MODERN LANGUAGE STRATIFICATION AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUBSTANDARD IN RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH

ABSTRACT

This study investigates how the Russian and English languages are socially stratified, with a particular focus on identifying the boundaries between standardized linguistic norms and informal, non-codified speech forms. Given the growing scholarly interest in sociolects and informal vocabulary, this research refines and differentiates the concepts of "substandard," "colloquial speech," "jargon," "argot," and "slang." The article presents a multi-faceted analysis of the sociolinguistic, phonetic, and morphological characteristics that define various non-standard layers within the two languages. Findings highlight key criteria distinguishing standardized vocabulary from informal usage, examine the composition and structure of English colloquial lexis, explore the complex hierarchy of Russian substandard language, and outline the distinctions between colloquial usage and social dialects. The study concludes by emphasizing the dynamic impact of substandard forms on the evolution of literary norms and the need for further research in this area.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В настоящем исследовании рассматривается социальная стратификация русского и английского языков, с особым акцентом на выявлении границ между стандартизированными языковыми нормами и неформальными, некодифицированными речевыми формами. Учитывая растущий научный интерес к социолектам и неформальной лексике, в статье уточняются и разграничиваются понятия «субстандарт», «разговорная речь», «жаргон», «арго» и «сленг». В статье представлен многогранный анализ социолингвистических, фонетических и морфологических характеристик, определяющих различные нестандартные слои в двух языках. В результатах исследования выделяются ключевые критерии, отличающие стандартизированную лексику от неформальной, исследуются состав и структура английской разговорной лексики, исследуется сложная иерархия русского субстандартного языка, и описываются различия между разговорной лексикой и социальными диалектами. В заключение исследования подчеркивается динамическое влияние субстандартных форм на эволюцию литературных норм и необходимость дальнейших исследований в этой области.

Keywords: informal vocabulary, substandard speech, sociolects, slang, language layers, Russian, English.

Ключевые слова: неформальная лексика, субстандартная речь, социолекты, сленг, языковые слои, русский язык, английский язык.

Introduction. Modern linguistics continues to examine how language systems reflect social differentiation. A key aspect of this investigation is the distinction between formal, codified language norms and the wide range of informal speech practices used in everyday communication. Although the topic has been discussed for decades, consensus has not yet been reached on how precisely to delineate standard and substandard linguistic forms.

According to Korovushkin “the standard language is defined through institutional codification, whereas the substandard comprises speech forms that may lack codification but are widely used in society” [1, p. 45]. Kudinova however, argues that “substandard varieties are performative and context-sensitive, reflecting speakers’ social positioning and pragmatic intent” [2, p. 136-140]. In practical terms, standard forms dominate in formal environments – such as education, law, and administration – while non-standard varieties thrive in personal, regional, and professional interactions.

In both Russian and English, informal vocabulary plays a significant role in shaping language dynamics. Scholars such as Krassa and Volkogonova emphasize that “the substandard is not limited to colloquialism but includes distinct categories such as jargon, argot, and slang – each serving specific social and communicative functions” [3, p.4; 4, p. 30].

Russian linguistic tradition recognizes four primary types of language usage: the standard literary language, regional dialects, social dialects, and colloquial speech [4, p.30]. In contemporary models of language stratification, the substandard typically includes colloquial speech and social dialects, while regional dialects are sometimes partially absorbed into the standard. Informal Russian speech often draws on diverse sources: professional terminology, regionalisms, vulgar expressions, loanwords, and taboo language [5, p.102].

Methods and materials. To analyze substandard forms across Russian and English, the study adopts a multi-method approach. It integrates anthropocentric perspectives (focusing on the speaker as a language agent), functionalist analysis (exploring the role of language in social contexts), and expansionist views (tracing the development and spread of informal forms).

The primary methods include: сontrastive sociolectological analysis to compare language stratification in Russian and English; oppositional analysis to distinguish features of standard vs. non-standard language; social stratification methodology to identify user groups and speech behaviors; empirical data collection from sociological surveys and speech experiments with native speakers.

Sources for this study include modern spoken and written language corpora, as well as reference dictionaries and glossaries of slang and jargon.

Results and discussion. Structure and Definition of the Non-Standard Language. The internal composition of the non-standard language remains a subject of scholarly debate. Some researchers, such as Korovushkin, treat colloquial speech as an umbrella term encompassing all informal varieties. Others, including Krassa and Volkogonova, argue for “a more nuanced classification that separates colloquialism from other non-standard categories such as jargon, argot, and slang, each serving distinct communicative and social purposes” [1, p. 46; 3, p. 4]. This reflects the fact that colloquial lexis tends to be more diverse and less socially bounded than the more specialized and socially defined realms of jargon and argot.

Social Basis and Functions of Non-Standard Varieties. Colloquial language typically emerges within relatively homogeneous, monolingual communities that have limited access to formal education and stylistic diversity. For such groups, colloquial speech is “the primary tool for expressing everyday realities” [8, p. 425-428; 9, p. 264]. Conversely, jargon and slang are often used by speakers capable of alternating between formal and informal registers depending on situational demands.

Professional jargon – common in fields such as medicine, military, or technology – and argot, frequently found in closed or marginalized groups such as criminal communities, fulfill both technical and social-symbolic functions [10, p. 73-89]. Slang is especially characteristic of youth subcultures, where it acts as “a marker of identity and social distinction” [11, p. 14; 12, p. 184-187]. Sociocultural factors including age, gender, and education, as well as interpersonal context, strongly influence the usage of non-standard speech. For example, criminal sociolects are governed by strict lexical taboos and codes, while youth slang is known for its innovativeness, provocative character, and rapid lexical turnover [11, p. 16; 12, p. 185].

Phonetic and Morphological Features. Phonetic traits such as consonant simplification, vowel reduction, and assimilation are prevalent in colloquial speech but less so in more stabilized sociolects. These phonetic processes function as important social identifiers [10, p. 80].

Morphologically, non-standard language often employs diminutives, affectionate suffixes, simplified comparative forms, and alternative verbal suffixes absent in the standard lexicon [13, p.5]. English informal varieties similarly utilize regionalisms, euphemisms, phraseological units (notably in criminal slang), back slang, and reduplication among other word-formation techniques, paralleling mechanisms found in Russian [17, p. 190-196]. In criminal jargon, fixed expressions and idioms act as group-specific markers of identity [14, p. 159-164; 16, p. 57-73].

Lexical Innovation and Borrowing. Vocabulary within the non-standard domain can be either motivated (transparent in origin) or non-motivated (opaque and semantically opaque). Non-motivated jargon items such as the Russian “чмо” (meaning “worthless person”) or slang meanings of verbs like “догонять” (meaning “to understand”) often possess obscure etymologies and serve as signals of group identity [18, p. 317-319]. Youth speech is particularly rich in neologisms and anglicisms (for example, “кайфовать” or “драпануть”), reflecting the ongoing infusion of foreign elements into informal lexicons.

Conclusion. The opposition between standard and non-standard language is present in both Russian and English. The standard is typically characterized by codification and normative regulation, while non-standard varieties remain uncodified and highly context-dependent. In English, the substandard is often equated with colloquialism, whereas in Russian it is understood as a multi-layered system including colloquialism, jargon, argot, and slang.

Given the significant impact of substandard language on the development of literary norms, as well as its role in linguistic creativity and social interaction, further investigation into the non-standard domain is crucial. A deeper understanding of how informal vocabulary arises and interacts with standard language enhances our comprehension of language variability and the dynamics of living speech in modern society.

References:

1. Korovushkin V.P. Osnovy kontrastivnoy sotsiolektologii: avtoref. diss. dokt. filol. nauk. – Pyatigorsk, 2005. – 50 p.
2. Kudinova T.A. Standart i substandart v yazyke: k obosnovaniyu ponyatiy // Nauchnaya mysl Kavkaza, 2010, №3. – P. 136-140.
3. Belyaeva T.M., Khomyakova V.A. Nestandartnaya leksika angliyskogo yazyka. Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU, 1985. – P. 4.
4. Krysin L.P. Sotsiolingvisticheskie aspekty izucheniya sovremennogo russkogo yazyka. – M., 1989. – P. 30.
5. Khimik V.V. Poetika nizkogo ili Prostorechie kak kul'turnyy fenomen. – SPB.: Filologicheskiy fakultet SPbGU, 2000. – 272 p.
6.  Kupina N.A., Shalina I.V. Sovremennoe prostorechie: vzglyad iznutri // Russkiy yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii, 2004, № 7(1). – P. 23-62.
7. Krassa S.I., Volkogonova A.V. Yazykovoy substandart: strukturovanie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. – Tambov: Gramota, 2016, № 1(155). Ch.1. – P. 136-140.
8. Semenova M.A., Gornostaev I.S. Prostorechie i zhargon kak raznovidnost' substandartnoy leksiki. – AGASU, 2015. – P. 425-428.
9. Tumanyan E.G. Yazyk kak sistema sotsiolingvisticheskikh sistem. – M.: Nauka, 1985. – 247 p. 264.
10. Krysin L.P. Problemy sotsial'noy differentsiatsii yazyka v sovremennoy lingvistike // Sotsiolingvistika vchera i segodnya. – M., 2004. – P. 73-89.
11. Rublev E.L. Prestupnaya subkul'tura v mestakh lisheniya svobody. – Chelyabinsk, 2017. – 95 p.
12. Abramyan A.K. Molodezhnye subkul'tury kak sotsial'noe yavlenie // Vestnik TGPI. Razdel IV. Filosofiya i pravo, 1990. – P. 184-187.
13. Kholodkova M.V. Opredelenie sostava prostorechiy leksiki // Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki, 2008, Vyp.10 (66).
14. Mokienko V.M. Russkaya brannaya leksika: tsenzurnoe i netsenzurnoe. – M.: Rustika, 1994. – P. 159-164.
15. Bykov V. Russkie blatnye poslovitsy i pogovorki. – V.: Kray Smolenskiy, 2001. – P. 57-73.
16. Tolkovyy slovar' ugolovnykh zhargonov. – M., 1991.
17. Petrenko D.A., Chernyshova M.V. O nekotorykh problemakh sotsial'no-funktsional'noy stratifikatsii yazyka // Filologicheskiye nauki. Tom 1(67) №1. 2015. P. 190 – 196.
18. Voronin N.M. Nestandartnaya leksika v angliyskom yazyke / N.M. Voronin // Nauchnyy al'manakh. № 5-2(19), 2016. P. 317 – 319.