Keyword: «colloquial speech»

American slang, its existence and active development – these are the problems discussed in the article. The history of the American language is analyzed, types and ways of word and expression transformation are presented. Huge range of present-day American slang is given as examples.

The article is devoted to the youth lexis in Germany. The author defines social and topical gradation of youth vocabulary in Germany.

The article examines the vocabulary of a limited range of usage, namely argot, jargon and slang. It is noted that linguists ambiguously interpret these concepts in terms of content, which causes terminological disagreement. An analysis of the views of scientists on this problem from the point of view of the permissibility/inadmissibility of their use in colloquial and public speech has shown that they show loyalty to the use of these formations, explaining this by the fact that society currently perceives such vocabulary as a vernacular or as generally accepted words. Students studying in their native language use the vocabulary of criminal jargon in their colloquial speech, but rarely even when discussing, for example, a criminal situation or a feature film. But in their colloquial speech, student slang is actively used, which is organically connected with studying and living in a dormitory.

The relevance of this research stems from the need to work out materials for teaching foreign students Russian colloquial speech, and syntactic phraseological units are among its most important components. The aim of the work was to describe the procedure for selecting syntactic phraseological units with an evaluative component for the initial stage of teaching Russian as a foreign language. The main research methods used were the analysis of syntactic phraseological units, the classification of these units, and methods for selecting the constructions under consideration. The result of the study is a developed procedure for selecting phraseological units, consisting of five main stages: determining the selection unit, creating a general frame, compiling a sample set, minimizing the resulting sample set, and compiling a phraseological minimum. An identification criterion (to determine whether the analyzed unit belongs to a group of syntactic phraseological units), an evaluation criterion (to identify the prevailing semantic component), a criterion for taking into account the learning stage (to distinguish units by initial and middle stage), a nuclear-peripheral criterion (to distinguish active and passive phraseological units), a criterion of structural complexity (to find the degree of simplicity or complexity of syntactic connections in the structure of the analyzed units, that is, to determine the typicality of a phraseological structure) were worked out for the first four stages. At the first stage, the units of selection were described – syntactic phraseological units with the meaning of evaluation. As part of the second stage, a general frame was created, consisting of more than one hundred syntactic phraseological units. In the third step, a sample set of fifty-three units was created. At the fourth stage, the corps was minimized to thirty-three units. At the fifth step, a list of syntactic phraseological units was compiled including sixteen units with an evaluation meaning. The theoretical significance of the study lies in the description of the procedure for selecting syntactic phraseological units. And the practical significance lies in the fact that the developed minimum can be used in RFL classes as the main or additional material.