hrvatski

Žargon i standard - jezik in vivo i jezik in vitro = Jargon and Standard - Language in vivo and Language in vitro

Kompleksnost urbane jezične stvarnosti na najbolji način pokazuje da je, neovisno o tome što joj u tome ''pomaže'' i velika terminološka zbrka i neusklađenost, nemoguće povući oštre granice između različitih varijeteta, registara i stilova. Dva sociolekta koja su donekle različita, jer među njima ima i podudarnosti, jesu žargon i standard ako ih se percipira kao jezik in vivo (spontano nastao, mijenja se velikom brzinom, vrlo dinamičan) i jezik in vitro (formalan, produkt planiranja jezika, mijenja se sporije, tj. elastično je stabilan). No žargon nije jednoznačan termin, naprotiv njegov je opis antihjemslevovski jer nije samo neodređen i nejasan nego i proturječan. Budući da percepcija žargona oscilira od jezika ulice do jezika struke, odnosno funkcionalnog stila standardnog jezika, očito je da i njegov identitet nije jedinstven nego složen. Stoga je nužna njegova kontekstualizacija. Specifičnost je žargona u odnosu prema standardu u leksiku i frazeologiji, ali ima je i u gramatici i prozodiji jer je žargon i vrsta jezika i način govora. Drugačija, intencionalno nerazumljiva semantika svim ne-članovima neke društvene grupe, neovisno o parametru njezina jezičnog identiteta (profesija, rod, dob, ideologija, društveni status itd.), očekivano implicira i negativne stavove ne-članova (outsidera) prema žargonu, za razliku od standarda koji upravo ujedinjuje različite govornike, ali postaje i mjerilo korektnosti, čime osigurava svoje povlašteno mjesto. Stoga kompetencija u standardu ponajprije upućuje na status, a žargon na konstrukciju kolektivnog (psihološkog) identiteta. Što se pak tiče stručnog žargona, postupno se standardizira pa time postaje dio standardnog jezika, za razliku od supkulturnog žargona, inače vrlo kreativnog i inovativnog, koji ruši normu na svim jezičnim razinama. Žargonizacija standarda pokazuje da ni njegove granice nisu nepropusne. Neki žargonizmi iz supkulturnog idioma pronalaze svoje mjesto u standardu, a njihovo ishodišno mjesto brzo zauzimaju novi, semantički neprozirni žargonizmi koje, što pokazuju brojni primjeri, karakteriziraju naglašena ekspresivnost, metaforičnost i asocijativnost. // The complex urban language situation is the clearest indication that, even without the help or hindrance of the existing terminological confusion, one cannot draw a sharp line between various varieties, registers and styles. Two sociolects that are partly different but partly similar are jargon and the standard, if we see them as language in vivo (spontaneously arising, rapidly changing, very dynamic) and language in vitro (formal, the product of language planning, changing more slowly, thus having elastic stability). But jargon is not an unambiguous term ; rather, its description is anti-Hjelmslevian, being not only indefinite and unclear but even contradictory. Since the perception of jargon runs from the language of the street to the language of a profession, i.e. to a functional style of the standard language, clearly its identity is not singular but complex. Hence we must put it into context. Jargon stands apart from the standard in lexicon and phraseology, but also somewhat in grammar and prosody, since jargon is both a type of language and a way of speaking. It has a semantics of its own, deliberately unintelligible to non-members of a given social group, whatever parameter the group may be identified by (profession, sex, age, ideology, social status etc.), and this naturally arouses negative attitudes on the part of the non-members (outsiders) ; compare the standard, which seeks to unite differing speakers, but also becomes a measure of correctness, thus maintaining its privileged position. Hence competence in the standard is first and foremost a marker of status, while jargon is a marker of the construction of a collective (psychological) identity. As for professional jargons, they gradually become standardized and thus enter the standard language, unlike subcultural jargons, which are highly creative and innovative, violating norms on all levels of language. The jargonization of the standard shows that the standard's boundaries are not impenetrable. Some jargonisms from the subcultural idiom find their place in the standard, but soon their original places within the jargon are taken by new, semantically opaque jargonisms marked, as many examples show, by heightened expressivity, metaphoricality and associativity.

urbana jezična stvarnost; žargon; standard; supkultura

nije evidentirano

engleski

Jargon and Standard - Language in vivo and Language in vitro

Kompleksnost urbane jezične stvarnosti na najbolji način pokazuje da je, neovisno o tome što joj u tome ''pomaže'' i velika terminološka zbrka i neusklađenost, nemoguće povući oštre granice između različitih varijeteta, registara i stilova. Dva sociolekta koja su donekle različita, jer među njima ima i podudarnosti, jesu žargon i standard ako ih se percipira kao jezik in vivo (spontano nastao, mijenja se velikom brzinom, vrlo dinamičan) i jezik in vitro (formalan, produkt planiranja jezika, mijenja se sporije, tj. elastično je stabilan). No žargon nije jednoznačan termin, naprotiv njegov je opis antihjemslevovski jer nije samo neodređen i nejasan nego i proturječan. Budući da percepcija žargona oscilira od jezika ulice do jezika struke, odnosno funkcionalnog stila standardnog jezika, očito je da i njegov identitet nije jedinstven nego složen. Stoga je nužna njegova kontekstualizacija. Specifičnost je žargona u odnosu prema standardu u leksiku i frazeologiji, ali ima je i u gramatici i prozodiji jer je žargon i vrsta jezika i način govora. Drugačija, intencionalno nerazumljiva semantika svim ne-članovima neke društvene grupe, neovisno o parametru njezina jezičnog identiteta (profesija, rod, dob, ideologija, društveni status itd.), očekivano implicira i negativne stavove ne-članova (outsidera) prema žargonu, za razliku od standarda koji upravo ujedinjuje različite govornike, ali postaje i mjerilo korektnosti, čime osigurava svoje povlašteno mjesto. Stoga kompetencija u standardu ponajprije upućuje na status, a žargon na konstrukciju kolektivnog (psihološkog) identiteta. Što se pak tiče stručnog žargona, postupno se standardizira pa time postaje dio standardnog jezika, za razliku od supkulturnog žargona, inače vrlo kreativnog i inovativnog, koji ruši normu na svim jezičnim razinama. Žargonizacija standarda pokazuje da ni njegove granice nisu nepropusne. Neki žargonizmi iz supkulturnog idioma pronalaze svoje mjesto u standardu, a njihovo ishodišno mjesto brzo zauzimaju novi, semantički neprozirni žargonizmi koje, što pokazuju brojni primjeri, karakteriziraju naglašena ekspresivnost, metaforičnost i asocijativnost. // The complex urban language situation is the clearest indication that, even without the help or hindrance of the existing terminological confusion, one cannot draw a sharp line between various varieties, registers and styles. Two sociolects that are partly different but partly similar are jargon and the standard, if we see them as language in vivo (spontaneously arising, rapidly changing, very dynamic) and language in vitro (formal, the product of language planning, changing more slowly, thus having elastic stability). But jargon is not an unambiguous term ; rather, its description is anti-Hjelmslevian, being not only indefinite and unclear but even contradictory. Since the perception of jargon runs from the language of the street to the language of a profession, i.e. to a functional style of the standard language, clearly its identity is not singular but complex. Hence we must put it into context. Jargon stands apart from the standard in lexicon and phraseology, but also somewhat in grammar and prosody, since jargon is both a type of language and a way of speaking. It has a semantics of its own, deliberately unintelligible to non-members of a given social group, whatever parameter the group may be identified by (profession, sex, age, ideology, social status etc.), and this naturally arouses negative attitudes on the part of the non-members (outsiders) ; compare the standard, which seeks to unite differing speakers, but also becomes a measure of correctness, thus maintaining its privileged position. Hence competence in the standard is first and foremost a marker of status, while jargon is a marker of the construction of a collective (psychological) identity. As for professional jargons, they gradually become standardized and thus enter the standard language, unlike subcultural jargons, which are highly creative and innovative, violating norms on all levels of language. The jargonization of the standard shows that the standard's boundaries are not impenetrable. Some jargonisms from the subcultural idiom find their place in the standard, but soon their original places within the jargon are taken by new, semantically opaque jargonisms marked, as many examples show, by heightened expressivity, metaphoricality and associativity.

urban language situation; jargon; standard; subculture

nije evidentirano