The charm of colloquial speech, the way we speak in a normal, relaxed atmosphere, is so great that journalists can only give up their usual words or free construction of phrases under duress. Therefore, the interaction of colloquial and newspaper speech - either more or less actively-occurs constantly. At the same time, it does not resemble a one-way street in any way: many media texts are built in a certain sense taking into account the speech model of colloquial speech, but newspaper speech certainly affects how we communicate in everyday situations. (The term "newspaper speech" can only be used conditionally today, because we use this phrase to refer to the stylistic style of not only newspapers, but also various types of magazines and electronic media.)

However, we are primarily interested in how colloquial speech is reflected in media texts, what elements or characteristics of these texts are recognized as "colloquial", what are the reasons for the appearance of" colloquial " elements in newspaper speech, and what do journalists who use these elements in their texts intuitively or consciously strive for. We will try to find answers to these questions on the example of television speech, a significant part of which is made up of untrained "speaking". Doesn't this mean that TV speech can - and even should-be analogous to spoken speech? And what can journalists say during a TV show as they are used to saying in everyday situations, and not control their speech?

Behind these questions is another question: why? Why do journalists use colloquial words and freely constructed constructions?

It is clear that when such elements appear in television speech, it can be a reflection of different processes in essence:

First, it may be evidence of a weakening of control, unwillingness (or inability) to distinguish between speech situations and stylistic registers.:

Secondly, it may be the result of following a fashion trend;

Third, it can be a conscious simulation

page 46

conversational communication, when it, this communication, is used in a special way by a journalist for his own purposes. Consider these situations.

Situation one. Journalists strive for simplicity and freedom of expression, but due to a lack of stylistic flair, they do not feel the difference between literary language and vernacular, literary language and jargon, between book and colloquial speech. Hence, in the journalist's speech - stylistic differences, inappropriate colloquial words, unjustified repetitions or, conversely, the lack of necessary words: "There are new tennis players / / and not only in tennis" (TVC, sports reportage. 1998. October 23);" I have serious doubts about doubting her intelligence " (TVC. Vremechko. 1998. September 29); "While senators II many senators have not yet left" (Ort. News. 1999. 13 Oct.).

In syntax, such a speech strategy may look like an unwarranted "conversational" word order or complementation as a result of forgetfulness: "What happened there // he will tell you now " (NTV. Segodnyachko. 1998. November 4); "But we liked it / / that such a poem came to us "(TVC. Date. 1999. 13 Oct.)"; "And many in their hearts envied him with good envy" (NTV. Results. 1998. December 2); "What do your loved ones say?" (NTV. Arina. 1999. March 14); " Angelina / / what / / happened on our screen / / did it happen in your life?" (NTV. Arina. 1999. March 14); "How do you motivate your // firm position?" (NTV. Results. 1999. 13 Oct.); Cf. colloquially: "The paper industry there was very large"; " Time // won't you tell me?" Don't you have a newspaper for today?"

There are a lot of such examples in TV speech. Interestingly, the laws of conversational and book syntax are often combined within a single phrase: "If you go back to your seat // I have a feeling that you will again arrange a shake-up" (NTV. Hero of the day. 1999. 13 Oct.). Here, not only the syntactic construction is interrupted, but also the very intention of the journalist: whether it is a statement, or a question addressed to the interlocutor.

If in colloquial speech such a sentence structure is never noticed, then in the speech of a journalist such statements always stop the audience's attention, cut the ear and are more likely to be "forgiven" than approved. Although, of course, in the speech of the journalist's interlocutor, especially if it is a "live interview" in an informal setting, such free constructions will be natural and, therefore, acceptable: "These people lead the right image" (NTV. Russian roller coasters. 1999. 13 Oct.).

Situation two. In this case, the journalist obeys fashion, the power of tradition, and the use of elements of colloquial speech in his texts usually turns out to be a formal device, and ultimately-a stamp.

page 47

Situation three. In television speech, elements of colloquial speech are used for special modeling of the "colloquial way of presenting". This is done primarily in order to turn mass communication into a personal one, to destroy the "chill" in relations between the participants of communication. But the question remains: what elements and features of colloquial speech are best used for this?

Some journalists choose a solution that lies on the surface: they use colloquial (stylistically reduced) words and phrases. But this is hardly the best solution. Because, as research shows, neither pronunciation, nor word forms, nor even the words themselves are possible indicators of" colloquiality " in media texts. Features of colloquial speech are most clearly manifested in the syntax. We recognize colloquial speech primarily by how the phrase is constructed, not by how many spoken words we hear.

The paradox, however, is that TV speech remains within the framework of book syntax, the laws of which push out colloquial constructions as something foreign. But at the same time, these constructions are necessary for television speech like air. Otherwise, it will come into conflict with the laws of its oral form of presentation. Hence the conclusion: television speech and its syntax do not need actual conversational elements, but "colloquial elements". In this case, the TV speech structure will resemble colloquial speech, and not become it.

At the heart of the "elements of colloquiality" is a colloquial "prototype". But they themselves are never equal to this prototype. They can be either an external copy of certain oral speech structures, or a concentrate or clot of such structures. Let's say: "They are all like this here // needles "(colloquial prototype); "And yet it turns, this symbol is a weather vane on the Lausanne shore of Lake Geneva" (construction - "copy", addition-when the full-value designation of an object is given as if "after", when we have already named this object with the help of a pronoun); "But, I repeat, it is possible to tear down this street, these people - against their will, by court, by force - but it is shameful. So, it is impossible" (the construction is a "clot", a parcel as an addition limit, when the second element added acts as an independent unit).

If there are "colloquial elements" in TV speech, the chances of a common language space between the journalist and the audience, the journalist and his interlocutor, or the audience in the studio - and therefore a "warm", "uninhibited" relationship between them - are much greater. Therefore, to the question of whether such elements are necessary in order to maintain contact between the participants

page 48

If there is no TV communication, we will answer: absolutely, yes. But to the question: is this the only problem, we will answer: absolutely not. If only because such tools are used in speech even when the contact, in fact, already exists.

"Close" relationships in the course of television communication, established using purely linguistic means , are not an end, but a means, a condition for solving more complex problems, namely: to attract and retain the addressee's attention; to arouse cognitive interest, encourage reflection. Any journalist faces these challenges. As a rule, he has to overcome a certain inertia, or even some internal resistance of the audience, the interlocutor, or the audience in the studio. Where does this resistance come from? From social attitudes, formed opinions, habits, prejudices, passivity of attention, etc.

It is clear that without the attention of those to whom the information is addressed, it is difficult to transmit it. Therefore, passivity of attention turns out to be a psychological barrier, which the journalist needs to eliminate first of all. To do this, you can find an interesting fact, an unusual idea. But you can also use low-latency language tools. Elements of colloquial language in television speech to a greater or lesser extent look like "strangers". That is why they can be used to attract and then retain the audience's interest.

The same elements are able to visually reveal the course of the author's reasoning. This is especially important on television, because listening is almost always difficult.

Let's see how "conversational elements" can highlight and emphasize thoughts and connections between them. What changes in the understanding of a television message if it uses one or another "colloquial element"? Let's name a few possible tasks related to the analytical side of the text that the journalist solves.

Problem 1: there is a certain concept in a phrase that is usually "overlooked" by the addressee-either because it only repeats what was said and is a kind of bridge between this and the previous phrase, or because this element occupies a "weak" position in the phrase; however, for a journalist it can be important, so that the recipient pays attention to this element.

Task 2: the journalist submits several independently existing concepts or judgments, but for his general purpose it is important that the addressee sees the unity, the relationship between these concepts or judgments.

Task 3: the text contains some complex idea, and to simplify its understanding, the journalist should submit it in parts, gradually, but so that the addressee does not lose the whole idea.

Now we will show the possibilities of, for example, "colloquial" word order in solving the marked problems. In this case, we divide, not

page 49

we give a number of syntactically closely soldered members of the sentence. This means that we deviate from the order of words that is fixed in the minds of native speakers as normative, common in these speech situations. This phrase is no longer perceived automatically:

an element that is placed "not according to the rules" will definitely be noticed.

You can solve the second problem with an incomplete sentence, which is obvious: "It would seem that the center is just around the corner. But this is when you sit at home "(RTR. Good evening. 1998); "Can you even imagine a monument not made with hands? Personally, I can hardly" (RTR. Good evening. 1998). But the same problem can be solved using the construction with the addition: "Dolores / / maybe // Will you help this woman // She, like you, created a theater " (NTV. Arina. 1999. March 14); "The Plyushkins, represented by Levon and his orchestra, will say / / that it's time to finish the program / / do you see / / whether you need to save airtime" (RTR. Good evening. 1998); a complex sentence with an enumeration: "Low, gray clouds were hanging, and a thin, long rain was falling from them"; insert construction: "Believe me / / there is nothing else for you / / that our life is nothing more / / than the implementation of advertising in life" (RTR. Good evening. 1998).

In a sentence with an enumeration, the very form of the syntactic construction tells the addressee that individual statements are connected in meaning, and these reader expectations are not deceived, there are no surprises for the addressee, no additional efforts are required from him to see the unity of individual meanings, since the formal connection is supported by a real continuity of the semantic plan. This continuity is prepared by the speaker. This explains the possibility of forming parts of such a complex sentence as independent units, only the connection between individual units becomes less close.

Another thing is plug-in structures or a proposal with an attachment. When a speaker uses an insert construction, he is not bound by the requirements of a formal connection between the insert and the main part (in the insert part, he can use a word or phrase in any case form, a sentence of any type, even a complex syntactic whole), nor by the obligation of continuity of meaning. And in the construction with addition, the formal unity of individual statements is preserved, but there is no continuity, integrity of the semantic plan, and further development of thought is possible. All this gives the connection a special value for an analytical television program.

The third of the tasks we have noted is best solved by using parcelling or question-and-answer construction of the text - to reveal a thought that is complex and voluminous in content. To

page 50

to convey such an idea to an audience or real interlocutors, it is necessary to decompose it into its component elements, but in such a way that each of these elements is perceived as part of the whole - for this purpose, the parcel chain is often used. Note, however, that in television speech, parcel distribution is convenient not only for transmitting a complex concept, but also for any more or less common thought, because it is perceived by ear and therefore turns out to be "difficult" for the audience: "Everyone tells in their own way. About the same event" (NTV. Hero of the day. 1999. 13 Oct.); " So, today we offered you a game. The game in Burima "( TV Ts. Date. 1999. 13 Oct.).

Does this mean that a single" conversational element " helps a journalist solve only one problem? Observations show that this is not the case. For example, a parcel or question-and-answer construction of a text can be used to show how a journalist's thought gradually unfolds, to emphasize the stages that it passes through in its development, especially if such a stage is a sharp turn of thought: "And the most interesting thing is that all this has already happened in our history. True, in the Soviet" (NTV. Results. 1999. Oct 18); "Do you feel like competitors? What is your relationship? Friendly?" (ORT. Rush hour. 1998). However, you can not use the same tool, otherwise it easily becomes a fashion, and then a stamp. However, television speech suffers more from a lack than from an excess: here "elements of colloquialism" are used much less often than in newspapers and magazines, because this requires special skills from the journalist, the art of intonation-accurate pauses in position and depth, correct pitch raising and lowering. In the meantime, the language of television imitates the language of the street more than it makes it its tool.

Permanent link to this publication: