. American Studies as Communicative Knowledge // Professionals for Cooperation. Issue 1. - M .: Janus-K, 1997.S. 195-203.

Vinogradov V.V. About fiction. - M., 1930.

Vinogradov V.V. Questions of studying word combinations (based on the Russian language) // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1953. No. 9.S. 91-92.

Vinogradov V.V. History of words. - M .: Talk, 1994.

R. Vodak Language. Discourse. Politics. - Volgograd: Change, 1997.

Vorkachev S.G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of an anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics // Philological sciences. 2001. No. 1. S. 64-72.

A.A. Vorozhbitova Linguistic paradigm: theoretical and applied aspects. - Sochi, 2000.

Golev N.D. Linguistic personality and anthropotext in linguistics and linguodidactics (typological aspect) // Russian language: historical destinies and modernity: II Intern. Congress of Russian Language Researchers (Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University, March 18-21, 2004): Proceedings and materials. -M .: Moscow State University, 2004.S. 15-16.

Goldin V.B., Sirotinina O.B. Intra-national speech cultures and their interaction // Questions of stylistics.- Saratov, 1993. Vol. 25.S. 9-19.

Grigorieva A.K. Normative aspects of the formation of the communicative competence of a language teacher // Language and thinking: psychological and linguistic aspects. Materials 6th All-Russian. scientific. conf. (Ulyanovsk, May 17-20, 2006) / Resp. ed. prof. A.V. Puzyrev. - M .; Ulyanovsk, 2006.S. 215-218.

Gridina T.A. The associative potential of the word and its implementation in speech: author. dis. ... Candidate of Philological Sciences - M. 1996.

Gridina T.A. Principles of a language game and the associative context of a word in a literary text // Semantics of language. units. Dokl. VI Int. conf. - M., 1998.T.2. S.239-241.

Gridina T.A. The associative potential of a word and its implementation in speech (the phenomenon of a language game). - M., 1996.

Gridina T.A. Language game: stereotype and creativity. - Yekaterinburg, 1996.

Dyck T.A. van, Kinch V. Strategies for understanding a coherent text // New in foreign linguistics. Issue XIII. Cognitive aspects of language. - M .: Progress, 1988.S. 153-211.

Dryangina E.A. The linguistic personality of the teacher: to the formulation of the problem // Language and thinking: psychological and linguistic aspects. Materials of the 6th All-Russian. scientific. conf. (Ulyanovsk, May 17-20, 2006) / Resp. ed. prof. A.V. Puzyrev. - M .; Ulyanovsk, 2006.S. 219-220.

Zakutskaya N.G. Directive speech acts as a means of characterizing the psychological characteristics of a person // Social power of language. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2001.S. 106-112.

Zakharov I.V. Faina Ranevskaya. Cases. Jokes. Aphorisms. M., 2002.

Zelenskaya V.V., Tkhorik V.I., Golubtsov S.A. Semantic measurement of personality according to language data (based on phraseological units) // Language personality: structure and evolution: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2000.S. 188-202.

Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Rozanova N.N. Language game // Russian colloquial speech. Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. M., 1983.S. 172-214.

Zinchenko V.G., Zusman V.G., Kirnoze Z.I. Intercultural communication. Systematic Approach: A Study Guide. - Nizhny Novgorod: NGLU im. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, 2003 .-- 192 p.

Ivanischeva O. N. The content of knowledge of an average native speaker (on the issue of the presentation of culturally connotated vocabulary in bilingual dictionaries) // Problems of Applied Linguistics: Collection of materials of the All-Russian Seminar (December 25, 2002). - Penza, 2002.S. 74-76.

Infantova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture // Language units in a functional and pragmatic aspect. - Rostov n / a, 2000 (a). S. 79-85.

Infantova G.G. P.V. Chesnokov as a bearer of an elite speech culture // Language units: logic and semantics. Function and pragmatics. - Taganrog, 1999.S. 9-17.

Infantova G.G. Strong linguistic personality: its constant and variable features // Speech. Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific. tr. / Resp. ed. ON THE. Senina. - Taganrog, 2000 (b). S.63-69.

Isaeva L.A., Sichinava Yu.N. Elite linguistic personality: touches to the portrait of Professor A.G. Lykova // Continuity and discreteness in language and speech. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2007.S. 18-19.

O. A. Kadilina Strong / weak linguistic personality: communicative and pragmatic characteristics: dis. ... Cand. philol. Sciences. - Krasnodar, 2011.

Karasik V.I. Speech indication of the social status of a person // Essays on the social power of language / Ed. ed. L.I. Grishaeva. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2001.S. 37-56.

Karasik V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. - Volgograd, 2002 .-- 477 p.

Karasik V.I. Language keys. - Volgograd: Paradigm, 2007 .-- 520 p.

Karasik V.I., Prokhvacheva O.G., Zubkova Ya.V., Grabarova E.V. A different mentality. - M .: Gnosis, 2005 .-- 352 p.

Yu.N. Karaulov Russian language and linguistic personality. - M., 1987 .-- 263 p.

Yu.N. Karaulov Linguistic personality // Russian language: Encyclopedia. - M., 1997.

Carnegie D. How to Win Friends and Influence People. How to build self-confidence and influence people by speaking in public. How to stop worrying and start living: Per. from English / Common ed. and foreword. V.P. Zinchenko and Yu.M. Zhukov. - M .: Progress, 1989 .-- 720 p.

Kolodko V.M. "... The treatment of the Russian language is alarming" // Problems of Russian and General Linguistics: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific. tr., dedicated. Year of the Russian language. - Yelets: Yelets state. un-t them. I.A. Bunin, 2008. Issue. 6.P.120-122.

Konovalova O.Yu. Linguistic features of word play in modern English: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - M., 2001.

T.V. Kochetkova Linguistic personality of the bearer of elite speech culture: author. dis. ... dr. filol. sciences. - Saratov, 1999 .-- 54 p.

Kotova N.S. Ambivalent linguistic personality: vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics: author. dis. ... Dr. filol. sciences. - Krasnodar, 2008.

Kuznetsova L.K. The volume of the concept "strong linguistic personality" // Language of education and language education: Mat-ly mezhdunar. scientific. conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000.S. 164-166.

S.V. Kuprina Oral and written monologue speech of one person: on the material of the author's abstract. dis. Cand. philol. sciences. - Saratov, 1998.

E.V. Krasilnikova Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study // Language and personality. - M., 1989.

Kulishova N.D. Linguistic personality in the aspect of psycholinguistic characteristics (Based on written texts): dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Krasnodar, 2001 .-- 147 p.

Kuranova T.P. Language game in the speech of TV and radio presenters: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Yaroslavl. 2008.

A. A. Leontiev Psychology of communication. - Tartu, 1996.

Lipatov A.T. Strong linguistic personality and its linguistic components // Language of education and language education: Mat-ly Intern. scientific. conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000.S. 185-187.

Literary encyclopedia: in 11 volumes. T. 5. - M .: Publishing house Kom. acad., 1931. - 784 p.

Lipatov A.T. Domestic rhetoric and its role in the formation of a strong linguistic personality // Linguistic paradigm: theoretical and applied aspects: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific. tr. Issue 1 / Ed. A.A. Vorozhbitova. - Sochi: SGUTiKD, 2002.S. 156-164.

Makarov M.L. Interpretive analysis of discourse in a small group. - Tver: Tver state. un-t, 1998.

MAS - Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes M., 1981-1985.

Mignenko M.A. Linguistic personality in the space of culture // Modern linguistics: theory and practice. Materials of the 7th Interuniversity. scientific and methodical. conf. Part 1. - Krasnodar: KVVAUL, 2007.S. 132-134.

Mokienko T.G., Nikitina V.M. A large dictionary of Russian sayings. - M: Olma Media Group, 2007.

Nikolina N.A., Ageeva E.A. Language game in modern Russian prose // Semantics of language. units. Dokl. VI Int. conf. - M., 1998.T.2. S.315-317.

V.P. Neroznak Linguistic personology: towards determining the status of the discipline // Sat. scientific. tr. Moscow state lingual un-that. Language. Poetics. Translation. - M., 1996. Issue. No. 426. С. 112-116.

Obozov N.N. On the three-component structure of interpersonal interaction // Psychology of interpersonal cognition. - M., 1981.

A.V. Puzyrev Multilayer linguistic personality // Linguistic personality: problems of designation and understanding: Abstracts. report and messages of scientific. conf. - Volgograd, 1997.S. 113-114.

Reinwald N.I. Psychology of Personality. - M., 1972.

Rubakin N.A. Psychology of the reader and the book. - M.-L., 1929.

Rudnev V.P. Man and Thinker. - M. 2011, p. 7-9.

Ryadchikova E.N. Speech image in a cross-cultural perspective // Language and national images of the world. Materials Intern. scientific. conf. (March 20-21, 2001). - Maykop: ASU, 2001 (a). S.19-21.

Ryadchikova E.N. The role of morphological and syntactic categories in identifying the deep structure and meaning of an utterance // Interaction of languages in the process of translation as a factor of intercultural communication. Jubilee Sat. INEP. - Krasnodar, 2002.S. 296-310.

Ryadchikova E.N. Semantic-pragmatic transformations of syntactic models, or the rules of the game against the rules // Quantitative linguistics and semantics. Sat. scientific. tr. Materials of the Internet conference "KVALISEM-2000" (December 15, 2000 - January 31, 2001). - Novosibirsk: publishing house of NSPU, 2001 (b). Issue 3.S. 172-175.

Ryadchikova E.N. Semantic-syntactic morphology as an integral component of modern language theory // Research in theoretical and applied linguistics. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2009.S. 4-50.

Ryadchikova E.N., Kushu S.A. On the classification of common mistakes in the speech of politicians // Actual problems of language education. Int. scientific and practical conf. (November 15-16, 2007) .- Maykop: ASU, 2007. Vol.2. S. 86-91.

Savitsky V.M. Pseudo-informative statements (logical aspect) // Language personality: problems of creative semantics. Sat. scientific. tr. to the 70th anniversary of Professor I.V. Centenberg. - Volgograd: VGPU: Change, 2000.S. 115-120.

Samosenkova T.V. The language picture of the world and the formation of the linguistic personality of a foreign student in the process of teaching the culture of professional speech communication // Mova: Scientific and theoretical journal on linguistics. - Odessa: Odessa National University named after I.I. Mechnikov. 2006. No. 11. S. 384-387.

Sannikov V.Z. Linguistic experiment and language game // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 9. Philology. 1994. No. 6.

Sannikov V.Z. Russian language in the mirror of a language game. - M., 1998.

Sannikov V.Z. On the history and current state of the Russian language game // Questions of linguistics. 2005. No. 4.S. 160.

Sapir E. Speech as a personality trait // Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. - M., 1993.S. 285-297.

A.P. Sedykh Linguistic behavior, conventional semantics and national archetypes // Philological sciences. 2004. No. 3. P.51-56.

O.P. Simutova Language game in word formation: abstract of thesis. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Ufa, 2008.

Sirotinina O.B. Sociolinguistic factor in the formation of a linguistic personality // Language personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects. - Volgograd - Saratov: Change, 1998.S. 3-9.

Sorokin Yu. A. Psycholinguistic aspects of the study of the text. - M., 1985.

Susov I.P. Personality as a subject of linguistic communication // Personal aspects of linguistic communication. - Tver, 1989.

Sukhikh S.A., Zelenskaya V.V. Representative essence of personality in the communicative aspect of realizations. - Krasnodar, 1997.

Sukhikh S.A., Zelenskaya V.V. Pragmalinguistic modeling of the communication process. - Krasnodar, 1998.

Telia V.N. The connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative units / otv. ed. A.A. Ufimtseva. - M .: Nauka, 1986 .-- 143p.

Tkhorik V.I., Fanyan N.Yu. The area of competence of the linguistic personality // Linguistic personality: explication, perception and impact of the language of speech: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 1999.S. 31-47.

Ushakova T.N. and others. Human speech in communication. - M., 1989.

Ushkalova M.V. Some theoretical foundations for the study of pun: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. -Kursk, 2002.

Frumkina R.M. "Theories of the middle level" in modern linguistics // Questions of linguistics. 1996. No. 2. S. 55-67.

Fedyaeva N.D. The linguistic image of the average person in the aspect of the cognitive categories of graduality, duality, assessment, norm (On the lexical and textual material of the modern Russian language): on the material of the author. dis. Cand. philol. sciences. - Omsk, 2003.

Heizinga J. "In the shadow of tomorrow" // HomoIudens. -M., 1992.

Heizinga J. An article on the history of culture // HomoLudens. - M., 1997. C. 23.

E.P. Khodakova From the history of the Russian pun (second half of the 18th - first third of the 19th century): author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - M., 1969.

Kunsthistorisches Museum. Art Planet SmallBay. URL: http://smallbay.ru/default.html.

Tseitlin S.N. Speech errors and their warning. - M., 1982.- 143s.

Tsikusheva I.V. The phenomenon of a language game as an object of linguistic research: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - SPb., 2009.

T.I. Shatrova Language game in English-language comic texts (coding and decoding processes): author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. - Novomoskovsk, 2005.

Shakhovsky V.I. Game tendencies in the modern Russian language // Russian language: historical destinies and modernity: P Mezhdunar. congress of researchers of the Russian language. - M .: MGU, 2004.S. 375-376.

Shakhovsky V.I. Emotional Intelligence in a Language Game - Tomsk, 2003.

Shakhovsky V.I. Implementation of an emotive code in a language game. - Tomsk, 2008.

A.A. Shcherbina The essence and art of verbal acuity (pun intended). - Kiev: Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1958 .-- 68p.

Elkonin D.B. Psychology of the game. - M., 1978.

Epshtein N.P. Game in life and art // Soviet drama. - M., 1982.№2.

Tags: Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality Diploma English

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

BACHELOR'S GRADUATE QUALIFICATION PAPER

Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality

Krasnodar 2014

Introduction

1. Linguistic features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality

1.1 Parameters and criteria for a strong linguistic personality

1.1.1 Understanding the linguistic personality in modern linguistics

1.1.2 Types and types of linguistic personality (weak, average,

1.2 Linguistic studies of the language game

1.2.1 The role of the language game in world culture and the language of fiction

1.2.2 Definition of a language game

1.2.3 Understanding the language game in various humanities

1.2.4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of language play

1.2.5 Functions of the language game

1.2.6 Means and techniques of a language game used in speech

strong language personality

1.2.7 Methods and techniques of linguistic learning of a language game

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

There are a huge number of linguistic personalities, whose language game can be the most interesting material for learning. For example, the language of M.M. Zhvanetsky and F.G. Ranevskaya. There are practically no linguistic studies devoted to the linguistic analysis of their work. Meanwhile, the language game in the work of these outstanding linguistic personalities is diverse and unique. The turns of their speech became catchwords and quotes. We come across them on the pages of newspapers, on social networks, in the media, we hear from friends. Their popularity is growing every day. Collections of their works and sayings have been published. The speech patterns of these outstanding people are characterized by a deep meaning, which is not always immediately clear, therefore, their linguistic analysis can contribute to the comprehension of both hidden meanings, expressed in a playful form, and the personalities themselves.

The object of the research is speech parameters and features of speech use of linguistic personalities who can be classified as strong.

The subject of the study was the statements of the Soviet theater and film actress Faina Georgievna Ranevskaya and the contemporary satirist Mikhail Mikhailovich Zhvanetsky.

The aim of the study is to identify the features of a language game in the speech of a strong language personality.

The tasks are defined by the goal and boil down to the following:

Give a definition of a language game;

Identify the basic means and techniques of the language game,

used in the speech of a strong linguistic personality;

Describe a weak, average and strong linguistic personality;

Determine the main criteria and properties, types and methods of a language game;

Learn the basic functions of a language game;

statements of M. Zhvanetsky and F. Ranevskaya.

The methodological basis of the research is the works in the field of studying the language game and the linguistic personality of M.M. Bakhtin, V.V. Vinogradov, L. Vitgenstein, V.I. Karasik, E.N. Ryadchikova, V.Z. Sannikov, J. Heizingi and other scientists.

Illustrative material was extracted from the book by I.V. Zakharov (Zakharov, 2002), M. Zhvanetsky's official website and Internet resources. The file contains more than 250 items.

Scientific methods used in the research: component analysis method, descriptive method, semantic analysis method, classification.

The approbation of the work was carried out at the annual student scientific conference "Science and creativity of young researchers of KubSU: results and prospects" (April 2012, April 2013).

1 Linguistic features of a language game in a strong speechlinguistic personality

1.1 Parameters and criteria for a strong linguistic personality

1.1. 1 Understanding linguistic personality

E. Sapir spoke about the mutual influence of personality and her speech (Sapir, 1993).

A linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it also has an individual aspect. The individual in the linguistic personality is formed through the internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings, while the linguistic personality influences the formation of linguistic traditions. Each linguistic personality is formed on the basis of the appropriation by a specific person of all the linguistic wealth created by predecessors. The language of a specific person consists mostly of a common language and to a lesser extent of individual linguistic characteristics (Mignenko, 2007).

Yu.N. Karaulov identifies three levels of linguistic personality: verbal-semantic, linguo-cognitive (thesaurus), and pragmatic (or motivational) (Karaulov, 1987). He speaks of “three ways, three ways of representing the linguistic personality, which is the focus of linguodidactic descriptions of the language. One of them comes from the three-level organization described above (consisting of the verbal-semantic, or structural-system, linguo-cognitive, or thesaurus, and motivational levels) of the linguistic personality; the other relies on a set of skills, or readiness, of a linguistic personality to carry out various types of speech-thinking activity and perform various kinds of communicative roles; finally, the third is an attempt to recreate a linguistic personality in a three-dimensional space a) data on the level structure of the language (phonetics, grammar, vocabulary), b) types of speech activity (speaking, listening, writing, reading), c) degrees of language acquisition ”(Karaulov , 1987).

So, already from the definitions of a linguistic personality presented by Yu.N. Karaulov, followed by the fact of heterogeneity, the difference in "quality

attitude "of linguistic personalities. The scientist wrote: “A linguistic personality is understood as a set of abilities for the creation and perception of speech works (texts), differing in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, accuracy and depth of reflection of reality, a certain purposefulness” (Karaulov, 1987). It is quite obvious that not only speech works differ in complexity, but also these abilities are different in people. Accordingly, the linguistic personality should be considered not as something homogeneous, but to produce a certain gradation, to create a hierarchy of types of linguistic personality. “The very choice of means of designation can be interpreted as a speech act that characterizes, as such, the one who performs this act, according to his personal (intersubjective), interpersonal and social aspects” (Telia, 1986). It follows that the speech actions of the individual are able to differentiate the speaking / writing person. A person in communication, in communicative discourse, can manifest itself “as contact and non-contact, conformist and non-conformist, cooperative and non-cooperative, tough and soft, straightforward and maneuvering. It is the person who is the subject of discourse that gives the speech act this or that illocutionary force or direction. Personality is an integral part of discourse, but at the same time it creates it, embodying in it its temperament, abilities, feelings, motives of activity, individual characteristics of the course of mental processes ”(Zakutskaya, 2001).

This idea is supported and developed by S.A. Sukhikh and V.V. Zelenskaya, who understand the linguistic personality as a complex multi-level functional system, including levels of language proficiency (linguistic competence), proficiency in ways to carry out speech interaction (communicative competence) and knowledge of the world (thesaurus) (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya, 1998). Researchers believe that a linguistic personality necessarily has a feature of verbal behavior (linguistic trait), which is repeated at the exponential (formal), substantial and intentional levels of discourse. At the exponential (formal) level, the linguistic personality manifests itself as active or conscious, persuasive, hasitive or unfounded; at the substantial level, it has the qualities of concreteness or abstractness; on the intentional level, the linguistic personality is characterized by such traits as humor or literality, conflict or cooperativeness, directiveness or decentralization (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998). Each of the levels of a linguistic personality is reflected in the structure of discourse, which has, respectively, formal or exponential, substantial and intentional aspects.

In linguistics, a linguistic personality finds itself at the crossroads of study from two positions: from the position of its ideolecticity, that is, individual characteristics in speech activity, and from the position of the reproduction of a cultural prototype (see Kulishova, 2001).

1.1.2 Types and types of linguistic personality

A linguistic personality is a heterogeneous concept, not only multilevel, but also multifaceted, diversified. V.B. Goldin and O.B. Sirotinin, seven types of speech cultures are distinguished: elite speech culture, "middle literary, literary colloquial, familiar colloquial, vernacular, folk speech, professionally limited. The first four types are speech cultures of literary bearers (Goldin, Sirotinina, 1993).

According to G.G. Infantova, within the limits of the literary language, on the basis of the level of its development, three types of speech cultures are clearly distinguished: elite culture (super-high), "middle-literary" culture (in general, quite high), and literary-diminished culture. However, these terms, the researcher notes, are rather arbitrary. Each of the types of speech cultures has subtypes, and between them there are syncretic, intermediate varieties. Based on the profession, occupation, linguistic personalities of different types can be distinguished, for example: individuals for whom language learning, speech activity is an element of the profession (philologists, teachers, actors, announcers, writers, etc.), and linguistic personalities who they implement the language system in speech not as a component of their own professional activity. At the same time, people of the same specialty can be fluent in the language / speech at different levels. Thus, teachers can be carriers of both elite and "average literary" speech culture (Infantova, 2000).

Let's consider the main parameters of each of the named types.

Average linguistic personality

G.I. Bogin, developing criteria for determining the levels of language proficiency, included the following parameters in the model of levels of language proficiency: correctness (knowledge of a sufficiently large lexical stock and basic structural patterns of the language, which allows one to build an utterance and produce texts in accordance with the rules of a given language); interiorization (the ability to realize and perceive a statement in accordance with the internal plan of a speech act); saturation (variety and richness of expressive means at all language levels); adequate choice (from the point of view of the correspondence of the linguistic means of the communicative situation and the roles of the communicants); adequate synthesis (correspondence of the gesture generated by the personality to the whole complex of communicative and meaningful tasks) (see: Bogin 1975; Bogin 1984; Bogin 1986). Reflection of a number of parameters of a strong linguistic personality is presented, for example, in articles (Abdulfanova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Kuznetsova, 2000; Lipatov, 2000; Lipatov, 2002).

Weak linguistic personality

The reasons for the appearance of a large number of weak linguistic personalities and the consequences of this are written by E. Ryadchikova: “Despite many indisputable merits, the policy of the Soviet state, nevertheless, was aimed at eradicating the intelligentsia as a class and humiliating it in every way. For decades, a stereotype of a dismissive, ironic attitude towards culture has been developed. The concepts of "etiquette", "politeness", "rhetoric" are still considered by many people, if not as bourgeois as at the dawn of Soviet power, then, at least, abstruse, incomprehensible and unnecessary. However, such denial and ridicule lasts only as long as the person silently watches someone. As soon as it comes to the need to speak oneself, especially for a large audience or in front of a TV camera, conscious or unconscious self-exposure begins, the person himself begins to experience inconvenience, and even suffering, even neurotic reactions from inability to communicate ”(Ryadchikova, 2001). It is no secret that in our country there are often cases when even completely adult, finally formed specialists with higher education do not know the forms of speech etiquette (even such simple clichéd forms as greeting, expression of sympathy, congratulations, compliments, etc.) do not they know how to communicate with elders in age and position (including by phone), do not consider it necessary to simply listen to another person, do not know how to read kinetic information. Are afraid or do not know how to resist the rudeness and rudeness of opponents. This leads to stiffness, constriction, fear and avoidance of communication, the inability not only to keep the conversation in the right direction, calmly, worthily defend your point of view, but even simply to express it in a form accessible to other people, is fraught with conflicts with management and with clients ( Ibid.)

Research by Yu.V. Betz convincingly prove that at the beginning of its formation, the linguistic personality learns in the first place

system of language, and only then - norm and usus. At the first stage of mastering the language, the structure of the language, its norms and usus have not yet been mastered, which manifests itself in the presence of a large number of errors, poverty of speech - in a word, in the raw speech of a particular person. Conventionally, this level can be called “pre-systemic”. The specificity of this period is illustrated by children's speech and the speech of people mastering a second language. Deviation from the norm and usus may be in the nature of an error. At the same time, errors in generating an utterance can be due to the complexity of the speech production process itself or to its failures, then they do not depend on the level of mastery of the language system, its norm or usus (Betz, 2009). S.N. Zeitlin recognizes the “pressure of the language system” as the main cause of speech errors (Zeitlin, 1982).

(Ibid.) In the speech of a weak linguistic personality, the expressions "and all that", "and the like" are often encountered, acting as detailing and abstraction (Karasik, 2001).

Strong language personality

Among the linguistic features, linguistic and speech features should be distinguished. They can be constant or variable.

The development of good, competent speech, the ability to explain, persuade, defend certain positions is a requirement of modern life.

knowledge of techniques for counteracting difficult interlocutors; skillful and timely isolation of positive and negative in the psychology of communication, what leads to the emergence of psychological barriers in communication; avoidance of logical and speech errors; the art of drawing up normative documents, preparing written and oral speech, knowing the reasons for unsuccessful argumentation, etc. " (Ryadchikova, 2001).

1.2 Linguistic studies of the language game

1.2.1 Rolelanguagegamesvworldcultureandthe language of fiction

A great contribution to the development of the theory of the language game belongs to the Dutch philosopher I. Huizinga. The game, in his opinion, is older than the cultural forms of society. Civilization comes from the game, not the other way around. Based on the analysis of the meanings of the word "play" in different languages and civilizations, I. Huizinga came to the conclusion that in most of them "play" has a relationship with struggle, competition, competition, and also with love play (forbidden), which explains the tendency playing on forbidden topics (taboos) in modern jokes. The game is based on struggle or hostility, held back by friendships. The roots of play in philosophy begin in the sacred play of riddles; the roots of play in poetry are mocking songs that taunt the object of ridicule. Myth and poetry were recognized as linguistic games, Huizinga believes that the language game is identical to magic. Despite Huizing's claims that the concept of play is not reducible with other terms and that a biological approach is not applicable to it, it still seems possible to question some of his claims. For example, his assumption that competition and competition are the basis that prompts the subject to ridicule an object does not apply to all utterances.

Neflyasheva, 1988; Ilyasova, 1998, 1986; 2000), artistic speech (Vinokur, 1943; Krysin, 1966; Grigoriev, 1967; Bakina, 1977; Kulikova, 1986; Luxemburg, Rakhimkulova, 1996; Brainina, 1996; Nikolina, 1998; Novikova, 2000; Rakhimkulova, 2000).

It must be emphasized that a language game presupposes two fundamentally different forms of existence.

The paradoxical compatibility of linguistic units turns out to be extremely significant for A. Platonov (Bobylev, 1991; Skobelev, 1981). Therefore, he embodies play in a syntagmatic way.

E. Bern believes that the game has two main characteristics: ulterior motives and the presence of a payoff (Berne, 1996).

It should be noted that a language game does not necessarily mean that it is funny. Apparently, the creation of such texts, where everything is deliberately unclear, should be considered a kind of language game with the reader. One of the methods of generating a game text with a general unclear semantics, researchers call nonsense. V.P. Rakov notes that nonsense (the absurdity of the meaning created in the text) can exist in different forms, being generated either only at the semantic level, or at the formal level, but at the same time has the same goal - to influence the reader, the work impressions with their paradoxicality. The semantic “darkness” of works containing nonsense prompts the reader, who is forced to seek clarity in the foggy, to activate the thought process. This manner of creating works is especially characteristic of literature of the “non-classical paradigm. It consists in “the destruction of the lexical cohesion of the aesthetic utterance, its continuity, deformation of the syntax and the strict optical geometrism of the text” (Rakov, 2001).

Other similar works that may interest you. Wshm>
11221.		On the problems of the formation of the linguistic personality of the teacher	3.98 KB
	At the same time, the sphere of international activity of Tatarstan has intensified, there is a steady need for a good knowledge of one of the European languages, English, French or German. We believe that the national-regional education system in Russia should ensure: the formation of a meaningful way of life and activities of people in a certain ...
19417.		Features of role play in teaching dialogical speech in English lessons	79.58 KB
	The current situation requires new searches for a more rational methodology for teaching dialogical speech, in which the desired practical results would be achieved in the shortest way with a minimum expenditure of time and effort, and the learning process itself would become as interesting and exciting as possible for students. To create a favorable psychological atmosphere and organize educational activities, it is necessary to use the play method in teaching dialogical speech. The stimulus for a conversation can be: - a question for example: Wht re you doing - a statement ...
20115.		The state of language ability in children with OHP	25.81 KB
	Speech impairment is a fairly common phenomenon not only among children, but also among adults. The causes of these violations and their types are very diverse. The most difficult of them are organic disorders, in particular, general speech underdevelopment, complicated by the erased form of dysarthria. Such children present not only to one degree or another violation of sound pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, phonemic processes, but also melodic-intonational disorders caused by paresis of the muscles of the tongue.
1337.		Wittgenstein on philosophy as a "language game"	29.05 KB
	Philosophy of language in the broadest sense is the area of philosophical knowledge about the origin and functioning of language, its place in culture, meaning for the knowledge and development of society and man. Expansion of the proper philological approach to language leads to an understanding of language as a way of expressing meaning. Language games is a concept of modern philosophy of language that fixes speech communication systems organized according to certain rules, the violation of which leads to condemnation within the framework of the linguistic community. How did it come about ..
15154.		MORPHOLOGICAL TOOLS FOR CREATING LANGUAGE EXPRESSION IN POETIC TEXTS	48.71 KB
	Forms of the number of a noun as a means of creating expressiveness. Adjectives as a means of creating expressiveness in poetic texts. Pronoun as a means of creating expressiveness. The verb and its special forms as a means of creating expressiveness.
11441.		HUMAN BODY AXIOLOGY IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD AND RUSSIAN LINGUOCULTURE	107.98 KB
	The world in which a modern person lives is defined as the global nature of society is increasingly determined by the consumption of information and the culture of such a society is becoming mass. The body as a kind of sociocultural phenomenon permeates the dominant informational resources- discourse advertising fashion and mass media. As theorists of conceptology note - a relatively new direction of linguoculturological studies in Yu., The concept of concept reflects all ideas existing in the minds of native speakers about any ...
14364.		SUSTAINABLE NATIONAL-VORABLE IMAGE (UNSO) AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL-LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD (ON THE MATERIAL OF RUSSIAN AND NEW GREEK LANGUAGES)	53.27 KB
	The problem of language and culture in cultural linguistics. The problem of the relationship between language and culture concerns the very development of the science of language, which now does not close itself within the framework of the linguistic structure itself and requires a thorough examination of extralinguistic factors, giving rise to anthropological linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, linguistic culturology and other branches. Amplification is currently ...
5388.		DIDACTIC GAMES IN THE LESSONS OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH OF YOUNGER SCHOOL CHILDREN	564.87 KB
	This final qualifying work is devoted to the study of the influence of didactic play on the development of speech of primary schoolchildren in Russian language lessons. Didactic games have tremendous opportunities in the work on the development of speech.
7436.		LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF VIRTUAL DISCOURSE (ONLINE GAMES)	79.98 KB
	Find out what the virtual discourse of massive multiplayer games is and what are its features; identify various linguistic properties and features of virtual discourse and consider their manifestation in massive multiplayer games; consider the genre characteristics and diversity of the virtual discourse of massive multiplayer games.
14505.		Writing as a type of speech activity. Features of teaching writing and writing. Program requirements. Writing and Writing Exercises	10.69 KB
	Exercises for teaching writing and writing. Exercises: Inscription of letters of letter combinations and words according to the pattern in printed AND uppercase; cheating with the execution of tasks underline the indicated graphemes; grouping of words according to certain criteria long short consonant; constructing words from letters. Exercises: copying text copying with tasks to insert missing letters; spelling games crosswords; dictations auditory visual Features of teaching writing: Learning writing is carried out using ...

Specificity of the representation of the language game. Criteria and properties, types and methods of language play. Types and types of linguistic personality

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents