Authors

The article deals with the problem of language development and the language of mass media in particular. The on-going process of globalization appears to affect all aspects of social life, including language development and the language of mass media above all. This influence results in the language of mass media becoming increasingly international.

The democratization of social and everyday life over the past few decades, radical changes in the field of public relations have greatly contributed to democratizing the language of mass media. Whatever its negative consequences might be, the democratization of the language of mass media is an objective reality, а reflection of the current state of affairs. But the point is not only grammar and vocabulary defects found in the language of mass media. It is a common worldwide problem. There is an objective reason. The genre demands that information should be passed on to the consumer as soon as possible. There is too little time to correct and edit texts (speeches), which leads to journalists’ getting used to these standards and to lowering requirements for the precision and accuracy of their messages.

There are perhaps more advantages than disadvantages arising from the process of democratization, which can best be seen in the language of mass media. And it is probably the language of mass media that is crucial to language development.

In fact, a mass influx of foreign words, expressions and notions into the native language is a very serious issue. Due to the concern of the public opinion and danger to the Russian language and Russian culture, the growing trend towards borrowing from English is becoming particularly important. Firstly, in post-Soviet Russia the influx of Anglicisms increased sharply. Some authors began copying English terms that had not been commonly used in Soviet scientific literature before. Secondly, it was later, during the Perestroika years, that young people started taking an active interest in Anglo-Americanisms, and Russian calques of English words emerged on the pages of newspapers. Thirdly, many Anglicisms that could be easily dispensed with came into the business community and the language of other professional circles. Fourthly, at a stage of transition from socialism to capitalism, the process of borrowing not only new notions, but also new institutions from Western countries, primarily from the USA, got accelerated. This context raises an issue of the need for adopting a reasonable state policy to protect the Russian language not only from contamination, but also from introducing meanings that are alien to Russian national interests. However, there is also another point of view. In some specialists’ opinion, there are more positive changes occurring in the Russian language than negative ones. The language keeps developing vigorously and becoming more emotional, with an active process of enriching the vocabulary of the Russian language currently underway. Thus, wouldn’t it probably be more reasonable to be guided by the economic principle laissez-faire with regard to the language?

The relationship between the British and American varieties of English has been a topic of heated debate for years. Despite the fact that Americanisms are infiltrating British speech and British usage is becoming increasingly familiar to Americans, the gap between American English and the language spoken on the British Isles remains significant. The development of English today is characterized by two opposing trends: standardization due to its global use and variation — the process of deviating from long-standing traditional norms.

Uniformity is most clearly manifested in spelling. Differences are found primarily in pronunciation and vocabulary. From the perspective of grammatical systems, of course, there are certain differences between American and British varieties, but they are not so numerous.

The differences outlined have been presented in terms of historical and cultural background of the two English-speaking nations. Any notion of supposed superiority of one variety of English over the other seems entirely inappropriate, as one cultural background, or one chain of historical events and hence language development is in no way superior to the other way of life, the other course of history, or social and cultural background.

However, despite the differences between varieties of English, today it is used worldwide as the primary language of international communication.