Cooperative game (IV,V) game if in 0-1, reduced form, if V(i)=0 ; i=1,2,…,n; V(N)=1
The winnings of an individual player if he plays alone is 0, and if he plays with a coalition then 1.
Every essential game is equivalent to one and only one game in 0-1 reduced form.
Proof.
Given a game (IV,V), we will look for a game equivalent to the given one (IV/V”) ~(IV,V), which is also a reduced form in the game 0-1. Let's make an equation:
V´(i)= KV(i) + C i =0 i=1,2,…,n equivalence condition
V´(N)=KV(N)+ =1 (n+1)
There are n+1 equations written in total
Let's add the first n equations
Subtract the resulting equality from the equation n+1. We get:
The cooperative game is essential, then >0 (unclear word) both parts can be divided by this bracket
Knowing K, we will find the unknowns C i = - KV(i)=>
Let's find the characteristic function
For the next game, find an equivalent one, which is presented in 0-1 reduced form. Find: V’ V(S)-stage of the task, characteristic form V’(S)- new, it is required to build an S-coalition
Initial data:
V(1)=100 V(1,2)=300 V(1,2,3)= 550
V(2)=150 V(1,3)=350
V(3)=300 V(2,3)=420
V’ (1) = V’ (2) = V’ (3) =0 V’(1,2,3)=1
28. Dominance of divisions.
29. C-core of a cooperative game.
It is natural to base the analysis of a cooperative game on the principle of optimal distribution of the maximum payoff u( S) between the parties.
The implementation of this principle leads to consideration C-nuclei − a set of non-dominated “completely stable” divisions of a cooperative game.
Vector x = (x1, ..., xn), satisfying the conditions of individual and collective rationality, is called let's divide under the conditions of the characteristic function u.
The distribution of winnings (sharing) of players must satisfy the following natural conditions: if denoted by xi winnings i- th player, then, firstly, the condition must be satisfied individual rationality
xi³u( i), For i ON (1)
that is, any player must receive a payoff in the coalition no less than he would have received without participating in it (otherwise he will not participate in the coalition); secondly, the condition must be satisfied collective rationality
U( N) (2)
i.e., the sum of the players' payoffs must correspond to the possibilities (if the sum of the payoffs of all players is less than u( N), then there is no need for players to join the coalition; if we require that the sum of winnings be greater than u( N), this means that the players must divide among themselves an amount greater than they have).
System ( N, u), consisting of a set of players, a characteristic function over this set and a set of divisions satisfying relations (2) and (3) in the conditions of the characteristic function, is called classic co-op game.
Division x dominates y, if such a coalition exists S, for which the division x dominates y. This dominance is indicated as follows: x > y.
Presence of dominance x>y means that in a set of players N there will be a coalition for which x preferable y. The dominance ratio is not possible for every coalition. Thus, domination by a coalition consisting of one player or all players is impossible.
Any division from the C-core is stable, in the sense that none of the coalitions has either the desire or the ability to change the outcome of the game.
In order to divide x belonged to the c-core of a cooperative game with characteristic function u, it is necessary and sufficient that for any coalition S the inequality holds.
The C-core may be empty, for example, when there are too strong coalitions. If the C-core is empty, then the demands of all coalitions cannot be satisfied simultaneously.
Def. Cooperat. a game with a characteristic function u has a (0,1)-reduced form if the relations are satisfied. : u(i) = 0 (i О N), u(N) = 1. Theorem. Every significant cooperative. game of strategist. is equivalent to one and only one game in (0,1)-reduced form. The stated theorem shows that we can choose a game in (0,1)-reduced form to represent any equivalence class of games. The convenience of this choice is that in this form the value of u(K) directly demonstrates to us the strength of the coalition S (i.e., the additional profit that members of the coalition receive by forming it, and all divisions are probabilistic vectors. In the game in ( In the 0,1)-reduced form, the division is any vector x = (x1, ..., xn), for which xi ³ 0 (i О N) xi iОN å = 1.
Properties of the characteristic function in a 0.1-reduced coalition game:
1. Every characteristic function is a non-negative and non-decreasing function.
2. If K L, then v(K) + v(L/K) v(L)
3. Any characteristic function in a game of n players, I=(1,2,...,n), is described by 2n-1 number of parameters, and when bringing the game into a 0.1-reduced form, n+1 additional connections are imposed, and, hence, there are (2n - n - 2) free parameters.
16. Definition of a cooperative game (in the form of a characteristic function). Basic properties of the characteristic function (superadditivity, convexity). Games are essential and non-essential.
A game is said to be cooperative if, before the game begins, the players form coalitions and make mutually binding agreements about their strategies.
Suppose that there is a set of players K - Some subset consisting of players.
The number of possible coalitions of players agreeing on joint actions.
Definition 1. The function V, which matches each coalition K with the largest payoff, is called the characteristic function of the game.
Definition 2. The characteristic function V(K) is called simple if it takes two values: 0 and 1.
Definition 3. If the characteristic function V is simple, then the coalitions K for which V(K) = 1 are called winning, and for which V(K) = 0 are called losing.
Properties of the characteristic function.
1) personality (a coalition that does not contain a single player wins anything).
2) superadditivity
3) additionality
Let Xi denote the payoff of the i-th player. And consider the following two conditions:
individual rationality
collective rationality
Definition 4. The payoff vector X = (X1, ¼, Xn), satisfying conditions 1 and 2, is called a division under the conditions of the characteristic function V.
Definition 5. A set (N, V) satisfying conditions 1 and 2 is called a classical cooperative game.
Theorem 1. In order for X = (X1, ¼, Xn) to be a division in a classical cooperative game, it is necessary and sufficient that
Definition 6. Cooperative games are called essential if for any coalitions K and L the following inequality holds:
If the inequality is satisfied, then such a game is called unimportant.
Consider the following properties:
In order for the characteristic function V to be additive (the cooperative game is unimportant), it is necessary and sufficient to satisfy the following equality:
in an inessential game there is only one division:
in a significant game for more than one player, the set of divisions is infinite:
17. Definition and basic properties of division in a cooperative game. The concept of division dominance.
The vector is called division in the game
(collective rationality);
xi≥v(i) for all iÎN (individual rationality).
In what follows, for brevity, we will use the following notation. If x is a division and K is a coalition, then 
. In particular, x((i))=xi, x(N)=v(N).
Lemma. The set of divisions is not empty.
Proof. Let's define the vector 
conditions x1=v(1),…,xn–1= v(n–1), 
. Due to the superadditivity property, the inequality xn≥v(n) holds, which means that this vector is a division.
Lemma. In an unimportant game there is only one division.
Proof. If – division, then for all iÎN the inequalities xi≥v(i) are satisfied. Summing them up, we get 
(the last equality is satisfied due to the insignificance of the game). This means that in fact, all added inequalities are actually equalities, that is, the only division is the vector (v(1),...,v(n)).
Division x dominates division y by coalition K if the conditions are met
xi>yi for all iÎN.
If x dominates the division of y by coalition K, then we will write 
.Lemma. The dominance relation over the coalition K has properties of strict order. For any division x, it is not true that x is y (antisymmetry);
For any divisions x,y,z, the conditions x y and y z imply the relation x z (transitivity).
Proof. The lemma immediately follows from the fact that the relation “more than” has these properties.
Lemma. The relation x y does not hold for any divisions x and y.
Proof. If x y, then xi>yi for any iÎN. Summing these equalities, we get 
(the equalities are satisfied due to the definition of division). A contradiction has been obtained.
Lemma. The relation x y does not hold for any player i and for any divisions x and y.
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
Stoika Daria Andreevna. Reduced forms of Russian speech: linguistic and extralinguistic aspects: dissertation... Candidate of Philological Sciences: 02.10.01 / Stoika Daria Andreevna; [Place of defense: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education St. Petersburg State University], 2017
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. Oral spontaneous speech as an object of linguistic research 17
1.1. Oral speech as the main form of existence of language 17
1.2. About genres of oral speech 25
1.3. Phonetic specificity of oral spontaneous speech
1.3.1. Reduced forms of high-frequency words in the “supercore” of the lexical system of the Russian language 33
1.3.2. Norm and implementation of oral spontaneous speech
1.4. Codification of pronunciation norms: retrospective and current state 44
1.5. Dynamics of lexicographic fixation of reduced forms of Russian everyday speech 58
1.6. Corpus approach to speech research 63
CHAPTER 2. Reduced forms of Russian speech (linguistic aspect) 66
2.1. Research material. Principle of selection of high-frequency units 66
2.2. Types of phonetic reduction and reasons for its occurrence
2.2.1. Phonetic structure of word 69
2.2.2. Morphemic-phonetic structure of word 74
2.2.3. Frequency of a word or its form 75
2.2.4. Position of the word in syntagma 77
2.2.5. Speech rate 77
2.3. Signs of lexicalization of reduced forms 83
2.3.1. Pronunciation variability 85
2.3.2. Variation of spelling 93
2.3.3. Phonetization 95
2.3.4. Spelling 97
2.3.5. Graphic abbreviation 98
2.3.6. Desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization 99
2.3.7. Differentiation of meanings of full and reduced forms of a word 107
2.3.8. Completion of the process of lexicalization of reduced forms
2.4. Models for generating reduced forms 111
2.5. Reduced forms in the linguodidactic aspect (experience of lexicographic description) 115
CHAPTER 3. Reduced forms of Russian speech (extralinguistic aspect) 122
3.1. Materials and research methods 124
3.1.1. Creation of a research subcorpus. Balancing speech material and composition of informants 126
3.1.1.1. Gender 127
3.1.1.2. Age 129
3.1.1.3. Profession or occupation 132
3.1.2. Characteristics of a balanced subframe 134
3.2. Results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect 135
3.2.1. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the gender of the speaker 137
3.2.2. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the age of the speaker 139
3.2.3. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the professional affiliation of the speaker 143
3.3. Conclusions 149
3.4. Prospects for the study of reduced forms in linguistic and extralinguistic aspects 150
Conclusion 153
List of abbreviations accepted in work 156
List of used literature 158
Introduction to the work
Relevance work is determined by the following factors: firstly, the allegro forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech are familiar today to any speaker or reader of Russian. AFs have long and very thoroughly taken their place in our speech and in written texts (the practice of recording them in writing goes back more than 200 years), and in Lately AF is increasingly common in modern literature, in online communication, just on Internet sites. Secondly, the path to the complete lexicalization of allegre forms began a long time ago, as noted above, and is actively continuing before our eyes, providing an opportunity to witness the birth of new words, which explains the interest in studying the process of transition of reduced forms “from speech to language.”
Scientific novelty The work consists of compiling a corpus of allegro forms, describing their variability in both forms of speech, features of functioning and reasons for their occurrence. For the first time, AFs are described from the point of view of their orthographic representation, their pronunciation is analyzed for the first time on the material of spontaneous speech, organized in a corpus, and models of linguistic evolution are identified using the example of AFs. In addition, the materials of the Sound Corpus of the Russian Language (ZKRYA), in particular, the block “One Speech Day” (ORD), make it possible to analyze the features of the use of allegro forms in the spontaneous speech of various speakers, taking into account their social characteristics, as well as to study the functioning of AF in various communicative situations.
Theoretical significance The research consists, firstly, in describing and differentiating the causes of AF. Secondly, in describing the stages of the process of formation of a new word, on its way to obtaining lexicographic fixation. In addition, the theoretical chapter of the work describes the history of recording pronunciation features in dictionaries of the 17th-21st centuries. The results of the study may be useful for specialists in oral spontaneous speech in any linguistic analysis of Russian texts and, in general, for further research into spontaneous speech.
Practical significance The research is determined by the fact that the presence of a corpus of reduced forms, with the most complete description of units in their oral and written existence, can be very useful in the practice of teaching the Russian language in a foreign language audience. The inclusion of such forms in materials for teaching foreigners will help the teacher
Russian phonetics to teach a foreign language student to perceive allegro forms by ear and visually and correctly correlate them with the corresponding complete ones (that is, to understand what is heard).
Research hypothesis: reduced forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech represent a special group of units that function both in oral and written speech, are characterized by maximum variability, and are also at different stages of the path “from speech to language,” which ultimately can lead to lexicalization one form or another and obtaining lexicographic fixation for it.
Provisions for defense:
Allegrian forms of Russian speech are not a fact of “damage”, but of the evolution of the language; the process of their lexicalization, or the path “from speech to language,” proceeds literally before our eyes and can end with the complete lexicalization of one form or another and the receipt of its lexicographic fixation.
The process of speech reduction occurs according to various models: (1) full form (PF 1) (AF = PF 2) ( sir -With); (2) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) (twice reduced form (DAF) = PF 3) ( you see you see look); (3) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) set of DAF n ( please, sir Please please, please, please and so on.); (4) [*PF 1 (AF 1 = PF 2)] + (PF 3 *AF 2) (AF 3 = PF 4) ((* activities de) + (say *roll) = they say); (5) PF 1 (set of AF n = set of PF n) ( quiet shh! +shh! +tsh! + chsh!+tss! + ss!).
On the way “from speech to language”, AF can go through several stages of lexicalization: change (variability) of the sound and written appearance, desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization of the unit; At the same time, on a synchronous cross-section, different AFs of Russian speech are at different stages of this path.
The functioning of allegre forms in a person’s speech can be one of the signs that allows one to identify the speaker’s belonging to a particular social group: gender, age or professional. The groups of young people (under 30 years of age) and “manual workers” are most clearly distinguished by this parameter.
5.
Allegra forms should become part of training materials in practice
teaching Russian as a foreign language, which will help
RFL teacher to teach a foreign language student to perceive AF in
auditory and visual, as well as correctly correlate them with the corresponding
full forms.
Approbation of work. Main provisions and results of the study
were presented at all-Russian scientific conferences at the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A. I. Herzen “The Word. Dictionary. Literature: The text of the dictionary and the context of lexicography" and "Dynamic processes in language, speech and dictionary" (St. Petersburg, 2009, 2015), international conference students, graduate students and young scientists "Lomonosov" (Moscow, 2010), international conference of young philologists at the University of Tartu (2010), conference AATSEEL - American Association of Teachers of Slavic and Eastern European Languages (USA; 2011), international virtual conference on Russian studies , literature and culture " Educational technology in the virtual linguistic-communicative space" (USA; 2011), XIII and XIV conferences at the Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture "Nevsky Readings" (St. Petersburg, 2011-12), III conference of young Slavists (Budapest, 2013), XLIII, XLIV and XLV International Philological Conferences (St. Petersburg, 2014-16), International Scientific Conference “Voices of the City: Linguistic Variation and Communicative Diversity” (St. Petersburg, 2015). 20 works were published on the topic of the dissertation, of which 4 were published in journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
Dissertation structure. The work includes an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, lists of accepted abbreviations, used literature and dictionaries, as well as six appendices, which provide, in particular, lists of reducing units (lexemes, word forms or entire phrases), a frequency list of their implementations and a complete set of options of all identified AFs. In addition, a special dictionary of reduced forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech (on electronic media) is attached to the work.
Codification of pronunciation norms: retrospective and current state
Language is a living organism that is in constant motion and evolves. In the history of the Russian language, a process has been taking place for several centuries that can be called the “allegrization” of the phonetic structure of a word (cf.: tea, seba-sya, really something, you see, you see), in which the allegristic form becomes the norm of the language, a full-fledged lexical unit. Even superficial observations of the functioning of such forms in our speech convince us that here we are dealing with the fact of linguistic evolution taking place literally before our eyes. Turning to the language corpora - Sound and National (NKRY) - easily convinces how widespread these forms are in our speech and how long ago they received their written representation, and then a lexicographic description.
In this chapter we're talking about about the main source of the emergence of allegre forms - spontaneous speech, its phonetic specificity and reflection of pronunciation features in dictionaries, starting with the minimal orthoepic characteristics of a word (stress) in dictionaries already in the 17th century and ending with a full range of various recommendations for pronunciation in dictionaries of the most recent years of publication.
Oral speech (UR) is sounding speech that functions in the sphere of direct communication, and in a broader sense it is any sounding speech (see, for example: Zemskaya 1979b: 363; 1997: 582-583; Tumina 2005: 529-531) . Interest in the study of live oral speech has remained stable and even increasing for a very long time. This is explained by the fact that oral speech, in contrast to written speech, “is the first and true state of language, and every language is revealed in its fullness only in living use, in the speech of the speaker (author’s emphasis. - D.S.)” (Humboldt 1960: 68), “sound matter is the only obligatory form of existence of language” (Zinder 1997: 11). Historically, the oral form of speech is primary; it arose much earlier than writing. N.V. Bogdanova notes that living speech is primary not only chronologically, in terms of the time of its occurrence, but also in the influence that it has on a person as a person, as an individual, as a native speaker: “With the help of a living word, people communicate with each other On the other hand, the living word helps and heals; on its basis the written form of speech was built, which created all the conditions for the formation of an exemplary variety of the national language - the codified Russian literary language (KLY)” (Bogdanova 2001: 6).
Written speech, both in the history of society and in the life of an individual, appears significantly later than oral speech and is formed on its basis. The importance of written speech is extremely great. It is in it that all historical experience is enshrined human society. Thanks to writing, the achievements of culture, science and art are passed on from generation to generation. The main function of written speech is the fixation of the literary language, with the goal of preserving it in space and time: “Writing is a means of communication between people in cases where direct communication is for some reason impossible for them, that is, practically when they are separated by space (geographically) ) or time (chronologically)” (Shcherba 1974: 191). The main property of written speech is the ability to store information for a long time: “The written form of the literary language is carefully recorded, convenient for observation and detailed study. It is the results of these studies of the written form of modern CL that primarily constitute the content of dictionaries and grammars, are the subject of study at school and university, and also the main object of scientific description.
Living speech, remaining as if in the shadow of its written model, nevertheless retains its leading role in human life, its primary essence and amazing power of influence on native speakers” (Bogdanova 2001: 6-7). Oral speech is much more active than written speech: we talk and listen more than we write and read3. Wider and its expressive capabilities. The English playwright B. Shaw remarked on this matter that “there are fifty ways to say yes and fifty ways to say no, and only one way to write it” (quoted from: she 2002: 19).
But awareness of the great power of the sounding word requires the correct use of units of living speech. This is especially true for the most active representatives of the speaking society, who shape the state of modern living speech, exerting a decisive influence on all other speakers of the Russian language. Among these most active representatives of the speech community, V.V. Khimik includes young people, journalists, government officials, politicians, businessmen, creative and technical intelligentsia (see: Khimik 2004: 7). Being “the most linguistically influential social categories of persons speaking Russian,” they “to some extent determine the future development of the Russian language as a whole” (ibid.). L.A. Verbitskaya wrote about the responsibility of those who bring the living word to us: “The circle of people whose speech in a certain way influences the speech of others has expanded and therefore must be correct. Oral speech has become a means of even wider communication than written language” (Verbitskaya 2013: 3).
Phonetic structure of the word
A relevant question is the answer to which is in the book by I. A. Veshchikova: what gives the right to classify dictionaries with such different names as dictionaries of the same type - orthoepic? The fact is that the goals, objectives, and types of lexicographic information in all of them turn out to be similar.
From the point of view of the tasks solved by the dictionary, most of the listed publications follow the tradition established by the first dictionaries of this kind: they provide answers to specific questions about the correct pronunciation of individual words and expressions, and serve as guides on general issues Russian literary pronunciation and stress, contain warning instructions for those cases when the pronunciation or stress of a word does not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian literary language, but is widespread in the speech of speakers. Thus, all the dictionaries under consideration have a common goal - recording literary pronunciation norms.
The question arises about the presentation of literary pronunciation norms by dictionaries - the question of norm and variability. Dictionaries of orthoepic type are normative dictionaries. However, normativity does not exclude the presence of variants: “variability of the norm is recognized as a natural phenomenon of the literary language” (Eskova 1997: 307). Dictionaries solve this problem in two ways.
The first approach to solving the issue of pronunciation options is reflected in the “Dictionary of Stresses for Radio and Television Workers” (Ageenko, Zarva 1960). Of the equal pronunciation variants coexisting in the language, the dictionary recommends only one, so as not to provoke inconsistency on the air. On the one hand, such a solution helps to cope with the problem of choosing from two equal options, but, on the other hand, the question of “which of the remaining options have the status of literary, and which and to what extent compromise the speech of the one who uses them” ( Veshchikova 2007: 54), remains open.
The second way to solve the problem is that the dictionary must reflect all variants of the norm existing at a given stage of language development and, as accurately as possible, qualify them. A similar point of view was expressed by L.V. Shcherba: “Very often the norm allows two ways of expression, considering both to be correct. A standard dictionary would act extremely carelessly if it rejected one of them, guided by the sheer arbitrariness or personal taste of the editor: we must not forget that synonymy is the wealth of the language, which allows it to develop, providing the speaker or writer with ample opportunities for more subtle nuances of their thoughts (the same applies, of course, to emerging literary languages, where at first glance it sometimes even seems that there is no norm at all, but upon closer examination it turns out that it is simply very broad)” (Shcherba 1974e: 277). This approach is reflected in almost all spelling-type dictionaries. According to K.S. Gorbachevich, “a figure of silence regarding fluctuations and variants of the norm hardly contributes to a scientifically organized language policy, since it deprives it of its main component - a dialectical approach to a continuously evolving (emphasis added - D.S.) object. The requirements for absolute invariance of norms do not correspond to the modern state of the Russian literary language” (Gorbachevich 1978: 3). Language develops, so it is impossible to keep norms unchanged, and it is even more impossible to reduce the whole variety of linguistic facts to a simple opposition between norm and abnormality. There is a special scale of normativity that adequately reflects the real state of affairs, that is, it qualifies options that are within the norm in terms of their admissibility, stylistic coloring, tempo of speech, etc.
The system for qualifying variants adopted in the first orthoepic dictionary (Orthoepic Dictionary 1983) is supported by the majority of dictionaries of the orthoepic type, and the composition of modern dictionaries is largely based on the ideas of R. I. Avanesov and S. I. Ozhegov. “The qualification of options recognized as being within the norm comes down to three cases: a) Options are recognized as equal (connected by the union and); examples: thinker [sl and sl] ...; b) One of the options is recognized as less desirable (it is assessed as acceptable - acceptable); examples: cottage cheese and allow. cottage cheese … ; c) One of the options, recognized as less desirable, is additionally characterized as older, on the way to extinction (possibly obsolete - permissibly obsolete); examples: hypocrisy and tolerance. outdated hypocrisy" (Eskova 2005: 24). Dictionaries record various types of pronunciation and accentological variants: variants related to the time scale, variants associated with the stylistic dimension, variants typical for a particular sphere of functioning of the literary language (labels “in official speech”, “in poetic speech”, “in professional speech”, “colloquial”, “in common speech”, etc.).
Differentiation of meanings of full and reduced forms of a word
Despite the unusual phonetic appearance of this unit (see Fig. 3), it is understandable and easily recognizable in speech due to its frequent use and, therefore, predictability in a specific communicative situation. According to L. R. Zinder, it is precisely this property of language, such as redundancy, that makes it possible to recognize phonetically distorted units: “The high redundancy of the language, indicating the primacy of the semantic side over the sound side, ensures the identification of individual units of utterance even if their sound appearance is defective” (Zinder 1981: 106).
The speaker neglects external form statements not only in everyday communicative situations, but also in official communication. The scientific literature has long refuted the hypothesis that the appearance of reduced variants is not characteristic of the official style of communication: “Such forms, as observations have shown, are found not only in fluent colloquial speech, but also in an official business style of communication” (Bogdanova 2008: 31). The presence of uncodified forms of literary words in official communication was considered a sign of new times and was explained by the weakening of the “rigid framework of official public communication” (Zemskaya 2000: 13). Options like vobsche, voshche, sche, in the words of M.V. Panov, are “quite literary” and do not “hurt the ear” (Panov 1967: 276), not only when aimed at informal communication. Whatever we talk about, in our speech there are elements of both codified and colloquial (real) norms: “It is well known that any oral speech is characterized by the presence of reduced word forms to one degree or another. Such a reduction, according to our data, is regularly observed even in the full style of pronunciation, for example, in texts solemnly read by the famous speaker Yuri Levitan. But the reduction manifests itself most clearly and on a large scale, of course, in spontaneous speech” (Ventsov 2012: 44). Thus, during the analysis of the phonetic implementation in spontaneous speech of the words what and what, it was established that the speech of the same informant contains both normative implementations of what, what, and
and conversational options, “and these options are not always associated with the characteristics of speech communication (official-informal style of communication)” (Ryko 2010: 109). Thus, compressed pronunciation options are not only acceptable, but quite natural in any functional variety of oral literary speech, regardless of their significance in cultural and social terms.
Having long ago been thoroughly entrenched not only in our spontaneous oral form, but also in the written form of the language, many allegre forms claim to receive the status of full-fledged units of our lexicon. Analysis of materials from the Sound and National Corpuses of the Russian language showed that modern AFs are at different stages of movement towards a new status of an independent word, and made it possible to identify the peculiar stages of lexicalization of these forms in the language, which are described below.
As noted above, allegra forms are not only a phenomenon of oral speech. The existence of a written recording of the AF of Russian speech is confirmed by turning to the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian Language. From the numerous examples found in the NKRY, it is clear how widely and diversely the seemingly speech, compressed, forms of many high-frequency words are represented in the written form of the Russian language. Examples have shown that AFs have long and very thoroughly taken their place in the written form of the Russian language, i.e. they have begun the path to complete lexicalization - in the words of N.V. Bogdanova, the path “from speech to language” (Bogdanova 2008: 31). The practice of recording allegre forms in writing goes back more than 200 years and goes back to D. I. Fonvizin, V. V. Vyazemsky, N. G. Pomyalovsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, N. S. Leskov, F. M. Dostoevsky and A. P. Chekhov. Wed. the earliest examples of AF fixation:
Recently, in modern spontaneous written speech (literary texts, Internet communication), one can increasingly find abbreviated versions of high-frequency words (see, about them, for example: Andryushchenko 2011), and the range of variability in their orthographic representation is quite wide. The written recording of AF, as well as a number of other processes, which will be discussed below, testify to the lexicalization of modern reduced forms taking place literally before our eyes.
It seems that on the way to obtaining lexicographic (or simply written) fixation, one or another speech unit must go through several stages of changing its properties: phonetic, semantic, pragmatic, etc. The frequency of use of a unit leads, first of all, to a change in its sound and written appearance , then to desemantization (weakening the connection between form and content), resemantization (the acquisition of a new meaning by a unit) and - at the final stage - to its pragmaticization (a change in the speech functions of the unit).
The processes of desemantization of a unit, or “washing out” of semantics, as well as its resemantization, expand the range of contexts in which it can function, as a result of which the part-speech affiliation of the word may also change. Acquiring new semantics, pragmatics and prosody, as well as syntactic independence, individual lexemes move to the communicative-pragmatic level of language and sometimes become purely pragmatic units. Thus, the processes of desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization can lead to the emergence of a new, independent unit.
At the present stage of language development, some allegra forms of high-frequency words, having received a new orthoepic and orthographic appearance, also acquire a new semantic-stylistic and/or pragmatic status, for example AF shchas (now), zdrast e (hello), vashche (in general), zhys ( life).
An appeal to the Sound Corpus of the Russian language revealed the limits of phonetic variability of many allegre forms29. It is most convenient to illustrate the range of options using the material of interjections, which are distinguished by their high frequency and very unstable phonetic appearance. Thus, the interjection (etiquette form) please in everyday speech of native Russian speakers is represented by 8 different sound options:
Results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect
When considering the influence of social factors on speech, it should be taken into account that it rarely manifests itself in its “pure form”; gender and age are mixed into the professional conditioning of speech. Since it is impossible to separate social and biological factors (each person has a whole set of such characteristics), it turns out to be difficult to distinguish between their influence in the real speech process: various deforming forces can simultaneously act on the speech structure: both gender and age, as well as those not analyzed in in this work, type of education, level of speech competence or, for example, psychological characteristics speaker. However, it can be assumed that within groups distinguished by one or another social characteristic, there is a certain general tendency in the choice of options, specific to each group. Thus, the analysis of gender groups showed a tendency towards a greater use of allegro forms in the speech of men and greater variability of AF in the speech of women. In age groups, there is a tendency to use predominantly allegro forms in the speech of the younger generation, and in the speech of older informants, the share of use of full forms exceeds the share of AF. The percentage ratio of PF and AF in each professional group of informants showed that a tendency to use AF in speech is observed among informants of such groups as “physical labor workers”, “representatives of law enforcement agencies” and “service sector workers”, and full forms predominate in speech “knowledge workers”, “office workers” and “creative intelligentsia”. Analyzing the total number of allegro forms encountered in the speech of the informants, we can conclude that greatest number AF is used by “physical workers”, and the least used by representatives of the “creative intelligentsia”. The conducted study of reduced forms (in linguistic and extralinguistic aspects) provided answers to many questions raised about the causes of the emergence and features of the functioning of AF, but at the same time it posed new tasks and opened up ways for the future development of this topic. Despite the importance of this area of speech research, reduced forms have not yet received proper scientific description, which is due to the complexity and multimedia nature of the object of study - spoken speech. A full-fledged study of the system of such forms is impossible without the use of statistically representative speech material, reflecting the existing variability of phonetic forms in the language, as well as without special linguistic resources (multimedia corpora) and appropriate tools for processing and annotating speech data. The creation of the Sound Corpus of the Russian language opens up new opportunities for studying phonetic reduction and obtaining its systematic and statistical description.
The study conducted within the framework of this work showed that, based on the analyzed material, the frequency of use of reduced forms does indeed differ in the speech of different social groups, most often manifested in the speech of men, informants of the younger age group, as well as in the speech of “manual workers.” In addition, it is necessary to study the influence of other important factors - the pragmatics of the statement and the conditions of speech communication in a broad sense. Thus, the task of separating phonetic reduction itself from the speaker’s use of a reduced form as a stylistic device characteristic of a particular genre of oral speech, implemented in certain communicative conditions, or being a marker of speech communication of a certain social group, or an individual characteristic of the speaker, is promising and fundamental.
Promising this topic is also taking into account the constant development of the language. Language evolves, lives: “Nothing in it stands still. Every word, every grammatical element, every expression, every sound and every intonation gradually changes its shape, submitting to the invisible but objectively existing drift that constitutes the essence of the life of language” (Sapir 1993: 157). Often, changes occur literally before the eyes of researchers, which explains the interest in studying, in particular, reduced forms, which, gradually becoming entrenched in our lexicon, become evidence of the development of language.
Reduced forms are shortened forms of some parts of speech ( don"t, I"m, etc.), which are widely used in colloquial and informal speech and writing.
The table below shows the abbreviations in English language and examples of their use.
| Unabbreviated form | Short form | Example |
| Are not | Aren't | They aren't (= are not) here yet. They're not here yet. |
| Can't | Can't | I can"t (= cannot) do it because I am very busy. I can't do this because I'm very busy. |
| Could not | Couldn't | Why couldn"t (= could not) you come in time? Why couldn't you come on time? |
| Dare not | Daren"t | I daren"t (= dare not) say it. I don't dare say it. |
| Didn't | Didn't | Helen says she didn't (= did not) know anything about it. Helen said she knew nothing about it. |
| Doesn't | Doesn't | He doesn't (= does not) like this book. He doesn't like this book. |
| Don't | Don't | Whatever you do, just don"t (= do not) touch my antique statuettes. Do what you want, just don’t touch the antique figurines. |
| Had not | Hadn't | We hadn't (= had not) seen such a beautiful place before we went there. We had never seen such a beautiful place before we came there. |
| Has not | Hasn't | Sam hasn't (= has not) read that magazine yet, give it to him. Sam hasn't read this magazine yet, give it to him. |
| Have not | Haven't | I haven"t (= have not) finished working yet, give me some more time. I haven't finished working yet, wait a little longer. |
| He had/he would | He"d | He"d (= he had) helped me a lot to finish the work by your arrival. He helped me finish my work before you arrived. He"d (= he would) be very glad to contribute. He would be very happy to help. |
| He won't | He"ll | He"ll (= he will) show up, he is just running a little late. He will come, he is only a little late. |
| He is / he has | He's | He"s (= he is) a very talented actor. He is a very talented actor.
He "s (= he has) never lied to us. He never lied to us. |
| Here is / has | Here's | |
| I had / I would | I"d | I"d (= I had) done it by the time you came. I had done it by the time you arrived.
I promised you I"d (= I would) do it. I promised you that I would do this. |
| I will | I"ll | I"ll (= I will) deal with this. I will take care of it. |
| I am | I"m | I"m (= I am) already here. I'm already here. |
| I have | I"ve | I"ve (= I have) seen that movie several times. I've watched this movie several times. |
| Is not | Isn't | I don"t know why he isn"t (= is not) there. I don't know why it's not there. |
| It will | It"ll | |
| It is / it has | It's | It"s (= it is) hot today. Today it's hot.
It"s (= it has) never been so hot. It has never been so hot before. |
| Let us | Let's | |
| May not | Mayn't | |
| Might not | Mightn't | You should call him first, he mightn"t (= might not) be home yet. Better call him first, maybe he's not home yet. |
| Must not | Mustn't | You mustn"t (= must not) work so hard, have a little rest. You can't work so hard, take some rest. |
| Need not | Needn't | The teacher has said that we needn"t (= need not) do this exercise. Teacher said we don't need to do this exercise. |
| Ought not | Oughtn't | Tell him that he oughtn"t (= ought not) to speak with his parents like that. Tell him he shouldn't talk to his parents like that. |
| Shall not | Shan"t | Don"t come tomorrow, I shan"t (= shall not) be able to help you. Don't come tomorrow, I won't be able to help you. |
| She had/she would | She"d | She"d (= she had) called me before she came. She called before she came.
She said that she"d (= she would) give me a call during the lunch-break. She said she would call me during her lunch break. |
| She will | She"ll | She"ll (= she will) come over to our house tonight. She will come to us this evening. |
| She is / she has | She's | She"s (= she is) standing by the window. She is standing by the window.
She"s (= she has) got a lot of money. She has a lot of money. |
| Should not | Shouldn't | We shouldn"t (= should not) hurry, the work should be done very carefully. There is no need to rush, the work must be done very carefully. |
| That will | That"ll | |
| That is | That's | |
| There had / there would | There"d | There"d (= there had) been many people here before. There used to be a lot of people here.
I knew there"d (= the would) be a way. I knew there would be some way out. |
| There will | There"ll | They say there"ll (= there will) be a new school in our district. They say a new school will appear in our area. |
| There is / there has | There's | There"s (=there is) little time left. There is little time left.
There"s (= there has) been a very nice Chinese restaurant down the street before, but now it"s gone. There used to be a very good Chinese restaurant on this street, but it's gone now. |
| They had / they would | They"d | They"d (= they had) done their work long before I started doing mine. They did their job long before I started mine.
I talked to them and they promised they"d (= they would) do everything in their power. I talked to them and they promised that they would do their best. |
| They will | They"ll | I hope they"ll (= they will) be on time. I hope they won't be late. |
| They are | They"re | We"re (= we are) going to talk about it next time. We'll talk about this next time. |
| They have | They"ve | I hear that they"ve (= they have) been told everything. I heard that they were told everything. |
| Was not | Wasn't | I wasn"t (= was not) ready to go when you called me. I wasn't ready to go when you called. |
| We had/we would | We"d | We"d (= we had) traveled from Germany to Spain. We traveled from Germany to Spain.
We"d (= we would) be much obliged if you helped us. We would be very grateful if you could help us. |
| We will | We'll | We"ll (= we will) watch over the kids. We'll look after the children. |
| We are | We"re | We"re (= we are) coming, we"re almost there. We're on our way, we're almost there. |
| We have | We"ve | We"ve (= we have) tried to get a hold of you, but failed. We tried to contact you, but were unable to. |
| Were not | Weren't | They weren't (= were not) going to come. They weren't going to come. |
| Will not | Won't | We won't (= will not) let you down. We won't let you down. |
| Wouldn't | Wouldn't | If I were you I wouldn't (= would not) underestimate him. If I were you, I wouldn't underestimate him. |
| What is | What's | |
| You had/you would | You'd | You passed the test because you"d (= you had) prepared for it. You passed the test because you prepared for it in advance.
You"d (= you would) like it, I"m sure. I'm sure you'd love it. |
| You will | You"ll | You"ll (= you will) see him soon enough. You'll meet him pretty soon. |
| You are | You"re | You"re (= you are) one of the best students in this class. You are one of the best students in this class. |
| You have | You"ve | You"ve (= you have) been such a good friend to me. You have been such a good friend to me. |
Notes:
1. There is a non-standard form in spoken English ain"t, which may be an abbreviation of the forms am not, are not, is not, have not or has not(however, this form has a strong informal connotation):
He ain"t going to come. = He is not going to come.
He will not come.
Don"t talk to me like that - you ain"t my master. = You are not my master.
Don't talk to me like that, you are not my master.
I ain"t got anything to read. = I have not got anything to read.
I have nothing to read.
2. Abbreviations daren"t And shan"t very rarely used in American English.
3. Short for am not is the form aren't(which, unlike the form ain"t, is not colloquial and informal):
Some of the most common reduced/distorted forms characteristic of low-level spoken language.
ain't - am not / is not / are not / have not / has notI ain't going there. I won't go there.
We ain't got money. We do not have money.
Ain'tcha - ain’t you;
a'bin - have been;
an’ - and;
anyways - anyway;
'ave/'ve/'a - have;
’appen - happen;
'ere - here;
'ome - home;
'e -he;
'ow - how;
awys - orluss - always;
a - o’ - of;
can'tcha - can’t you;
Coulda - could have;
coupla - couple of;
c'mon - come on;
don'tcha - don't you;
didja- did you;
fella -fellow;
fost - first;
wok - work;
g'night - good night;
gimme- give me;
g'by - good by;
gerrup - get up;
Gerraway - get away;
gon'ta - gonna - to be going to:
You gonna stay here long? =>Are you going to stay here long? / Will you be here long?
Gotta - have got to;
hadda - had to;
hellya - hell do you;
heah- here;
helluva - hell of a;
how'bout - how about;
inna -mto;
jes' - just;
leggo - let go;
lemme - let me;
les's see - let us see;
letcha - let you;
me- my:
me car / me house / ...
Mek - make;
tek - take;
'member - remember;
mistah - mister;
musta - must have;
'n' - than;
noa - nope - naw - no;
on'y - only;
oughta - ought to;
outa - out of;
orright - all right;
Gerron - get on;
sonuvabitch - son of a bitch;
so's - so as;
'sail right - it’s all right;
s'pose - suppose;
shuah - sure;
shurrup - shut up;
speaka - speak to;
talka - talk to;
tha' - that;
they's - there is;
tomorra - tomorrow;
t'day - today;
toucha - touch; puncha - punch:
You touch my car. I punch your nose. If you touch the car, you'll get hit in the nose.
Twenny - twenty;
thirdy - thirty;
toleja - told you;
tellya - tell you;
usta - used to;
wanta - wanna - want to;
wi' - with;
wun't - won't;
whenja - when did you;
wudja- what did you /what did you;
willya- will you;
wuddaya - what do you do;
ya / ye - you/your;
yeah/yeap - yes.
Example of low level English distorted speech:
- Who the’ dell are yet An’ why ye brung me ‘ere?- Who the devil are you? And why did you bring me here?- I want to ask you some questions and I want truthful answers. Now, tell me what happened just before the ship sank.
- Weel, I tell ye, it wam’t much different from any other crossing-ing, ‘cepting it were a rough sea.-Well, I’ll tell you. It was not much different from any other crossing, except it was a rough sea.
- Was there a fire on board?
- Jes’ a wee one in one o’ the topsails. Warn't none on deck 'til she blew. Then they 'us fire everywhere.- Just a weak one in one of the topsails. Was not any on deck until she blew. Then there was fire everywhere.
- What was in the hold?
- Gunpowder, a 'course. Helped load 'er myself. 'Ope 'e rots in 'ell who lit it.- Gunpowder, of course. I helped to load her myself. I hope he'll rot in hell who lit it.
I'm already pretty tired of inserting "decoding" reduced colloquial forms into parallel texts. It's easier to give the list itself.
At the same time, I’ll give you a list of generally accepted abbreviations (for those who have already forgotten about them).
Words that are among the most frequently occurring (by my count) are shown in bold. I mean: yeah, gonna, gotta, wanna, alright, out(t)a. And, on the contrary, rarely occurring words are given in italics.
Reduced colloquial forms found in works of art.
ain’t = am not/ is not / are not/ have not/ has not - can mean one of the listed negatives (depending on the meaning of the speech)
ain'tcha["eIn"tʃə] = ain’t you
alright[ɔ:l"rait] = all right: a - satisfactory; adv- satisfactory, acceptable; like an interjection- ok!, I agree!, it’s coming!
betcha ["betʃə] you bet! = you betcha! = just betcha! - Certainly! do not doubt! you can be sure!(I agree, I want, etc.);
2) betcha = bet you – we argue!
"bout [" baut] = about – oh, regarding, about(here more often as an object of conversation, worries, etc.); most often in the expression How "bout...? How about (to)...?
bro" - shortened form of brother type pal, friend or buddy. More often than not, American blacks call each other bros
cantcha = can’ tcha= can't you
‘cause = because – because, since
c’mon = come on – 1) come on!, come on!, let’s go!; 2) quit!, stop!, stop!
coulda = could have – here could in combination with the Perfect form is translated as could, could and so on.
(a) coupla ["kʌpl] = (a) couple of – pair
D
didja["deja] = did you
dontcha = don'tcha= don't you
dunno = don "t know – I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t understand; overwhelmingly Cases like I dunno. = I don't know. I don't know.
d'ya= do you
Well what d"ya know? |
Okay, what do you know/do you know? |
'em = them – them, them;(meets super often, they usually say that in colloquial speech)
fella ["felə] = colloquial from fellow - man, guy, friend, old man
G
g’by = good by – goodbye, goodbye;
Phrasal verbs with a stem get They are not usually found in this style, but they are pronounced like this in American:
Gerraway["gɛrəwei] = get away – slip away; leave, leave; away! and etc.
gerrin["gəriŋ] = get in - enter; get into transport and etc.
gerrit["gerit] = get it – understand; find out; win; have and etc.
gerron= get on - sit on/in; start/continue business and etc.
gerrup["gærəp] = get up - get up; get up (wake up); intensify; become more expensive and etc.
getchaorget"cha["getʃə] = get you. Similar to gotcha (see below), but refers to the present or future (unlike gotcha - to the past). It is very rare.
gimme ["gimi] = give me - give(those)/pass(those)/give(those) and so on. to me
g’ night= good night - Good night;
gonna["g(ə)nə] = going to. Used in turn to be goingto: (am/ is/ are + going + infinitive with to)intend to do something; 1) Used to express the intention to perform an action in the future; 2) To express the high probability or inevitability of actions in the future (predicted future). More often it is not translated separately, but the action expressed by the subsequent infinitive is simply translated into the future tense.
gotcha ["gɔtʃə] = got you. Depending on the context: 1) I understood you). (caught your thought) ;
2) Yeah! Gotcha!(literally or figuratively, when someone is cunning);
3) deliver/place someone somewhere, (meet. rarely)
gotta["gɔtə] = (have) got to - should, must(...us), need and so on. (expresses an obligation, have is often completely dropped without loss of meaning)
H
hadda["hadə] = had to – expresses an obligation regarding the past
hafta= have to – expresses an obligation regarding the present and future
(a) helluva ["heləvə] = (a) hell of – as an adjective: damn, terrible, creepy, hellish, unbearable, cool and so on. (both in the negative and positive sense: admiration, etc.)
hellya= hell are you in questions like What the hell are you...? What, craptake it, You …?
I
"im = him - his
kinda = kind of: 1) if we are talking about something. action, process, situation, etc., then: something/something like, like, something similar, as if, as if and so on.;
2) if we are talking about a noun, then it is translated: variety, class, type, species and so on.
lemme ["lemi] = let me let me, let me and so on.
letcha= let you let/give/permit you/you
let "s = let us. Combination of abbreviated verb construction let" s in meaning " Let's" with the infinitive has the connotation of invitation or advice.
lotsa["lʌtsə] = lots of - full, many, many
(a) lotta= (a) lot of - full, a lot of, a bunch of
'member["membə] = remember - remember
musta= must have - in combination with the perfect infinitive is translated as must be, probably, probably and so on.
N
'n' = and – And or than - how
naw = no – no, no
nope = no – no, no
O. K./ OK/ Ok/ ok = okay [əu"kei] - OK.; Fine.; Agree.; Right.; Yes.; Order.; Fine.; Going; Eat!; I obey! and etc.
oughta [ɔ:tə] = ought to – should, should, should; (expresses obligation; blame; assumption)
outta/outa["autə] = out of – from , from , With
R
" scuse= excuse – excuse. Usually in the version "Scuse me. Sorry / Forgive me.
seeya= see you see you!, bye!, everything!(at goodbye)
shoulda ["judə] = should have, future in the past in the Perfect form, translated as should, should and so on.
shurrup= shut up – shut up, shut up. It is very rare in this spelling, but is pronounced like this in American.
sonuvabitch/ sonovabitch/ sonofabitch/ sonofa-bitch/ sum-bitch etc. = son of a bitch – son of a bitch, scumbag, bastard and so on.
sorta ["sɔ:tə] - sort of - like, like, like(literally – species, genus, type, variety and so on. something)
so's = so as - as well as (and), also
speaka= speak to – to talk to smb.
" spect= expect believe, expect, hope; or suspect assume, suspect
" pose= suppose – believe, admit
T
talka= talk to – talk/conversate with smb.
tellya= tell you – I say/ I'll tell youyou/ to you
tha's[ðiz] = that is - ThisThere is …
U
usta = used to - have a habit: usually, used to, used to usually / often and so on.
V
wanna [British"wɔnə, Amer."wʌnə] = want to – want, desire do something (want + verb infinitive); an example of an absolutely logical colloquial abbreviation, otherwise you can simply “break” the language.
whaddaya = what do you… – WhatYou / You …?
whatcha = what do/ did/ are you - WhatYou …? ; In questions like What do you want? What do you want?, What are you doing? What are you doing? Auxiliary are in general, it is reduced in the overwhelming majority of cases in colloquial speech. It doesn't come out at all, but we can barely detect it by ear.
whatta= depending on the meaning, it can mean: 1) what do/ are – in questions:
2) (less often) what a – in exclamations in meaning what, what, what, For example:
whattaya / whatta ya= what do you... – WhatYou/ You …?
willya= will you (usually in requests and questions)
woulda ["wudə] = would have, future in the past in the Perfect form, translated as would
wuddaya= what do you... – WhatYou/ You …?
X
Y
ya = you / your you, you/your, your
ye= you – you you(very rare)
yeah= yes – Yes(very rare)
yeah= yes – Yes(it is even written this way very often, but is spoken almost always; the word yes with “swallowed” [s])
yep = yes – Yes(much less common, akin to “nope” – nope)
yup= yes – yes, yeah(very rare)
Often present participles (IV form or –ing form) are written with an apostrophe at the end instead of a g, for example: doin" = doing, livin" = living, tryin" = trying, etc.
Common abbreviations.
aren't = aren't
can't = cannot
couldn't ["kudnt] = could not
didn’t ["didn(ə)t] = did not
doesn’t ["dʌz(ə)nt] = does not
don't = don't
hadn't ["hædnt] = had not
haven't = have not
hasn’t ["hæz(ə)nt] = has not
he'd = he had / should / would
he'll = he will
he's = he is / has
here"s = here is / has
I'd = I had / should / would
I'll = I shall / will
I'm = I am
I've = I have
isn't = isn't
it’ll ["it(ə)l] = it will
it's = it is / has
let's = let us
mayn't = may not
mightn't ["mait(ə)nt] = might not
mustn’t ["mʌs(ə)nt] = must not
shan’t [ʃa:nt] = shall not
she’d [ʃid] = she had / should / would
she'll [ʃi:l] = she will
she's [ʃiz] = she is / has
shouldn't ["ʃudnt] = shouldn't
that'll [ðætl] = that will
that's [ðæts] = that is
there's [ðəz] = there is / has
they’d [ðeid] = they had / should / would
they'll [ðeil] = they will
they're ["ðeiə] = they are
they've ["ðeiv] = they have
wasn’t = wasn’t
we'd = we had / should / would
we'll = we shall / will
we're = we are
weren't = weren't
we've = we have
what's = what is
won't = won't
wouldn't ["wud(ə)nt] = wouldn't
you'd = you had / should / would
you'll = you will
you're = you are