Idiolexical specifics of Russian urban vernacular speaker

Vernacular-2, which is a type of urban vernacular, is a widely jargonized variety of oral speech characteristic of unor low-educated citizens. This article presents the results of the research on the vernacular-2 speaker's idio-lexicon. The informant, L.L., is a low-skilled Russian male worker, born in 1959, who has completed 6 years of school. The audio-scripts of the informant's spontaneous oral speech provided material for this study, which was conducted within the framework of linguistic personality research. My study points out the following specifics of the informant's idiolexicon: First, the informant's idiolexicon includes a lot over 350 urban colloquialisms. L.L. extensively uses diminutive forms of personal names, which is also specific of urban vernacular. Obscenisms account for 86 words and expressions with 10% being scatologisms and the rest mat (Russian profane language). The informant typically uses tabooed lexicon as parasite words or to convey non-profane meaning. Second, there is a distinct dialectal presence in the urban colloquialisms of L.L.'s idiolexicon: dialectal-colloquial lexemes constitute approximately one third of all urban colloquialisms. However, the percentage of exclusively dialectal words and expressions is insignificant, which is typical of urban vernacular-2. Third, the informant's idiolexicon contains over 200 jargonisms, predominantly of juvenile and jail variety, with 10 expressions being exclusively jail jargonisms. L.L.'s vocabulary also features another, exiguous group of professional jargonisms, such as jargon of drivers, photographers, electricians, plumbers, and security officers, which dealt or were connected to the informant's professional field. Forth, the idiolexicon of the studied linguistic personality is characterized by great expressiveness. L.L. uses all sub-systems of language; his expressive vocabulary contains not only urban colloquialisms, but also literary, jargon, and dialectal words and expressions, predominantly dealing with the semantic field ''human being''. Among the informant's emotive / evaluative words and expressions I identified a large lexicosemantic group of pejoratives describing people, which is typical of urban vernacular and is culturally predetermined. However, the ratio analysis between the usage of pejoratives and melioratives (including diminutives) shows that in L.L's idiolexicon melioratives prevail. Fifth, typical of urban vernacular in general, the informant's speech displays occasional semantically incorrect usage of borrowed and bookish words. These specifics are admittedly typical for Russian urban vernacular speaker's idiolexi-con.

Keywords

Authors

References