|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Litera
Reference:
Kaverina V.
The system of criteria for the choice of spelling in diachronic descriptive spelling
// Litera.
2024. ¹ 1.
P. 261-268.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2024.1.69588 EDN: BPJDPN URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=69588
The system of criteria for the choice of spelling in diachronic descriptive spelling
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8698.2024.1.69588EDN: BPJDPNReceived: 15-01-2024Published: 07-02-2024Abstract: The article presents the methodology of research in the field of descriptive diachronic spelling. The aim of the work is to develop a system of criteria for choosing spelling variants at different stages of the formation of the studied orthogram. The need for such a system is justified both by the description of the diachronic analysis process and by a specific example of such an analysis. Special attention is paid to the disclosure of such important concepts for the theory of writing as "usage", "norm", "codification" and the relationship between these concepts. Special attention is paid to the question of the legality of the use of the term "customary norm", for which the arguments confirming the incorrectness of this term are considered in detail. In addition, the problems of correlation between the principles of spelling as tools of descriptive (descriptive) spelling and the rules as a result of the activities of orthologists codifying the norms of writing are discussed. The system of criteria for descriptive spelling is based on the system of rules of prescriptive spelling, namely the rules of modern spelling from the new electronic resource "Spelling commentary of the Russian Dictionary" (OROSS) by E. V. Beshenkova, O. E. Ivanova, E. V. Tenkova. The novelty of the results obtained in the article is due to the lack of research methodology in the field of descriptive diachronic spelling. The paper reveals such important concepts for the theory of writing as "usage", "norm", "codification" and clarifies the relationship between these concepts. As a result, the illegality of the use of the term "customary norm" was established, for which the arguments confirming the incorrectness of this term were considered in detail, in particular, that in certain contexts the terms "usage" and "norm" can be used indifferently. The result of the work was a system of criteria for choosing spelling options at different stages of the formation of the orthogram. The development of an original system of criteria for choosing spelling variants was carried out on the basis of a modern set of spelling rules. The scope of the research results is determined by describing the process of diachronic analysis of the orthogram and illustrated by a specific example of such analysis. Keywords: rules of Russian spelling, diachronic spelling, descriptive spelling, the formation of an orthogram, changing the norm, spelling rules, writing standards, criteria for choosing a spelling, The history of spelling, the history of writingThis article is automatically translated. The article presented to the readers describes the methodology of research related to the field of descriptive spelling. At the same time, in the development of this technique, we use the materials of prescriptive spelling. These terms are disclosed in the work of E. V. Beshenkova and O. E. Ivanova: "In modern linguistics, the term spelling is understood as two different sciences: descriptive (descriptive, objective) and prescriptive (orthological, prescriptive)" [1, p. 10]. Descriptive spelling explores "the laws of the functioning and development of written speech" [1, p. 10]. A diachronic description of the process of formation of a particular orthogram usually begins with determining which spelling variants were possible in the history of the orthogram. The object of descriptive spelling "is real writing (usage)" [1, p. 10], and the established spelling variants constitute the so-called "customary norm", which is characterized by fundamental variability in the absence of codifying writings [2]. Note that the previously accepted term "customary norm" [3] is currently being criticized by linguists. So, according to E. A. Zemskaya, "the concept of a customary norm ... is superfluous. After all, usage is determined only by the frequency and general acceptance of word usage" [4, p. 208]. L. P. Krysin's reasoning helps to clarify this statement: "It turns out that in relation to uncodified areas of language, we can use the terms "usage" and "norm" indifferently: the way it is customary to speak, say, in this dialect, is a linguistic custom, a usage, but it is also a dialect norm that distinguishes it from other dialects" [5, p. 11]. In this understanding, the term "customary norm" is a pleonasm. The impossibility of such a combination is also evidenced by the juxtaposition of the concepts of "usage" and "norm" by A. D. Shmelev in the "triad of usage–norm–codification" [6, p. 13]. Moreover, Shmelev recommends "strictly distinguishing between the variability of spelling in the usage and the variability of the spelling norm. The variability of spellings in the usage naturally prompts the codifier to find out which of the competing spellings is recognized as "correct" by the literate community ... and reflect this choice in the codification. On the contrary, the variability of the norm should be reflected in the codification as such; if the norm is not established, this should also be reflected appropriately in the codification" [6, p. 10]. Obviously, this reasoning remains relevant even in the absence of codification or its inconsistency, which is noted in the history of the language. The second stage of the diachronic description of the spelling formation process is to find out why some of the spelling variants go out of use, while others are fixed and become the norm. In other words, it is necessary to determine what are the criteria for choosing a particular spelling at the beginning and its preservation or loss in the future. So, the original system assumes one variant of transferring the prefix to <z> before the deaf consonant p — through c (ispiti), motivated by a phonetic criterion. However, after the fall of the reduced ones, the meaning and purpose of the letter b changes [7, p. 229], which begins to be used, in particular, as a signal of the end of a word in a solid text. Since prefixes and prepositions were not distinguished by spellers at that time, the letter b, when lost in the middle of a word, is preserved in the outcome not only of prepositions, but also of prefixes. As a result, by analogy with the native European prefixes, by the XIV century, the spelling of prefixes in <z> with a combination of s (for example, ispol'nim) appeared [8, p. 72], where a morphemic criterion is added to the phonetic, according to which b is used at the end of the prefix. At the same time, variants of prefixes for <z> with finite z (for example, without a mistake) are becoming widespread [8, p. 72], where b is written in accordance with the morphemic criterion, and the choice of z is determined by the basic principle of Russian spelling — phonemic [9-11]. In the process of writing development, the loss of the final b prefixes to <z> first occurs, and then, after some hesitation, the historically justified variant with the final c, chosen according to the phonetic criterion, is fixed [12]. As you can see, spelling variants undergo spontaneous unification during the formation of the norm, as a result of which, as a rule, only one of several possible ones remains. To find out the reasons for eliminating some and fixing other spellings, it is necessary to systematize the grounds on which certain spelling variants are based. To this end, we have introduced the concept of a writing criterion, by which we mean a linguistic factor that determines the choice of a particular way of transmitting a phoneme in a weak position or in a strong position not in accordance with the phonemic principle. For example, A. A. Zaliznyak wrote about this: "The structure of spelling rules can be very different. At one pole, there are the most general principles here, for example, the principle (basic for modern Russian spelling), according to which in phoneme neutralization positions the choice of writing is determined by which morpheme is represented (namely, the morpheme is written in the same way as in positions where there is no neutralization). At the other pole, there are point rules that determine the spelling of a single word (or even word forms). Hierarchically, point rules are higher than principles" [13, pp. 171-172]. By spelling criteria, we mean what Zalizniak called "point rules." A. D. Shmelev opposes the rules not to the basic principle of spelling, but to the norm: "The spelling norm allows you to characterize a particular spelling as "literate" or "illiterate", whereas the spelling rule formulates criteria that allow such a attribution" [14, p. 10]. It is no coincidence that the source of examples for the system of spelling criteria presented in the work was a prescriptive description of modern spelling from the new electronic resource "Spelling commentary of the Russian Dictionary" (OROSS) by E. V. Beshenkova, O. E. Ivanova, E. V. Tenkova [15]. Below is a list of the criteria we have identified, illustrated by examples of the rules of the OROSS. 1. Graphical criteria The graphic criterion assumes the motivation for writing one or another graphic feature: the preceding or subsequent letter, number or other graphic sign. Example: "Complex words, one of the parts of which is transmitted by a number, letter, abbreviation are written with a hyphen, for example: 8-hour ... ?-active ... MHD generator ..." [15] 2. Phonetic criteria The spelling, which depends on pronunciation, is determined by a phonetic criterion. Example: "The softness of a paired consonant in a letter is indicated by a soft sign (b), and hardness is indicated by its absence: at the end of the word (horse – horse, blood – shelter)…» [15] 3. Morphemic criterion The morphemic criterion determines the spellings chosen depending on the morphemic structure of the word or the type of morpheme. Example: "The letter c is written inside a morpheme (paragraph, father)... Combinations of ts, ds, ts, tc, dc are written at the junction of morphemes ... (brother, dish, child, day, under the sun)" [15]. 4. The word-formation criterion The spelling, depending on the method of formation of the derivative word, is determined by the word-formation criterion. Example: "Compound adjectives are written together, for example: sanitary epidemiological, state secret, housing construction" [15]. 5. Morphological criteria The morphological criterion is motivated by the spelling, the variant of which depends on the grammatical characteristics of the word. Example: "Full forms of participles are written with a double n, in short forms one n is written: read, heard, corrected, read, heard, corrected" [15]. 6. Syntactic criteria The syntactic criterion determines the spellings, the choice of which is associated with a syntactic construction. Example: "Gender is written separately with the phrase (the floor of a small town, the floor of the father's apartment)" [15]. 7. Semantic criterion If the spelling depends on the meaning of a word or a group of words, it is determined by a semantic criterion. Example: "Nouns are the names of residents formed from proper names written with a hyphen (New Yorkers, orekhovozuyevites)" [15]. 8. Vocabulary criteria The dictionary criterion assumes that there is no motivation for writing, which is determined by the dictionary. Example: "The spelling of unchecked morpheme vowels is determined by the dictionary" [15]. 9. Mixed criteria. All these criteria can be combined. Here are just some examples. 9.1. Morphemic and phonetic criteria Example: "Prefixes in s/s are written with the letter z before vowels, sonorous and voiced consonants, and before deaf consonants they are written with the letter c, for example: without-/without- (soulless, unceremonious, seamless)…» [15] In the OROSS, an exception is given to the rule ("The word tasteless is z before a deaf sound [f]"), from which it can be concluded that sounds are meant here, although it is unclear from the wording ("before vowels, sonorous and voiced consonants"; "before deaf consonants") [15]. 9.2. Morphemic and morphological criteria Example: "Adverbs formed using prefixes 1) are written together from adverbs (outside, to now, to here...)" [15] 9.3. Morphemic-word-formation-syntactic criterion Example: "Complex adjectives with a compositional relation of the bases and a suffix in the first part are written with a hyphen, for example: convex-concave, cable-satellite, piercing-cutting, autumn-winter, garden-park" [15]. 9.4. Morphemic-word-formation-semantic criterion Example: "In nouns in -ec with the meaning "inhabitant", formed from words based on -sc and -ss, "one consonant with + suffix -ec" is written, for example: Novocherkassk (Novocherkassk)... donbasets (Donbass), starorusets (Staraya Russa), miassets (Miass), Cherkassets (Cherkassy)" [15]. The presented list of criteria makes it possible not only to systematize the "diachronic variation" [16] for each orthogram, but also to find out which criteria provide greater stability, and this may be useful for ordering the synchronous variation [17]. It is no coincidence that the authors of the latest electronic set of rules "Spelling commentary of the Russian dictionary" (OROSS) E. V. Beshenkova and O. E. Ivanova believe that it is necessary to take into account "the factor of retrospection when codifying the alphabetic appearance of words" [18]. Moreover, some criteria from our list are analyzed as "linguistic factors of motivation for spelling" in the work devoted to the methodology of teaching Russian at school [19]. Finally, the criteria system will help to establish the main trends in the development of the norm in modern Russian [20]. References
1. Beshenkova, E. V., & Ivanova O. E. (2016). Theory and practice of standardization of Russian writing. Moscow: LEKSRUS.
2. Kaverina, V.V. (2004). Usual norm of business writing of the 17th century: spelling of prefixes. Ed. L. A. Ilyushina. Moscow: Publishing house Mosk. Univ. 3. Sirotinina, O. B. (2006). Usual norm and its role in the development of language. Russian language today. 4. Problems of language norms. Answer. ed. L. P. Krysin, pp. 490–499. Moscow. . 4. Zemskaya, E. A. (2010). Literary norm and non-usual word formation. Modern Russian language: System - norm - usage, pp. 207–253. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture. 5. Krysin, L.P. (2010). The problem of the relationship between the language system, norm and usage. Modern Russian language: System – norm – usage (pp. 9-30). Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture. 6. Shmelev, A.D. (2021). Codification of spelling norms: general principles and pitfalls. Proceedings of the Institute of Russian Language of V. V. Vinogradova, 3, 11–24. 7. Kaverina, V.V. (2017). Formation of norms of distribution of final b and b after letters of sibilant consonants and affricates in the Russian literary language of the 18th–19th centuries. Russian language in scientific coverage, 2, 229–249. 8. Kaverina, V.V. (2016) Spelling of the editions of “Russian Grammar” by M.V. Lomonosov of the 18th–19th centuries in the context of the spelling norm of its time. Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 9, Philology, 1, 67–91. 9. Avanesov, R.I., & Sidorov, V.N. (1930). Spelling reforms in connection with the problem of the written language. Russian language at school, 4, 110–118. 10. Reformatsky, A. A. (1937). Streamlining Russian spelling. Russian language at school, 1, 63–70. 11. Ilyinskaya, I. S., & Sidorov, V. N. (1953) Modern Russian spelling. Scientific notes of the Moscow Pedagogical Institute, 22(2), 3-40. Moscow. 12. Avanesov, R.I. (1964). Prefixes on. On the spelling of prefixes starting with -z in connection with related issues. On modern Russian orthography (pp. 117–120). Moscow. 13. Zaliznyak, A. A. (2004). Old Russian graphics with a mixture of ú – î è ü – å. Fathers and sons of the Moscow linguistic school: In memory of Vladimir Nikolaevich Sidorov, 165-192. Moscow. 14. Shmelev, A.D. (2021). Acceptable variability of spelling or a common mistake? Russian language in scientific coverage, 1(41), 9-31. 15. Beshenkova, E. V., Ivanova, O. E., & Tenkova, E. V. Orthographic commentary of the Russian dictionary (OROSS). Retrieved from https://oross.ruslang.ru/ 16. Nechaeva, I. V. (2022). On the typology of spelling variation in the Russian language. Russian speech, 3, 47–59. 17. Nechaeva, I.V., & Pertsov, N.V. (2020). About variability in Russian orthography. Russian language in scientific coverage, 1, 10-35. 18. Beshenkova, E. V., & Ivanova, O. E. (2018). Aspectual description of Russian orthography. Essays on theory. Rules. Dictionary. Moscow: LEKSRUS. 19. Afanasyeva, P.V. (2008). Linguistic factors motivating the writing of orthograms using the example of rules with the identifying feature “the presence of consonants at the end of words (morphemes) or a combination of consonants in a word. Vestnik VSU. Series: Philology. Journalism, 2, 5-13. 20. Nam, Hye Hyun. (2013). Usus, norm and system in the context of the modern Russian language: on the material of Internet communication. World of Russian Word, 3, 33-43.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
