Russian has found the status
the Distressful law as its experts name. Very few people knows that discussion on a theme “ whether the obligatory state language Is necessary? “ has begun before the First World War. Marksisty those years considered that the affirmative answer to this question - obscurantism top.
Here also it has turned out that till the end of the last century at “ great and mighty there was no legal status. And even special 68 - I article of the Russian Constitution “ About a state language of the Russian Federation “ accepted in 1993, has not defined a rule of functioning of Russian. Already after it became clear that without the law on a state language of Russia not to manage, this document “ detained “ on legislative offices about 12 years. And since deputies have accepted it in the first reading, has passed as early as three years. Disputes round it that faded, renewed. Last peak of interest of politicians to linguistics has had this spring. In the beginning of March the State Duma has accepted its ground variant, but in the same month it has been rejected by the Federation Council. The conciliatory commission has considered half of senatorial remarks, and zakonotvortsy at last have come to a consensus.
By the way, round the last and to it of similar foreign neologisms which have normal Russian synonyms, at law discussion many copies have been broken. “ why we speak “ the summit “ if there is an excellent Russian definition - “ a meeting at the highest levels “? - Deputies were indignant.
As Elena Drapeko has noted representing the law the committee-man on culture, now the law defines duties of public authorities in relation to Russian and guarantees to us is right in the field of Russian use.
there was no till now an order and in terminology. Word combinations “ Russian “ “ a state language “ “ an official language “ “ a national language “ meet now approximately in 70 operating federal laws and designate only that in the Constitution text is officially named “ Russian as a state language of the Russian Federation “. For a long time it was time to introduce here an order.
to Comment on the Law “ About a state language of the Russian Federation “ we have asked the rector of the Moscow state linguistic university, a member of the International commission of experts of the Council of Europe in the project “ the Linguistic policy for multilingual and political cultural Europe “ Irina Haleevu:
- I am extremely grateful to legislators that at last this document has been accepted. Why so long and painfully it went? I think that it has not been in the last instance connected and that advancing rates created laws of subjects of the Russian Federation on other state languages. Things paradoxical have turned out. We will tell, in Yakutia now two state languages. Definition of statuses of languages is a question of a language policy which, me is thought, it is necessary to solve at presidential level. We will tell, how in France. There regulated use of the French language by the decree of the head of the state. In my opinion, throughout 12 years we did not have not enough political will to dissolve nation-wide language, Russian, and other state languages which operate in territories of subjects of Federation.
I do not agree with those my colleagues who assert that such live phenomenon as language, it is impossible to limit to any laws or other certificates. Without norms of language there will be no speech. Russians should speak on normirovannom competent Russian. But me as to the linguist and the person who too has taken a hand in this document, it is very difficult to name its ideal. We publish the law on a state language of the Russian Federation, and we write it, to put it mildly, not in the best Russian. From my point of view, the law dazzles with set of stylistic errors. Here only a few examples. Pay attention to article 1 point 5. Speech there goes about “ augmentation “ but it not the same that “ preumnozhenie “. I think, not only to specialists in Russian philology it is clear that the word in the law is used incorrectly. Further. In point 6 of same article there is a turn " twice; at use... Use " is not supposed;. It is language untidiness.
Authors laws also break it at once. I will remind: it limits use of words speaking another language, and they use them. An example: a word “ analogue “ - in that article which formulates this restriction.
it seems To me that the law is too laconic. Anyway, the list of spheres of the use of Russian - it is obvious not the full. That is the law opens new discussions both among linguists, and among politicians.
In the law it is a question of norms of Russian literary language, which “ affirm the government of the Russian Federation “. However no government of norm of language can confirm. Another matter - Rules of Russian spelling and a punctuation.
And the main thing that disturbs me: the mechanism of commissioning of its major positions is not registered in the law. Without it the document is more similar to a certain memorandum, on the declaration.