The Literary Norm In The Grip Of Dogma And Dialectics

Abstract

In modern linguistic literature, the need to combine statics and dynamics in the literary norm is beyond doubt, on the basis of which the idea (so far only the idea) of creating principles for the regulation of innovations is put forward. The article examines the issue in historical terms on the material of the Armenian and Russian languages, taking into account the fact that the literary language is a national language that has certain rules of use. Its formation, according to the author's approach, goes through four stages: the folklore stage, the written language, the literary version and the canonized version. Its development can begin on the basis of its own dialects or by crossing languages, on the basis of the spoken language of not only the political, but also the cultural center, proceed permanently or abruptly. In any case, the normative layer of the literary language is formed on the basis of oral speech and finds expression in the language of outstanding writers who make their own adjustments related to the strengthening of expressiveness.  Changes in the language are divided by the author into formal and substantive. At different periods of language development, some tendencies intensify, others fade. At the present stage, formal changes (phonetic, grammatical) are passive, since the dialect base of both Armenian and Russian languages has not changed over the past two centuries, and substantive changes have intensified due to the development of figurative thinking. Both in the first and in the second case, the changes are due to colloquial speech, therefore, according to the author, before developing the principles of standardization of the literary language, it is necessary to determine the directions of development of colloquial speech.  The dependence of language development on the development of society excludes the development of accurate methods for determining the literary (normativity) of language transformations and makes the boundaries of the literary language quite transparent, which is why there is no convincing theory of its development. Excessive freedom leads to the blurring of the boundaries of the norm, and excessive conservatism leads to crises, as was the case with the ancient Armenian literary language (Grabar), which is why the construction of a new literary language begins.