Link to like

Does the Internet destroy the Russian language? Guest Radio Liberty - Maxim Krongauz, Linguist, Professor HSE

Sergey Medvedev: Our guest is Maxim Krongauz , head of the laboratory of linguistic conflictology of the Higher School of Economics. We are talking about new trends in the language, about how the Russian language changes under the pressure of the Internet. Maxim Anisimovich, your past book was called "Tutorial Olbanskog about the Language." Two or three years after the release of this book, in my opinion, the phenomenon of the "Albanian language" has already disappeared?

Maxim Kronhaus: When I finished the book, he was no longer so bright. I specifically stipulated that I understand by the "Albanian language" - not the "language of the scum", an unbridled swear, cliche, distortion of spelling. No, I really explore the tendencies of the language of language on the Internet. In a sense, the fashion for the "language of the scum" goes, and completely different trends arise. Therefore, by "Albansky" I understood Russian on the Internet, a network Russian.

Sergey Medvedev: And what main features have appeared in the last 15 years, what has been fixed?

By "Alban" I understood the Russian language on the Internet, network Russian

Maxim Krongauz: It is very important to separate two things: certain processes that constantly work in the conditions of network communication, and products or results of the action of these processes. A simple example: there are, say, abbreviations that are actively generated on the Internet, but perhaps not one of them will be popular and memorable. Someone will remember the English borrowing "IMHO", someone may remember some Russian abbreviation.

But there is a wonderful phenomenon that makes the process itself very important. This is a process that really fundamentally changed the Russian language. The Russian language was characterized by abbreviations-subjects: CSKA is a club, the CPSU is a party, Moscow State University is a university and so on. And under the influence of English, abbreviations arose in the Russian Internet, which mean whole phrases. For English, this is a rather characteristic thing, but for Russian, if you look for analogies, you will have to delve quite a lot. I remembered such an analogy known in culture - this is the "fuck" Leo Tolstoy. He finished letters and diary entries by the abbreviation of the EBZH, which was deciphered "if we are alive" or "if I am alive", depending on the context. Tolstoy was generally characterized by a game with abbreviations, they were explained in love his heroes - Kitty and Levin. This is very similar to what is happening today on the Internet. But, generally speaking, for the Russian language as a whole, this is something completely new and not characteristic.

Sergey Medvedev: Can you give examples?

Maxim Kronhaus: “IMHO” is borrowed, we perceive it entirely and do not even know that it is “in my modest opinion”. Some strange abbreviations appear, for example, "ttt"-"pah, pah, pah." There are a lot of them, they are all one -day. In an earlier period than the "language of the scum", there were such cashchens , they had abbreviations-questioning: "EVP"-"if you understand what I am talking about." This is all such a game for a narrow circle.

Sergey Medvedev: There was such a "kmk" - "as it seems to me."

These were single jokes that acquire a different scale on the Internet

Maxim Krongauz: If we begin to search, it turns out that they met in Russian - this was perceived as a language game. You can recall the famous "OBS agency" - "one woman said." Kartsevsky , describing the language of the pre -revolutionary era, recalls such an abbreviation: “Party of the CVD” - “Party” where the wind blows. ”It was all, but these were single jokes that acquire a different scale on the Internet. It turns out that the scale makes the phenomenon much more significant for the language.

Sergey Medvedev: That is, there is some kind of savings in language tools?

Maxim Krongauz: On the one hand, saving, because there are some kind of communicative spaces that require compression, where there are restrictions on signs: SMS, Twitter, and on the other hand, a game. These two trends intersect, and such processes arise. Why did I remember the abbreviations? Because the process itself is important here, the constant product of new abbreviations, but the result is not very important. What abbreviations are invented - it does not matter, it is important that they are new all the time.

Here is the word "meme" is a kind of cultural event (let's talk about verbal, verbal memes), a certain phrase that becomes suddenly unusually popular, everyone repeats it. One of the last memes (he already, rather, dies or even died, but for about six months he existed) is “Karl”, he emphasizes a certain expression: “We got lost next to the house. Near the house, Karl.” "Karl" emphasizes, distinguishes something unexpected, ridiculous. "Karl" lived for six months, and now it already seems indecent.

The mechanism of generation of more and more memes itself works endlessly

The mechanism of generation of more and more memes itself works endlessly. “Karl”, by the way, was launched along with another meme, but that was not so lucky: there was such a picture - a caricature man who raises his hands and says “nobose”, that is, “wow”. He lived a month, no more.

Sergey Medvedev: The letter remains on the letter.

Maxim Kronhaus: “Nicky” just went from there, because “Figase” was earlier.

Sergey Medvedev: What is it? Does this mean that the language becomes more flexible, more creative, more playful due to the lightness of verbal expression - all "on the fingertips"?

Maxim Krongauz: The Internet environment is certainly a gaming environment, this is visible from the very beginning, from the appearance of not even Russian, but the English Internet-there were many jokes. One of the creators of Smiley, when he offered this famous smile, wrote such a phrase: "I propose to put it when the meaning should be read as the opposite of what is said as a joke." However, there are so many jokes on the Internet that it makes sense, on the contrary, to put a gloomy smiley when there are no jokes. This is just an example of how many jokes: a joke itself is neutral, and the lack of a joke must be marked.

Sergey Medvedev: The Internet language itself shows that the Internet is so gaming (by the way, the word that is not in Russian is “gamification” ). And Smileik, in my opinion, was one of the first to come up with Vladimir Nabokov .

Internet environment is certainly a gaming environment

Maxim Kronhaus: If we want to find something that has spread on the Internet, some kind of analogy in history, then it will certainly be found, another thing is that it will be a different scale, a different quality. Nabokov suggested such a smiling little thing where irony arises. His interviewer called the great writer, or something was said in this kind, and he said: "I would put on this question" ...

Talking that the language is destroyed under the onslaught of the Internet are groundless. On the contrary, the language becomes even more interesting, more multidimensional

Sergey Medvedev: ... this sign. He anticipated the era. What with these new words - they expand the language, develop it: "meme", "google", "public", "shake"?

Maxim Krongauz: They provide one of the main qualities of the language. A new phenomenon appears - a meme. Surely it was, it looks like “winged words” , but this phenomenon has become very important, and one word is required in order to call it. The word "meme" comes to us not even from the Internet, it was introduced by the English writer, scientist Richard Dokins by analogy with the "genome", "meme" for him was the "gene of culture". Further, the initial meaning of this word began to be modified already inside the Internet, it turned out that this is an extremely important phenomenon, it was fixed in all languages (though in English it is “mime”, and in Russian we say “meme”).

I think all these words reflect our new needs. Let's say what is "google"? In the pre -Internet era, we did not search the Internet, and now this is one of the most important intellectual tasks (or actions). If we need to find out something, then we do not look into the books, but score into the search engine. The word "google" turned out to be more convenient than the word "Yandex", which many use, so "google" is not necessary in "Google" - this simply means "searching in the search engine." This is a completely new, but very important action.

Sergey Medvedev: It seems to me that it is connected with the very physics of speech production: we write less and less ... No, in my opinion, there is no such word “text” yet. I somehow happened to hear one performance where they said: “text” is not the same as “writing”. That is, a set of text keys or, even more often, the buttons or pseudo -clusals of the phone creates a completely different motorcycle and a completely different format of word -making.

All these words reflect our new needs

Maxim Krongauz: I had a similar idea, by the way, in the "Tutor of Alban" I expressed it. The idea that is based on the fact that, indeed, the initially arising opposition to oral and written speech is associated with the method of generation. I even tracked the etymology of verbs, which mean in modern languages to “write” - they mainly descended from two ideas - from the idea of “scrape” and from the idea of “paint”. Two methods of scripture-either we apply letters or signs with paint, or we scratch them on some surface. The same thing for oral speech is important how our lips move, where the tongue is located.

Speech was perceived as something generated by our speech apparatus. Today, it is much more important not how we generate (after all, really the connection of pressing the key and the appearance on the screen of a letter is very doubtful: something we pressed, something appeared), and it is important how we perceive speech. That is, in contrast to the opposition of "oral or written", the contrasting "visual or audial" arises, and this is more important - the method of perception. It seems to me that this is really very true.

Sergey Medvedev: I found, googled - it was a lecture by John McVurter, so those who wish can see.

We moved to the question of how the language changes in the new format of the text set - the text of the text with the fingers, the set of text, when you are limited by 128 or 160 signs. I noticed that my punctuation is changing very much, I stop using capital letters, the final point disappears. Do you have the same thing?

Maxim Krongauz: This is a general trend. You have to be a superpourist to resist her.

Sergey Medvedev: Simplification of the syntax?

In contrast to the opposition of "oral or written", the contrast between "visual or audial" arises

Maxim Krongauz: This is not even a simplification - these are extremely vivid examples of how the environment changes the system, how the conditions of communication affect the system. This is such a great dispute of the twentieth century in linguistics between formalists and functionalists, which is more important - a system or function. Today, the Internet has largely showed that the function is more important. If we change the terms of communication, then the system changes, it adapts to this.

The case with the point is generally wonderful: we see how important pragmatics is. Why do you need a point? She emphasizes the completion of the phrase. Note, we are not lowering all points, but only the last point, because our message goes in a certain rectangle - in fact, the savings here are completely justified, because the point here means nothing, here is the end of our small text, our message, and it is obvious. Therefore, such an idea even appeared (it spoke out at an amateur level) that if a person puts an end, then this is a more official message.

Sergey Medvedev: Or even more threatening. I presented the situation: you write OK with a point.

Maxim Krongauz: The statement is neutral without a point, because it is not needed, and the point is already beginning to bear the additional importance of some solemnity, including threats, but not the threat itself, but a certain official situation in which this for some reason is needed, this can be interpreted, including as a threat.

The statement without a point is neutral, because it is not needed, and the point already begins to carry the additional importance of a certain solemnity, including the threat

Separately remarkable relationships arose in punctuation marks with emoticons. Say, the smiley-smile partly took over the functions of an exclamation mark. Not quite, because the exclamation mark can be after some catastrophic expression such as “guard!”, And here the smiley-smile is inappropriate. Nevertheless, this idea of special intonation in a smile is present. Therefore, the smiley-smile does not go very well with the exclamation mark and with the point too, the smiley replaces the point, replacing it. And the question mark is present, because none of the emoticons took on its functions. A certain new syntactic and punctuation interaction arises, which I would not call simply simplification. This, on the contrary, is a kind of complication, embedding new signs-signs into the system of old, traditional.

Sergey Medvedev: And this does not impoverish our speech - the fact that we now use such easy ways to express emotions? What many words, new syntax systems were spent on before, can now be expressed by a simple emoticon or even easier - these graphic icons went? You can put some funny cat that holds a heart in his hands.

Maxim Krongauz: Of course, refined speech impoverishes this. If some ironic person writes an ironic text, then he must preserve this irony multi-valued: maybe there is an irony, maybe there is no irony, you reader, guess yourself.

Smileik-smile partly took over the functions of an exclamation mark

I will say very rudely, although I coarse the problem: the smiley is for stupid. You do not really understand whether the irony is here or not, so - hold the smiley, and you will understand the essence of my statement. But at the same time, the role of emoticons is extremely important. It is strange that they were invented so late. They appeared when we began to actively use written speech for dialogue. After all, when there is a monologue, the text of the novel or article is going on, the emoticons there are not very appropriate. And in a quick dialogue, generally speaking, I need to clarify the situation: a written dialogue, I have no intonation to show that I am joking, no gestures to designate it, I do not smile. The smiley takes on all these functions.

I don’t know whether you noticed it or not, but people are offended more often for a written statement than orally. Smileics exist for this. Well, they do their job or not - this is a separate issue. Someone abuses them, and wild texts are obtained with a huge number of brackets or faces, but with moderate use, this is a very meaningful speech in which there is no fact that there is no written speech.

Sergey Medvedev: In general, it seems to me that very strong emotional loads appear in speech. I noticed that sometimes in monologue speech, as in the play, they begin to write remarks: for example, they “laugh”.

Smiley is for stupid

Maxim Kronhaus: Yes, this is also a very important function. It is interesting that at some point she even began to marke in a special way. Now, however, this has gone, and before two stars were placed: a sprocket at the beginning and an asterisk at the end - and then a typical theatrical remark was going on - “runs away”, “laughs”, “cries”. Nevertheless, the need for remarks remained, only now people more often put brackets. This is a very important thing.

In general, if you use two colors, you can say - damage and enrichment. Everything is an enrichment, but I would even talk here not just about enrichment, but about the fact that there is three-dimensionality or even the N-dimensionality of speech. Our speech is linear, and it turns out that inside our text we can insert these remarks, which are a meta -grown describing the speaker’s behavior: I write a certain text, and then I write “cry”, while I set some emotion, describe my behavior.

Sergey Medvedev: This adds not only an emotional, but also a temporary dimension to speech, because you can show your former word: you crossed it, and you can show your editing.

Drawing up is another way to introduce a new measurement

Maxim Krongauz: crossing out is another way to introduce a new measurement. If we are looking for analogies in the past, then this is very close to what we call subtext, that is, what you wanted to say, but did not say. So I pronounce something, but I cross out what I wanted to say. I could erase this, but I leave it, I give it to read and show a special badge of crossing out that other things were said in the speech, but this was meant. This is a very interesting technique, also in a sense enriching speech.

Sergey Medvedev: Is the ellipses in Internet recruits or also some kind of function?

Maxim Krongauz: In a multi -year, I did not observe a special function. There are just lovers of a multi -month, but it was before.

Sergey Medvedev: For me, the ellipsis is very important. When I want not a linear thing, I want to add a little suggestion when I am not sure that I say, instead of "IMHO" you can put a dummy. Sometimes these ellipses may seem overly thoughtful or decorating, and here I still use such a sign that I gleaned with one friend - a two -thousand. This is not a colon, but instead of one, two points are placed. It seems very thin to me. If you put an ellipsis, it is very easy to fall into vulgarity, and the point is too imperative.

Maxim Krongauz: What you said about the ellipsis is, it seems to me, it existed in the pre -sowing era, to the Internet. Мы знаем такие девичьи письма, где очень много многоточий, многое подразумевается, а на самом деле за ними ничего не стоит. То есть это довольно стандартная функция для многоточия. Почему она была именно у многоточия? Потому что многоточие – факультативный знак, его можно нагружать теми самыми дополнительными смыслами. Так что здесь, мне кажется, ничего нового нет.

Коммуникация подразумевает группу людей, понимающих это так же

А то, что вы сказали про двуточие, – это очень интересно. Здесь все определяется тем, насколько это ваше ощущение разделяют другие люди, потому что коммуникация подразумевает группу людей, понимающих это так же. Если у вас есть единомышленники, которые считывают ваше намерение, тогда это работает, если нет, тогда это ваши оригинальные явления.

Сергей Медведев: Проверю еще. Здесь, мне кажется, мы выходим на ключевой момент – откуда берутся новые явления. Речь перестала быть монологичной, гибкий интернет-язык появляется из-за того, что происходит немедленная коммуникация.

Максим Кронгауз: Проблема в том, что она стала письменной. У нас было довольно четкое разделение, мы в разговоре все-таки использовали, прежде всего, устную речь. Если человек был далеко, но мы хотели с ним поговорить, то разговаривали по телефону.

Проблема в том, что коммуникация стала письменной

Письменная речь всегда использовалась монологично. Если мы пытаемся найти примеры диалогичной письменной речи, то сразу приходят на ум школьные записочки, которыми переписывались школьники или студенты (или писали на парте). Это действительно похоже на то, что происходит в интернете, но масштаб не тот. Это такие локальные коммуникативные пространства, где действительно использовалась письменная речь для диалога, а сегодня это стало абсолютной нормой, сегодня мы гораздо больше пишем, чем говорим. Это повлияло на мышление и понимание того, что такое устная речь. Сегодня многие люди стесняются позвонить по телефону – этого раньше не было. Сегодня, если надо связаться с человеком, то это делается письменно. И даже мне часто присылают сообщения такого рода: а можно ли вам позвонить? This is a completely new phenomenon. Кажется, осознание того, что письменная речь стала нейтральной, привело к увеличению ценности устной речи, и чтобы вступить в устный диалог, надо получить специальное разрешение.

Сергей Медведев: Я тоже, надо признаться, часто этим пользуюсь. Когда у меня есть возможность позвонить или послать эсэмэску, то она гораздо проще: ты контролируешь ситуацию, не отвлекаешь другого человека.

Максим Кронгауз: Да, это деликатность. На самом деле это не проще, потому что так я сразу получаю ответ, а если я получаю эсэмэску или письмо, то я могу потянуть, не отвечать немедленно. В этом есть вежливость и деликатность, но это не так эффективно.

Сергей Медведев: Коммуникация, разорванная во времени… Кстати, сейчас выходит словарь языка интернета – он будет представлен на ярмарке "Нон фикшн" ?

Максим Кронгауз: К "Нон фикшн", к сожалению, не успеем.

Сергей Медведев: Мне кажется, разговоры о том, что язык разрушается под натиском интернета, беспочвенны. Наоборот, язык становится еще более интересным, более многомерным. И в каком-то смысле язык, как мафия, бессмертен.