Dėl sociolingvistinio Vilniaus lietuvių šnekamosios kalbos statuso

SOCIAL LINGUISTICAL PROBLEMS QUESTIONS OF LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS, XIX (1979) Laima GRUMADIENĖ ON THE SOCIOLINGUISTICAL STATUS OF THE LITHUANIAN SPEAKED LANGUAGE IN VILNIUS With the increase and diversification of forms of mass communication, the intensification of universal education and training, the problem of literary spoken language became more relevant, the range of influence of written and spoken language changed. The increased importance of the spoken language raised the need to master a unified literary spoken language in mass. Favorable conditions for the successful solution of this task in our republic are the preparation of academic Lithuanian language grammar and dictionaries, continuous improvement of school textbooks and teaching methodology, the work of the Language Commission, periodical and one-off publications on language culture, language sections in the press, radio and television broadcasts, lectures on language issues. Nevertheless, more and more practical and theoretical questions arise regarding the Lithuanian literary spoken language. First of all, not everyone understands this concept equally. Therefore, there is no single, universally accepted answer to the questions of who speaks literary language, when and where it is spoken. There are different requirements for the literary spoken language of different languages. The linguist O. Lapteva (1976, 5), having reviewed the scientific literature on the question of the Russian spoken language, states that the linguistic status of the Russian spoken language as a literary language phenomenon is more or less established — it is the everyday domestic language of the educated inhabitants of cultural centres. The fairly uniform norm of the language can also be explained by the fact that the literary Russian language was formed on the basis of the spoken language of the city of Moscow and its surroundings, but it was greatly influenced by both the northern and eastern Russian dialects [KorkoB C. H., 1974, 31]. There are two variants of the present standard of Russian literary language — the Moscow and Leningrad dialects [Beponuxasi J. A., 1976, 71]. The literary languages of some nations even have several variants. For example, the Swiss Romance language, being one of the four national languages spoken in the country, still has six variants of its literary form [Bopojuna M. A., 1973, 11]. The fact that the norms of this language are not unified is also explained by the absence of a cultural and economic center of the Rhetorromans [Crenanos['.B., 1976, 124]. In Albania there are also two literary variants of the language, the linguistic bases of which are two different dialects [Jlecnnukas A. B., 1960, 221]. The divergence of the literary variants of Norwegian (riksmål and lansmål) is explained by the fact that in the struggle for the unification of written and spoken forms, two different paths were taken [Cre6aun-Kamenckuit M. H., 1953, 78]. The Lithuanian literary language does not have several equivalent variants. In forming our literary language, we were guided by the principle of standardization raised by J. Jablonski — not to mix elements of different dialects [Piročkinas A., 1977, 100]. Although the phonological system of the dialect, on the basis of which the literary language is formed, is the standard of pronunciation norms only in the initial stage of the development of the literary language [Palionis J., 1976, 36], the pronunciation norms of the present Lithuanian literary language do not differ much from the phonological system of the western Highland dialect [Pakerys A., Pupkis A., 1976]. This situation is a difficult obstacle for the speakers of other dialects. Attention should be paid to the relationship and interaction of language codification, norm usage. The problem of different language norms in linguistics is treated quite ambiguously. A comparatively detailed overview of this issue is given in L. Verbickaja’s work (1976, 5—19) on the pronunciation of Russian literary language. Recently, Lithuanianists have generally held the view that codification is,,the scientific description and systematisation of the norms of literary language, as well as the determination of the acceptability of certain genders of language (and spelling) to the norm” [Palionis J., 1976, 44], that the norm of literary language is the gender of language firmly established in literary language at a certain time and approved by all or at least most of its users”, and,,in the use of literary language there can be (and usually there are) more or less non-normative, individual, occasional phenomena, formed by individual users of this language or passing from other types of language, but not more widely spread in literary language and not becoming its norm” (ibid., 33), Changes in į usage in a certain sense affect the ir norm, and the latter — codification. Consumption patterns vary for many reasons. The social, functional and territorial differentiati93 on of the language is of great importance here. The consequence of all this is the variability and variation of language. The following types of variation are potential in literary language: social modifications, functional stylistic variation, genre stylistic, spatial (or territorial) and temporal variation [[yxwan M. M., 1977, 6]. The social stratification of language is a necessary consequence of the development of class society. The social differentiation of language arises from the fact that language must primarily perform its communicative function in the communication of certain social structures of certain groups of people: These specific people have reached a certain level of material and spiritual culture, which determines their language mastery, value orientation and social attitude. If the social stratification of language in our society, with the disappearance of class boundaries, becomes less pronounced, then the functional stylistic differentiation of language does not tend to disappear, since with the proliferation of social spheres of activity, the need for specific means of language expression increases. Territorial differentiation of the language disappears, dialects rapidly give way to literary language [Zinkevičius Z., 1966, 17—22], but the transitional period is characterized by various equidialects, not characterized by systematicity. Semi-dialects occur in both rural and urban areas. The Voronezh language researcher V. Sobinikova (1975, 7) puts forward the hypothesis that urban inhabitants, recent emigrants from the countryside, having found themselves in a new linguistic environment, speak the so-called semi-dialect, in which dialectal features are realized the more unsystematically, the further away from the dialectal basis. This could be explained in part by the “vertical rules” of the American sociolinguist S. Ervin-Tripp (1971, 58). Here, the switch from the use of one language variant to the use of another is explained by the vertical rules of mutual coordination of language elements, which means that when using the vocabulary of another language variant, its morphology, phonetics, etc. are also used accordingly. Switching can be absolute, when vertical rules are observed in all cases, and partial, when switching is done, for example, only at the lexical level. It is also important whether the rules are followed automatically: the more automatically this switching takes place, the smoother it is. Automation directly depends on the frequency of use of speech elements. The modern stage of the development of advanced languages is characterized by social and territorial stratification. In the opinion of some scholars of contemporary English, the structure of the English language can be described as a pyramid, the horizontal section of which reflects territorial differentiation of the language, and the vertical section reflects social differentiation. The base of the pyramid would be the language of low-wage workers, characterized by great territorial differentiation. At the top of the pyramid, where the territorial division is no longer significant, the minimally differing variants of the Oxford and Cambridge spoken languages would be represented [Halliday M. A. K., McIntosh A., Strevens P., 1973, 18]. The dialects of this group are called regional dialects. Undoubtedly, in our socialist society, social stratification is not so strict, but it is relevant in language studies. 94 In Soviet linguistics, various language forms characteristic of the transitional iš period of dialects into literary language are often called semi-dialects [Crenatos IO. C., 1975, 195; ?Kupmsynekuū B. M., 1956, 574; Crenanos I. B., 1976, 222]. F. Filino (1968, 12) in my opinion, many of the present Russian rural inhabitants speak either a literary language or a coine, a kind of transitional form. Interdialectal language forms of large cities are called V. Jarceva (1969, 27), V. Kolesovas (1975, 3). It is believed that ir in Vilnius In the 17th a. century, a Lithuanian koina was formed, performing the functions of the literary language of eastern Lithuania [Zinkevičius Mr., 1972, 79—100]. Since the transitional language forms are most pronounced in the language of the inhabitants of large cities, characterized by a stricter territorial, social ne differentiatioo n, the language variant is ši studied separately and given its own names. ir B. Larin (1977, 187), 1928 m. calling for the study of urban spoken languages, raised the hypothesis that in cities different argos are spoken, which the scientist treated as bilingualism, consisting of two lines: the first, which iš consists of professional group argos, the second, urban popular spoken languages ir (mpoctopeune). Current Russian language scholars O. Lapteva (1976, 76), L. Verbickaja (1976, 16—19) considers the spoken languages of the large urban populations as literary languages with local characteristics. An analogous concept of the spoken language of the inhabitants of large cities has been adopted in large-scale studies of the ir present Russian spoken language, led by M. Panovas (red., 1968), E. Zemskaya (red., 1973), L. Chrysine (red., 1975). V. Jarceva (1977,12— 15) refers to the spoken language of large cities as the regional substantive. Sometimes the urban spoken language is simply called a dialect [CrenanoB I. B., 1975, 30; Illsešnep A. JI., 1976, 145; Jla6oB ¥., 1975, 213]. Apparently, they are still relevant B. Larino (1977, 175) 1928 m. the words that, “if we map the linguistic gu landscape of our time, The most important thing is that we are the only people in the ne world who have the most o wealth." In the same paper, the researcher describes the methodological significance ir of the study of urban language, noting that the study of this problem could push linguistics forward in the same way as the study of rural dialects did. XIX a. The socio-linguistic problem of the status of the urban spoken language is still being solved. Research has clearly shown that a successful solution depends on the methodology of the work. For example, New York City ir spoken English was studied once. ne 1950 m. A. F. Abel concluded that the New York language has no system [Hubbell A. F., 1950, 48], o 1966 m. V. Labov proves the existence of a system [Labov W., 1966, 7]. Urban language studies are important ne only because it is in cities that we can best observe how ,,Dialects are mixed together”, which means that transitional language forms are ir emerging, but because of the fact that the spoken language of large cities often becomes a value orientation of society. Here there are two du possible approaches: either the norm of urban colloquial language is identified su with the norm of literary colloquial language, or simply the norm of urban language is consciously followed (,,we speak this way“). The language of cities, especiallycapitals, has a great influence on the norms of literary language: the reorientation of society can change the norm itself. Šį the fact highlights G. Stepanov (1978, 40), discusses the influence of the Mexican spoken language on the literary norm of Mexican Spanish. The Reorientation of the Literary Language Norm in Italy į Roman Italian spoken language is now widely recognized, although Rome has not yet become such a language capital as Paris [Kacarkun A. A., 1976, 183]. Apparently, it is not worth talking about a unified standard of urban colloquial language, because ir ši A language variant is characterized by a certain differentiation, depending on the social position of the speakers, territorial origin, value orientation, speech goals, location and similar circumstances. ir It should be noted that urban residents often fall into diglossic į situations, use various t. y. variations of speech forms depending on ir social circumstances. Social attitude determines 95 which form of speech becomes prestigious in a particular situation. The literary language does not always become a prestigious form. However, the scale of appreciation of the spoken language of large cities is very wide — from the prestigious form to the odious. Much depends on the social differentiation of the language: the language of the lower social strata in New York [Labov W., 1966, 25], the Cockney language in London [Matthews W., 1970, 232] is the form of language that is often treated as odious. The value orientation of society in relation to language must be scientifically formed. This is done in the broad bars of language culture. The condition for the success of this work is a comprehensive study of language norms and usage. A good soil for this work is the urban colloquial language. In this aspect, the spoken Lithuanian language of Vilnius residents can also be studied. Vilnius, the capital of the Republic, is not only the economic but also the cultural center of the nation. It is precisely from cultural centres that the norm of literary language is realized. The language of these cultural centres is also, in a certain sense, a part of the city’s spoken language, its highest level. However, as with any structure elements, the levels of the spoken language of Vilnius residents are conditioned by each other. It is worth mentioning that Vilnius has several spoken languages: Lithuanian, Russian, local Polish and others. Thus, the norms of different languages of different social strata of the population intertwine and influence each other in everyday use. Attention should also be paid to the fact that a large proportion of Lithuanians in Vilnius are newcomers from the countryside or from other Lithuanian cities. It has been noted that the language of the immigrants also acquires certain common features over time. By the way, the children of those parents whose language has dialectal characteristics speak a language that may differ significantly from their parents’ language, but it is almost no different from their peers born in Vilnius. This fact is of great importance for the implementation of the normative use of literary language, since the articulatory base is formed in childhood. Children become speakers of a particular dialect between the ages of 4 and 13. By the age of 10-11, a child may no longer be able to learn another dialect so that he can speak without accent [Labov W., 1970, 34]. The influence of urban spoken language is quite significant. Comparing the language of those who have studied in Vilnius and Kaunas universities, which by the end of their studies necessarily acquires certain more or less prominent characteristics, it can be observed that two kinds of characteristics have been acquired — Vilnius and Kaunas characteristics. Most common features can be observed in the language of people born and living in Vilnius for a longer period of time, although there are often differences. In order to answer the question, how is spoken in Vilnius, it is necessary to carry out a sociolinguistic analysis of Vilnius spoken language. The language of Lithuanians born and living in Vilnius should be studied. After all, it is in their language that the characteristics of the “Vilnius language” are most evident, which are also acquired by the newcomers. By clarifying the nature of these characteristics, their prevalence and their evaluation, it would be possible to fight against the jargon elements more successfully, and sometimes perhaps even to reconsider the issues of the norm and codification of literary language. If such an analysis were to be applied to the spoken language of all the larger Lithuanian cities, the real relationship between literary language norm and usage in the present Lithuanian language would be revealed. In urban conditions, the process of dialect leveling is particularly rapid. The explanation of its tendencies would be of great importance for the conscious regulation of language development, as far as the specificity of the object allows. Using the conceptual framework of sociolinguistics proposed by the Soviet scholar A. Šveiceris (1976, 69—85), the language of the inhabitants of Vilnius could be studied as a social communicative system of the linguistic collective, one of the components of which is the Lithuanian language. It should be noted that the components of the social communicative system are interconnected by links of functional complementation. The distribution of the components of this system determined by social conditions is twofold: distribution according to the spheres of consumption and social functions of language and distribution according to social situations. 96 tions. Therefore, Lithuanian spoken language of Vilnius residents, as of all A separate component of the communicative system of Vilnius residents, to be examined in stratificational situational ir aspects. Stratificational variation is a social differentiation of language that is determined by the social structure of society. Situational variation is determined by different social situations. When studying urban spoken language, it is necessary to take into account these different levels of variation. For the study of stratificational language variation, it is į appropriate to distinguish in the spoken language collective spoken language communities, certain social or social demographic groups, whose members have at least one common feature (age, education, etc.). t. y. ir Vilnius Lithuanian spoken language collective is all Lithuanians living here. 1970 m. According to the Union Census [Vilnius figures, 1975, 11 —12, 15], Lived in Vilnius 372 100 citizens, iš jų 159 156 (t. y. 42,8 944) — Lithuanians. How many Lithuanians of this iš number are Vilnius, born living t. y. ir In Vilnius, be departures for longer periods of time are difficult to determine. In searching for such persons, the Lietuvos TSR Central Statistical Office archive, 1970 years Questionnaires of the Union-wide census. There are data from which years a person has lived in the same town in the village. ar Thus, informants ir were selected by comparing these years with the su year of birth. There are three languages of the language community, which are divided according to age. The first community is born before, the 1931 second born in, — the third 1932—1952 born — 1953 m. ir later. Research can be done in two ways: either to get many answers to few questions, or to į interview fewer people in greater detail. The second path is chosen. Based on certain requirements of statistical theory, it is determined that the minimum number of respondents of one-age spoken language community is 19 [Ypaansc B. IĮ, 1962, 251]. A resident of Vilnius was interviewed according 61 to a fairly extensive research program. When analyzing the collected material, the informant į nature of the work is taken into account [Pytkesnu M. H., the level 1972], of education, the place of birth of the parents, both of whom must be Lithuanians, the ir proficienkų cy in and use of Russian Polish and ir other circumstances. Substance iš to collected by the informant himself in several ways: using a sociolinguistic interview questionnaiir re, value orientation tests. Some questions are investigated by ir audiotests spectral analysis methods. Throughout the study, the authors are looking for more characteristic features of Vilnius Lithuanian spoken language by means of uncontrolled observation. Such sociolinguistic study of Vilnius Lithuanian spoken language allows to trace the development of Lithuanian language in special conditions, when the speakers are constantly in situations of polylingualism, bilingualism and diglossia. Literature of Ervin-Tripp ir S. Sociolinguistics. — In: Fishman J. (ed.). Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Mouton, 1971, Vol. 1. Halliday M. A. K., McIntosh A., Strevens P. The Users and Uses of Language. — In: Bailey R. W., Robinson J. L. (eds.). Varieties of Present-Day English. The University of Michigan, 1973. Hubbel A. F. The Pronunciation of English in New York City. New York, 1950. Labov W. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966. Labov W. The Study of Nonstandard English. Columbia University, 1970. Matthews W. Cockney Past and Present. A Short History of the Dialect of London. Detroit, 1970. Pakerys A., Pupkis A. Lithuanian language common pronunciation. Texts on plates. V., 1976. Palionis J. Introduction to the History of the Lithuanian Literary Language. V., 1976. Pirochkinas A. The origins of common language. V., Vilnius 1977; in numbers. 1940—1974 statistical data set for the year. V., 1975. i 7. Užs. No. 1554 97 Zinkevičius Z. Lithuanian dialectology. V., 1966. 2000. „The Eastern Lithuanian language of the 17th century, its origin and extinction“, —Baltistica. V., 1972. T. "VIII (1). Bopoauna M. A. CpaBHHTE/IbHO-CONOCTABHTE/bHAS FPAMMAaTHKAa POMAHCKHX f3hIKOB. PeropoMaHcKasi mogrpynna. —JI., 1973. Bep6uukas JI. A. Pycckas opgosmus. —JI., 1976. Fyxman M. M. Beepenne. - B ku. : fIpuesa B. H., 'yxman M. M. (or. pex-ui). CounajibHas u OfyKKuKOHaJibHas Auddepesuuanns K TEpaTypHbIX $f3bIKOB. M., 1977. A. B. H3 ucropun o6pa3oBannst asOaHcKoro HanHOHAJIbHOTO si3sika. - Tp. Mu-Ta Ci AH CCCP. Bonpocsl (hopMHPOBaHHS H pa3BHTHS HALHOHAJIbHbIX S3BIKOB. M., 1960. T. X. )upmynckuii B. M. Hewmenxas ananexronorus. - M. —JI., 1956. Pycckasi pasrosopuas peub. [lox pen. E. A. 3emckoit. —M., 1973. Kacarkuu A. A. Ouepkn HCTOPHH JHTEPATYPHOro HTaabsiHCKOro sisbika XVII—XX BB. —JI., Koaecos B. B. 1976. ‘pannus! CTHAHCTHYECKOH BapHATHBHOCTH B COBPEMEHHOM pyCCKOM MPOH3HOLIeHHH. - B k#. : Bonpocki craanctiku. Mexsysosekuit Hayu. ¢6. Caparos, 1975. Bern. 10. Cork C. M. Mockasi peub B HaujbHBI{MepHOjį CTAHOBJIEHHA PYCCKOTO HAUHOHAJIbLHIO s3biKa. —M., 1974. Pycckuii s35IK no ĮĮaHHbIM Maccosoro obcaenosanust. [lox head. JI. II. 1998-1999 Kpweicuna., —M., 1975. JlaGos V. O MexaHH3Me s3bIKOBBIX H3MeHeHHH. - B ku. : Hosoe B jimarsucetuke. M., 1975. Good. VII. Jlantesa O. A. Pycckuii pasroBopHsiit cuntakcuc. —M., 1976. Jlapun 5. A. Hcropust picckoro siabika H oluiee s3bIKO3HaHHe. —M., 1976. Pycckuit s36ik H coserckoe obmectso. [Tox penx. Mr. B. TTanosa. —M., 1968. Pyrkesnu M. H. Merojosiornueckne npo6/ieMbl H3yueHHs! COIHAJIBHON CTPYKTYpPhl COMA THCTH yekoro obmecrsa. CBepjijioBek, 1972. The only part of the B. H. 3mark O peun ropojackoro nacenenust: - B ku. : H3B Bopouexkckoro roc. nejaroruyeckoro HH-Ta. Boponex, 1975. T. 14]. Cre6aun-- Kamenckuit M. UH. Heropus ckanaunasckux si3eikoB. - M. —JI., 1953. Crenanos I. B. Tunosornst 5i3bIKOBbIX COCTOSIHHI H CHTyauuil B CTpaHAX POMAaHCKOi peu. — M., 1976. Ypaauuc B. IĮ. OGuwast Teopust cratuctikd. —M., 1962. ®uanun O, II. Bpegenne. - B ku. : S13biK H o6mectso. M., 1968. Hiseiiuep A. JĮ. Coppemennast cotįuojinHTrBHCTHKA. Teopust, npobaemsi, mertonst. —M., 1976. Sipuesa B. H. O reppuropua/bHOil OCHOBE cOlHAIbHBIX Ha eKToB. - B ku. : Hopma H connanbuas auddepennpaunst A3sika. M., 1969. Sipuesa B. H. CooTHOCHTE/IbHOCTb perHOHAJIbHbIX H COHLHAJIbHbIX BAPHAHTOB A3bIKA B IJ1aHe CTHJIS i HopMmbl. —B KH. : Coumanbuast H QyHKHOHAbHAA Au(depeHiHanus JHTepaTypHOro s3biKa. M., 1977. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature K BONnPOCY O COLLHOJIMHTBHCTHUECKOM CTATYCE JIH TOBCKOK PA3TOBOPHOHM PEYU)KUTEJIEA r. BUWIbHIO CA Pe310oMe B cB33H c pazBHTHEeM (opM MaccoBoii KOMMYHHKALHH H HHTeHcH]uKauueld BceoOILero obpa30BaHHS[OCOGEHHO aKTya/IbHOH cTasa TIpoO/1eMA pa3TrOBOpHORH Pa3sHOBHAHOCTH JHTEPaTypHOIO A3BIKA. B HexkoTopeIX A3blKax HaOJIIOjJĮaeTCS pa3HO0Opa3He BAPHAHTOB JIHTEPATYPHOH pPa3rOBOPHOIL peuH, 4TO uacTO OOBICHSETCA HAJHYHEM HECKOJbKHX KYJ/IbTYPHO-3KOHOMHYECKHX IHEHTPOB Ha TeppHTOpHH, Tie pacnpocTpaHeH ONpejeJIeHHbIH S3bIK. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. OjHaKO y3yC JIHTOBCKOTO JIHTEPATYPHOTO S513bIKa HEOJHOPOJeH, Pa3/IHYAETCs HECKOJIbKO MOTEHIHA/IbHBIX ero THMOB:,,COIHAJIbHLIE MOAH(DHKALNH, BapbHpOBAHHe (DVHKILKHOHAJIbHO-CTHJIHCTHUECKOCS, XKaHPOBO-CTHJIHCTHYECKO®, MPOCTPAaHCTBEHHOe (HH TeppHTOpHA/bHOE) H BpeMeHHde“ (,,CoumajibHas H QyHKUHOHAJIbHAA JubdepeHuuauns Ji TEpaTypHbIX 3bIKOB“. M., 1977). I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Hajiuune pasjiuuKoro MpoHCXOMKASHHA MOJY/IHA/IGKTOB —XapaKTepHas 4epTa COBpeMeHI'm going to take a look at this. Ho s13bIK ropojia MOMJIEKHT HCCJIEeJĮOBAHHIO HE TOJIbKO H3-3a OOHJIHS TIOJIV JIMAJIEKTOB, [0 KOTOPLIM MOXKHO IPOCJEJHThL MPOLECC IIjIABJIEHHS TEDpHTOpHAJIbHbIX JHAJEKTOB, OH UACTO SBJIAeTCsl IEHHOCTHBIM OPHEHTHPOM HOCHTEeJIeli Ą3bIKa. B 310M ciyyae BO3MOXKHBI Ba acnekTa: HOpMa rOpojickoli pa3roBopHOL peuH OTOXKIECTBJASAETCS C JHTEPATYPHOH HOpMOH, HJIH 98 CO3HATEJIbHO npegjnounuTaeTCH4 rOPOJICKast HOpMA H IPOTHBOINOCTABJISIETCS JiHTEpaTypHOH. "Peus ropoxaH OT/iK4aeTCS HEOJĮHODpOJIHOCTbIO H B CB53H C TEM, UTO 3HAUHTEJIbHAS pOJIb OTBOJMTCS COLHAJIbHOK yCTaHOBKE H IeHHOCTHON OpHeHTanHH. I am happy to announce that I am now a member of the 100% free online dating site for men and women. ITO, B CcymHOcTH, paGoTA Haji KyJibTypoH fear. Heo6xojHMbIM YycJIOBHeM JŪIS ycriexa CTaHOBHTCS BCecTOpOHHee HCCJIe/(OBaHHe COOTHOLIEHNSA peueBOH HOpMBI H y3yca. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do it. C arol TOUKH 3pEHHs BO3MOXKHO COLHOJHHIBHCTHYECKOE HCCIIEOBAHHE H JIHTOBCKOK pa3roBOopHoH peuH xHTeJIefi r. Buabnioca. BuabHIOC —3TO CTOJIHIA, H3 KYJIbTYDHbIX HEeHTpOB KOoTODOoH pacnpocrpaHsercs1 pealin3auįKsi HOPMBI JHTEpaTypHOll peux. B ĮaHHoM ciyuae B OnpegejieHHOlt CTeNeHH TNPOABJSETCH B3aHMOBJIHAHHe HOPMBI H y3yca. [leTH Jake Tex pojįnTejieli, KOTODpbIe SBJIHIOTCS HEJAABHHMH BBIXOJAUAMH H3 JĮHAJIEKTHOH CDpejlbi, pa3TOBApHBAIOT yiKe Ha si3plKe, OTJIHUAIOMNEeMCS OT peuH pojįKTEJIeli, HO BO MHOTOM COBINONAJĮAIOIIIHM C peublo poBecHHKOB. H3 Bu.ibuioca pa3jIHUHLIMH NYTAMH paclpoCTpaHseTcss y3yc ropojckoii peuH Ha Bcio JlurBy. B ucenopanun xurteau-JHTOBIL I. BHabHIOCA paccMaTpHBAIOTCS Kak peuboH KOJIJIEKTHB, A JIHTOBCKAst peyb —KaK KOMIIOHEHT ero COIHa. IbHO-KOMMYHHKATHBHOI cHcTeMbl. AHajiu3 I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. HccenejjoBanne HTOBCKOI Pa3roBOPHOI peun xHTejieit r. Bujibutoca crioco6cTByeT peleHHio TIpOOJIEMbI peaJILHOTO COOTHONIEHHA y3yCa H HOPMbI JHTOBCKOTO JHTEPaTYPHOTO S3BIKA. 7%