What kind of character does Sophia have in the comedy? Essay “Characteristics of the image of Sophia. The moral values ​​of the heroine

Semakova Anastasia

Characteristics of Mrs. Prostakova, Mitrofanushka, Skotinin through the speech of the heroes

Download:

Preview:

MBOU "Selmenga Secondary School"
branch "Topetskaya Basic School"

Research work on Russian language

8th grade students

Semakova Anastasia

Swear words are a means of speech characterization of the characters in the play.
DI. Fonvizin "Minor"

Head of work – Fedoseeva S.V.

October, 2013

Introduction

Target - explore swear words in the speech of the characters in the play by D.I. Fonvizin "Undergrowth".

Tasks :

• Determine what swear words are and what marks they have in dictionaries.
• Extract from the text of the play by D.I. Fonvizin vocabulary that can be classified as abusive, and analyze the etymology and lexical meaning of these words.
• Determine how the swear words of the characters in the play characterize them.
• Draw conclusions about how abusive language characterizes the characters in the play.

This paper examines the use of swear words by the characters in the play by D.I. Fonvizin “Undergrown”, in order to characterize the characters.

Speech always characterizes the speaker:

Study

“Dictionary of the Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences” (MAS), edited by A.P. Evgenieva indicates that the adjective abusive refers to the word swearing, and the interpretation of swearing gives as “offensive, abusive words, swearing” and notes the connotation of this word “condemnation, censure, reproaches.”

Let's try to characterize the heroes of the work by D.I. Fonvizin “Undergrown”, using abusive language in their speech. To do this, we wrote out lines containing abusive language from the text of the play, and based on this we compiled a table:

For the etymological analysis of words, we used the dictionary of N.M. Shansky. All words from the list we compiled are marked “Obshcheslav.” and “Original”, except for words fury , borrowed from the Polish language, which got there from the Greek language, and canine , which refers to the word dog, borrowed from the Iranian language.Based on their origin, all the swear words from the play “The Minor” can be divided into groups:

1. Animal origin:

1. Livestock = wealth, money. This is explained by the fact that cattle served as bargaining chips.
2. Mug. Origin unclear. Presumably a contraction of Khavrya Sow. In this case, mug literally means “pig snout.”
3. Bestia. From the argot of seminarians.Is a rethinking of lat. bestia “beast, animal”, Bestia “animal” literally means “breathing”. Dictionary V.I. Dalia points to the Latin origin of this word.
4. Chushka is a suffixal derivative of chukha “pig”, derived from “imitative” chug-chug . Chukha → pig (alternating x//sh). Dictionary V.I. Dalia gives an explanation of the word chukha as in “snout, nose, pig’s grunt.”
5. Canine is an adjective formed from the noun dog.
6. Snout is the front part of the head in some animals.

1. Borrowed from Greek mythology – Fury.
2. Devil / Devil - origin unclear. Presumably "he who digs lives in the earth" and further - "underground spirit."
3. Blockhead - origin unclear. Presumably a suffixal derivative oflost bally, bally "log".

Let's consider the lexical meaning (LZ) of swear words (according to the dictionaries of V. I. Dahl and S. I. Ozhegov)

Most of the words that the characters in the play “The Minor” swear at refer to colloquial and colloquial vocabulary and are labeled “abusive.”

conclusions

So, abusive language as an address is most often present in the speech of Mrs. Prostakova (“And you, cattle, come closer”, “Didn’t I tell you, you thieving mug, to let your caftan widen”, “Get out, you cattle” , “Well... and you, beast, were dumbfounded, and you didn’t dig into your brother’s mug, and you didn’t tear his snout to the ears,” “Tell me, idiot, how will you justify yourself?”). Addressing her maids, Prostakova most often calls them beasts and the servants brutes, while when she wants to achieve something from influential people, she begins to humiliate herself in front of them, for example: “Oh, I’m an incredible fool! Father! I'm sorry. I'm a fool". Since she always uses rude words from colloquial vocabulary, which are not diverse and are related in origin to the animal world, it can be argued that Prostakova is uneducated, ignorant, rude, and cruel to those who cannot protect themselves from her rudeness. Prostakova uses abusive language when communicating with her servants, brother and husband or talking about them, for example: “Don’t be angry, my father, that my freak missed you. I was born so young, my father.” The same applies to her son Mitrofan and brother Skotinin, who use swear words of animal origin as addresses, for example: “Oh, you damn pig!”

Throughout the entire play, the author constantly plays with words of animal origin in the speech of the characters, thereby trying to expose the bestial behavior of some characters, even though they are people of noble noble origin. For example, the word livestock appears in the play in different meanings. “When only cattle can be happy in our country, then your wife will have bad peace from them and from us,” - in Pravdin’s speech, the word cattle can be understood in different ways: “the general name for domestic farm animals” or “a person similar to cattle " Cattle is the root of the surname of the hero of the play Skotinin. And Prostakova herself, although she now bears the same surname, was also originally Skotinina. It is no coincidence that Kuteikin dictates the words to Mitrofan: “I am cattle” (I am cattle). With the help of these words, Fonvizin constantly ridicules the lack of education and rudeness of the Prostakov and Skotinin family, showing their true essence. The author is trying to convince the reader that, no matter how noble a person’s origin may be, with bestial behavior he will be worse than the cattle itself.

Three teachers, Tsyfirkin, Kuteikin and Vralman, although they are teachers, behave very hostilely towards each other, using the same words of animal origin when meeting. Just like Prostakova herself, she chose such teachers for her son: rude and uneducated.

Consequently, abusive language characterizes the heroes of Fonvizin’s play “The Minor” as rude, vicious, uneducated, ignorant people.

Bibliography

1. Emelyanenko E. M. Predicate nouns with the meaning of a negative evaluation // RYASh, 1990, No. 5, pp. 73 - 76.
2. Kimyagarova R. S., Bash L. M., Ilyushina L. A. Dictionary of the language of comedy by D. I. Fonvizin “Minor”. -http://www.philol.msu.ru/~slavmir2009/sections/?secid=9- International scientific symposium “Slavic languages ​​and cultures in the modern world.” - Moscow, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, March 24–26, 2009
3. Krysin L.P. Relationships between modern literary language and vernacular // RYASh, 1988, No. 2, pp. 81 - 88.
4. The full text of the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by Vladimir Ivanovich Dahl (vols. 1-4, 1863-66) in accordance with modern spelling rules.http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/dal
5. Dictionary of the Russian language S.I. Ozhegova. 10th edition, stereotypical. Ed. Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor N.Yu. Shvedova. Publishing house "Soviet Encyclopedia", Moscow - 1973.http://www.ozhegov.org
6. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes /AS USSR, Institute of the Russian Language; Ed. A.P.Evgenieva. - 3rd ed., stereotype. - M.: Russian language, 1985 -1988. T.1. A - J. 1985. - 696 p. T.2. K-O. 1986. - 736 p.
7. Shansky. N. M. School etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Origin of words / N. M. Shansky, T. A. Bobrova. - 7th ed., stereotype. - M.: Bustard, 2004. - 398, p.http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/shansky/
8. Fonvizin D.I. Minor //Fonvizin D.I., Griboedov A.S., Ostrovsky A.N. Selected works / Editorial Board: G. Belenky, P. Nikolaev, A. Puzikov; Comp. And entry. Article by V. Turbin; Comp. section "Applications" and notes. Yu. Dvinskaya. - M.: Artist. Lit., 1989. - 608 p.

Speech of the characters in D. I. Fonvizin’s play “The Minor”

Comedy “The Minor” by Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin -
a masterpiece of Russian drama of the 18th century, which reveals the problem of the moral decay of the nobility and the problem of education.

In Fonvizin's comedies, a clear distinction was maintained between the language of negative and positive characters. And if in constructing the linguistic characteristics of negative characters on the traditional basis of using vernacular the writer achieved great liveliness and expressiveness, then the linguistic characteristics of positive characters remained pale, coldly rhetorical, divorced from the living element of the spoken language.

The speech of all the characters in “Nedorosl” differs both in lexical composition and intonation. Creating his heroes, endowing them with vivid linguistic features, Fonvizin makes extensive use of all the richness of living folk speech. He introduces numerous folk proverbs and sayings into the work, and widely uses common and swear words and expressions.

Replicas of the negative characters Prostakovs and Skotinin, serf servants and teachers are designed in the tones of a relaxed vernacular, interspersed with local dialectisms. At the same time, the speech of the provincial landowners is almost no different from the speech of the serfs - mother Eremeevna and the tailor Trishka. All speeches are distinguished by liveliness and natural intonations, which are not outdated in many respects to this day. It is characteristic that Fonvizin consistently uses the technique of straightforward reflection in the speeches of the characters of their typical distinctive features. Skotinin speaks either about the barnyard or about his former military service, Tsifirkin every now and then uses arithmetic terms in his speech, as well as soldier’s expressions, Kuteikin’s speeches are dominated by Church Slavonic quotations from the Psalter, from which he teaches his pupil to read and write. Finally, the speech of the German Vralman is deliberately distorted in order to convey his non-Russian origin.

All of the above features are clearly illustrated by Prostakova’s speech - rude and angry, full of swear words, swearing and threats, emphasizing the despotism and ignorance of the landowner, her callous attitude towards the peasants, whom she does not consider to be people, from whom she tears off “three skins” and at the same time is indignant and reproaches them. “Five rubles a year and five slaps a day” is received from her by Eremeevna, Mitrofan’s faithful and devoted servant and nanny (“mother”), whom Prostakova calls “an old bastard”, “a nasty mug”, “a dog’s daughter”, “ beast", "canals". But the main distinctive feature of Prostakova’s speech is the frequent use of colloquialisms (“pervoet”, “deushka”, “arikhmeti-ka”, “child”, “sweat him and pamper”) and vulgarisms (“... and you, beast, were dumbfounded, but you didn’t dig your brother’s mug, and you didn’t tear his snout head over heels...").

In the image of another landowner, Prostakova’s brother Taras Skotinin, everything speaks of his “animal” essence, starting with his last name and ending with the hero’s own confessions that he loves pigs more than people.

The language of Mitrofan’s teachers is just as bright and individualized: the soldier’s jargon in Tsyfirkin’s speech, Kuteikin’s quotes (often inappropriate) from the Holy Scriptures, the monstrous German accent of the former coachman Vralman. The peculiarities of their speech make it possible to accurately judge both the social environment from which these teachers came and the cultural level of those entrusted with Mitrofan’s education. It is not surprising that Mitrofanushka remained a minor, having received neither useful knowledge nor a decent upbringing during his studies.

In contrast, the speech of the positive characters of the comedy, primarily Starodum, is replete with the features of a high style, full of solemn Slavic phrases: “It is in vain to call a doctor to the sick, it is incurable”; “Here are the worthy fruits of evil!” The basis of the speech of positive characters is made up of book turns. Starodum often uses aphorisms (“it is in vain to call a doctor to the sick without healing”, “arrogance in a woman is a sign of vicious behavior”, etc.) and archaisms. Researchers also note direct “borrowings” in Starodum’s speech from the prose works of Fonvizin himself, and this is quite natural, because it is Starodum who expresses the author’s position in the comedy. Pravdin is characterized by clericalism, and in the language of the young people Milon and Sophia there are sentimental expressions (“the secret of my heart”, “the mystery of my soul”, “touches my heart”).

Speaking about the peculiarities of the language of Fonvizin’s heroes, one cannot fail to mention the maid and nanny Mitrofan Eremeevna. This is a bright individual character, determined by certain social and historical circumstances. By belonging to the lower class, Eremeevna is illiterate, but her speech is deeply folk, having absorbed the best features of the simple Russian language - sincere, open, figurative. In her sorrowful statements, the humiliated position of the servant in the Prostakovs’ house is especially clearly felt. “I’ve been serving for forty years, but the mercy is still the same...” she complains. “...Five rubles a year and five slaps a day.” However, despite such injustice, she remains faithful and devoted to her masters.

The speech of each comedy hero is unique. This particularly clearly demonstrated the amazing skill of the satirical writer. The wealth of linguistic means used in the comedy “The Minor” suggests that Fonvizin had an excellent command of the vocabulary of folk speech and was well acquainted with folk art. This helped him, according to the rightful assertion of the critic P. N. Berkov, to create truthful, life-like images.

Let us also point out the relatively frequent “Europeanisms” both in the remarks of the characters (for example, “I am glad to have made your acquaintance” in Pravdin’s speech) and in the author’s remarks: “Sophia took a seat near the table.”

It is noteworthy that the speech of provincial nobles is not alien to individual foreign language elements: (letter)amorous in Prostakova's remark. From French or Italian, swear words penetrated her speech: “The beast is raving, as if she were noble” (about a serf girl); “I’ll set the dawn on my canals!” The language of “The Minor” in comparison with the language of comedies of the first half or mid-18th century. (Sumarokova, Lukina, etc.) is distinguished by fidelity to life and verisimilitude. This play prepared the language achievements of comedians of the 19th century. Griboyedov and Gogol.

Sophia is Starodum's niece (his sister's daughter); S.’s mother is Prostakov’s matchmaker and in-law (like S.) of Prostakova. Sophia means “wisdom” in Greek. However, the name of the heroine receives a special connotation in the comedy: S.’s wisdom is not rational, not the wisdom, so to speak, of the mind, but the wisdom of the soul, heart, feelings, the wisdom of virtue. The image of S. is at the center of the plot. On the one hand, S. is an orphan, and the Prostakovs took advantage of this in the absence of her guardian Starodum (“We, seeing that she was left alone, took her to our village and looked after her estate as if it were our own” - d. 1, yavl. V). The news of Starodum's arrival in Moscow causes real panic in Prostakova's house, who understands that she will now have to part with the income from S.'s estate. On the other hand, S. is a girl of marriageable age, and she has a lover (Milon), to whom she promised her hand in marriage and heart, however, Prostakova reads her brother Skotinin as her husband. From Starodum's letter, Prostakova and Skotinin learn that S. is the heiress of her uncle's 10,000 rubles; and now Mitrofan is also wooing her, encouraged to marry by his mother, Prostakova. Skotinin and Mitrofan do not like S., and S. does not like them, openly despising and laughing at both. Positive characters group around S. and actively contribute to her release from Prostakova’s petty and selfish tutelage. As the action progresses, the barriers to S.'s marriage to Milon crumble, and Prostakova's estate, as a result of this whole story, falls under the guardianship of the authorities. Throughout the comedy, S.'s character remains unchanged: she is faithful to Milon, has sincere respect for Starodum and respects Pravdin. S. is smart, she immediately notices that Prostakova “has become affectionate to the very baseness” and that she “reads” her “and the bride to her son” (D. 2, App. II), is mocking (she makes fun of those who are jealous of her Skotinin and Mitrofan Milon), sensitive and kind (with ardor she expresses her joy when Starodum agrees to her marriage with Milon; in a moment of happiness, she forgives Prostakova for the harm caused and pities the “despicable fury”). S. comes from honest nobles who gave her an education (she reads Fenelon’s essay on the education of girls in French). Her simple feelings are humane: honor and wealth, she believes, should be achieved through hard work (D. 2, Rev. V), meekness and obedience to elders are appropriate for a girl, but she can and should defend her love. When Starodum, not yet knowing Milon, wants to marry S. to a certain young man, S. is “embarrassed” and believes that the choice of the groom also depends on her heart. Starodum confirms S’s opinion, and she immediately calms down, declaring her “obedience.” Fonvizin made a lot of efforts to give S. lively features. To this end, he used the techniques of Western melodrama, combining dramatic moments with sensitive ones. However, he was more interested in raising an honest man worthy of the title of nobleman. Due to her youth, his heroine needed an experienced leader-mentor. She was entering a new, perhaps the most responsible phase of life, and the playwright did not pass by this. S.'s natural virtue had to receive a mental facet. On the threshold of the wedding, Starodum gives S. advice, from the content of which it becomes clear how he (and the author of “The Minor”) understands the correct upbringing of girls and women. Most of all, Starodum is afraid of the influence of “light”, which with its temptations can corrupt an innocent, pure and virtuous soul. Therefore, in the “world,” says Starodum, the first step is important, the ability to establish yourself and recommend yourself. The general rule is: friendship should be made with those who are worthy of it, that is, choose friends. S. is inexperienced and asks for clarification whether the preference of some will incur the anger of others. Starodum teaches her that there is no need to expect evil from people who despise you; evil comes from those who themselves are worthy of contempt, but are jealous of the virtues of their neighbor. S. considers such people pathetic, because such people are unhappy. Starodum warns: pity should not stop before evil, and virtue should follow its own path. There is no need to waste time on educating the “evil”, whom S. calls “unfortunate”, since every person, if he has a conscience, is obliged to awaken virtuous feelings in himself. Having learned the lesson, S. concludes that it is necessary to clearly and firmly show the evil person the baseness of his soul. Starodum adds: the mind of such a person is not a direct mind, that is, crafty, cunning, dishonest. True happiness comes from virtue and straight reason. Like Pravdin, S. understands happiness in the spirit of ordinary ideas: nobility, wealth. However, Starodum explains to her that nobility and wealth are not just titles and money, but “signs” of a person’s state and civil status, imposing moral obligations on him. Starodum teaches S. to distinguish between the real and the imaginary, external splendor and internal dignity; he is the opponent of egoistic happiness. And S. learns his lessons. She is also sure that a person does not live alone, that everyone is obliged to each other. But if this is so, then why, thinks S, won’t reason explain such a simple truth. Starodum responds with a wonderful phrase: “Good behavior gives direct value to the mind.” It is the soul, the “intelligent heart,” that makes an honest person “completely honest.” In this way, the most important educational concepts are clarified for S. (intelligence, honor, service to the fatherland, the position of an honest person, good behavior, etc.). The seeds of Starodum fall on fertile soil, because the “inner feeling” of the initially virtuous S. tells her the same thing. From general concepts about the nobleman and his positions, Starodum turns the conversation to the person, to the personal side of his life, to the family hearth. Having turned away from the path of virtue, the husband and wife stop loving each other, feeling mutual friendly affection and turn their life together into hell, forgetting about home and children. Starodum reminds S again and again: “virtue replaces everything, and nothing can replace virtue”; At the same time, he does not forget about the intimate side of marriage: “Just, perhaps, don’t have love for your husband, which would be like friendship. Have a friendship for him that would be like love.” Ultimately, a husband needs strength of mind (“prudence”), a wife needs virtue, a husband obeys reason, a wife obeys her husband. Old norms acquire new content, and the basis of family harmony again becomes the soul and the “good behavior” emanating from it. Therefore, raising an honest person - man or woman - consists of enlightening the soul.

“Minor” was written during the reign of Catherine II, when issues of social relations, upbringing and education of young people were especially relevant. In the play, the author not only raises acute problems of his contemporary society, but also illustrates the ideological concept with vivid collective images. One of these characters in the comedy is Sophia. Fonvizin’s “Minor” is, first of all, a classic comedy that highlights the educational ideas of humanism. In the image of Sophia, the author portrayed a perfect example of a Russian woman of the Enlightenment era - educated, intelligent, concise, kind and modest. The girl respects her parents, treats older and more authoritative people with respect, and is open to receiving true moral guidelines.

According to the plot of the play, Sophia had a difficult fate. At a young age, the girl’s father died, and half a year before the events described in the work, her mother died. Since her uncle, Starodum, was in the service in Siberia, Sophia, by the will of fate, ends up in the care of the rude, cruel and stupid Prostakova.
The landowner is going to marry the girl off to her brother Skotinin without her knowledge. However, the news about Sophia's inheritance radically changes Prostakova's plans - the woman decides to woo her underage son Mitrofan in order to receive her share of the inheritance. The climax of the marriage story is the kidnapping of Sophia on the orders of the landowner, while the issue of the girl’s marriage had already been decided - Starodum approved Sophia’s choice to marry the honest and kind Milo. However, the ending of the comedy is happy for the girl - she remains with her loved one.

Sophia and Mitrofan

In “The Minor” the central characters are Sophia and Mitrofan. In addition to the fact that they are both the youngest characters in the play, the heroes also appear as antipodes in the play. Sophia is an orphan who has to take care of herself, while Mitrofan is a spoiled mama's boy. The girl strives for knowledge, takes her future seriously, develops as a person with her own opinion, while the young man is weak-willed, stupid, obeys Prostakov in everything and is an infantile character.

In the play, the author pays special attention to the issue of upbringing each of the characters, pointing out that good, proper upbringing is the basis for the development of a strong independent personality. This becomes clear when analyzing the images of Sophia and Mitrofan within the framework of the storyline. The girl was raised in an enlightened noble family, where the most important values ​​were respect and love for parents, good behavior, honesty, justice and mercy towards those in need, which formed the basis of Sophia’s virtuous nature. Mitrofan was raised by the despotic, cruel, deceitful Prostakova and the weak-willed Prostakov, having adopted all the negative traits from them. In the comedy, Sophia acts as a symbol of purity, modesty, inner beauty and virtue.
She is exactly the kind of person that Starodum talks about in his instructions, and whom the author himself admires.

Sofia and Prostakova

The image of Sophia in “The Minor” is also contrasted with the second main female image of the play - Prostakova. The girl and the landowner personify two diametrically opposed views on the role of women in the family and society. Prostakova does not love or respect her husband, she can scold him or even hit him - the wedding itself for her was rather an opportunity to get a large farm in her possession. For Sophia, marriage is an important, thoughtful step, a union of two people who love and respect each other, fully accomplished and congenial individuals. The girl has long loved Milon, remains faithful to him while the young man serves his homeland, is honest and open to him. In marriage, what is important for Sophia is not material wealth, but warm relationships, well-being and understanding.

Prostakova acts as a bearer of the values ​​and foundations of the long-outdated “Domostroy”, according to the norms of which a woman does not need to be educated, understand high matters and talk about serious things; instead, she should only deal with the housework and children, getting bogged down in the daily household routine. The image of Sophia is innovative for Russian literature, as it embodies new, educational views on the role of women in society. In the work, she acts as a bearer of true wisdom, kindness, honesty, cordiality and human warmth. What appears before the reader is not a peasant woman or a cook, but an educated girl with her own views and opinions. The comparative characterization of Sophia in “The Minor” makes it clear that in her image Fonvizin portrayed his own ideal of a renewed, enlightened, harmonious personality of enlightenment.