COLLOQUIAL PHONETICS AND LEXICOGRAPHY

The article attempts to show how modern orthoepic dictionaries present the facts of colloquial phonetics, what problems arise in this case and whether alternative lexicographicsolutions can be proposed. An almost complete disregard of the issues of the pronunciation specifi cs of colloquial speech by modern lexicography is not accidental — it is due to the lack of the development of the theoretical aspects of colloquial phonetics, the controversy of many normative interpretations, and the vagueness of the phenomenon itself. Most modern orthoepic dictionaries use the colloquial tag in one form or another, linking its content with the extralinguistic characteristics of the speech situation. The analysis shows that information about colloquial pronunciation variants is mostly given in dictionaries non-systemically and is a random set of examples. When using the opposition colloquial speech — codifi ed standard language, it is impossible to fully and consistently describe such phenomena in dictionaries and for lexicography this approach should be considered unproductive.
Linguists are actively discussing the infl uence of factors such as the pace of speech, the nature of phrasal positions and the frequency of vocabulary on the emergence of pronunciation variants with the dieresis of individual sounds or their combinations, while it is necessary to distinguish between compressed forms of words (pronunciation variants occurring at a fast pace of speech, including speech in a weak phrasal position) and compressions, which are characteristic of diff erent types speech, diff erent phrasal positions, manifest at any pace of speech, and belong to the super-frequency vocabulary. It seems it is compressions that should be codifi ed in orthoepic dictionaries.