Johnson's Russia List
#8286
9 July 2004
[log in to unmask] and
[log in to unmask]
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
#15
RIA Novosti
July 8, 2004
RUSSIAN POLITICIANS' LANGUAGE LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED
MOSCOW. (Academician Vitaly Kostomarov, president of the Russian Language
and Literature Institute - RIA Novosti) - A democracy does not use the
language of a totalitarian society. Russia, however, has gone to another
extreme. Having broken free from totalitarianism, the country has seemed
unable to stop its euphoric carnival and this has even influenced the
language.
Professor Lyudmila Verbitskaya, president of the International Association
of Russian language and literature teachers, recently published a series of
pocket dictionaries for Russian politicians titled "Let's speak correctly".
The books are useful and have become popular.
But why is such a well-educated country as Russia facing the need to teach
politicians how to speak correctly? The problem is that tribunes have been
flooded by "lowbrow style". In the past, it was used only in del-arte
comedies or in some shows for the public. Now it has been transferred to
the State Duma: a deputy takes a microphone and starts speaking, using the
first words that come into his head.
Besides, the people who have come to power are very different. This can
only be welcomed from the democratic viewpoint, but many of them have no
experience in both political and linguistic culture. Sometimes, however,
even quite educated politicians resort to the lowbrow style. I recently
happened to analyse an article by Boris Nemtsov, former deputy prime
minister, written for the Inostranets newspaper. He used quite serious
words and expressions alongside such coarsenesses as "no one will make me
lick their butt" or "I tell the guys who are in the Kremlin now, and the
guys there are pretty smart, that the country is ready to go to bed with
the authorities..." etc. I believe this is bad, lacking in discipline and,
most importantly, unconvincing.
In point of fact, serious politicians tend to think over their public
speeches in advance, as their words carry specific weight. An example is
Winston Churchill, who worked on his famous Fulton speech for almost six
months, polishing every word, including the well-known phrase about the
iron curtain. Every person in the public sphere must feel responsible at
least because people tend to imitate popular figures. Some books titled
"The Grainy Thoughts of Politicians" have been published in Moscow to show
that their lapses do not remain unnoticed and are subject to ridicule.
However, I recently read an interview with Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russia's
ambassador to Ukraine and former prime minister, who is one of the most
frequently quoted statesmen, and he chooses his language on purpose. I have
read his speeches many times and believe you cannot say he is illiterate.
His chosen form does raise an ironic smile, but it is always clear what he
wants to say. For example, the phrase "I have long been in the atmosphere
of oil and gas" does induce a chuckle, but it is nevertheless clear that he
is referring to his long years of work in the oil and gas sphere.
In my opinion, President Putin speaks absolutely correctly, with the
specific features of St Petersburg pronunciation and word choice. He
clearly expresses his thoughts and his opinions and his verbal
constructions are always thought out.
I have not analysed the speeches of Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, but
they have not made a poor impression. On the whole, the cabinet uses quite
normal Russian language. Education Minister Andrei Fursenko stands out with
his brilliant speaking style, but this is hardly surprising. Yet in
general, Russia's political culture of speech today is lower than in
Europe. I can make this comparison, as I know several European languages.
It would be wonderful if our politicians remembered Margaret Thatcher, who,
when she embarked on her political career, did her best to turn her cockney
into RP.
*******
|