title: PRONUNCIATION NORMS THROUGH THE EYES OF A LEXICOGRAPHER
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Kalenchuk, Maria L.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2022-05-06T11:58:08Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2022-05-06T11:58:08Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2022-04
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/9785288062353.03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/36291
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: One of the most controversial issues of orthoepy is the criteria for making codification
  decisions in the case of coexistence of pronunciation variants. For the authors
  of dictionaries, this question is especially important, since its solution determines the
  logic and procedure for the transition from pronunciation in the sounding speech
  of educated people to a codified norm. There are two approaches that determine
  the decision-making algorithm for the transition from pronunciation in live speech to
  codification recommendations — subjective and objective. A subjective assessment
  of the facts of orthoepic variability is called the position of an unconditional idea of
  the normativity of a variant based on tradition, following authoritative samples and
  the personal taste of the author of recommendations. An objective assessment of
  orthoepic variants can only be the result of representative sociolinguistic studies of
  the usus, which were started on the material of the Russian language in the 1960s
  under the leadership of M. V. Panov. The definition of the methodology is inextricably
  linked with the question of choosing criteria for recommending one of the coexisting
  pronunciation variants as a codified norm. The article discusses various reasons
  for making a decision to recommend a specific pronunciation variant as the norm:
  1) compliance with the internal language law; 2) compliance with the cultural and
  historical tradition; 3) the prevalence of the variant and the statistics of the norm;
  4) public approval and recognition by society of the variant as normative. It seems
  that the pronunciation variants identified in the sounding speech of educated people
  during representative and systematic sociolinguistic studies should be taken into
  account when developing pronouncing recommendations. And the only argument
  that prevents the usual variant from being given the status of a codified one is a violation
  of intra-linguistic laws. All other criteria — cultural and historical tradition, the
  authority of experts, speech skills and language taste of the author of the dictionary,
  etc. have a secondary character. Refs 16.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: St. Petersburg University Studies in Social Sciences & Humanities Vol. 2 Proceedings of 49th International Philological Conference in Memory of Professor Ludmila Verbitskaya (1936–2019);Volume 2
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: pronunciation norms
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: variants of pronunciation norms
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: orthoepic dictionaries
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: codification
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: PRONUNCIATION NORMS THROUGH THE EYES OF A LEXICOGRAPHER
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Book chapter
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 41-53.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/36291/1/41-53.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 768,97 kB