Introduction
Chapter 1
1.0. Preliminary remarks
1.1. The linguistic meaning of particles is almost, almost, hardly
1.2. Position and significance of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence
1.2.1. Particles almost, almost, hardly not as an excessively conjectural component of the semantics of a sentence
1.2.2. Particles are almost, almost, hardly not at the near-propositive level of the dictum
Chapter 2
2.0. Preliminary remarks
2. 1. Principles for constructing sentence models with particles almost, almost, hardly
2. 2. Implementation of semantic models of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly
2. 2.1. Implementation of semantic models of sentences with a particle almost
2. 2. 2. Implementation of semantic models of sentences with a particle almost
2. 2. 3. The implementation of semantic models of sentences with a particle is hardly
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence"
The dissertation work is devoted to the study of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence. These particles are combined on the basis of the meaning of the redundant assumption expressed by them in the sentence. The peculiarity of the studied particles is that they are combined with both prepositive and non-propositive components of the semantics of the sentence, acting as a special semantic component. The study of these particles is carried out in line with semantic syntax, the active development of which is currently due to attention to the semantics and pragmatics of the language, on the one hand, and its functioning, on the other.
There are a number of questions that allow us to turn to the study of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the aspect of their functioning at the level of the semantic structure of a sentence. Is the semantics of these particles a manifestation of their own meaning? Does their semantics include a part of the semantics of a sentence (statement) [Shvedova I960]? How legitimate is it to recognize the semantics of particles as almost, almost, hardly not “obligatory” for a sentence, while they are among the service units in the system of parts of speech? Is it possible to speak about their fulfillment of dictum functions [Nagorny 2000]? Do these particles signal the presence of a hidden (folded) modus (modal) frame in the sentence? How do these particles function at the level of the semantic structure of a sentence?
The relevance of the stated research topic is due to the following factors.
Modal particles are at the center of modern grammar because of their importance for the semantics and pragmatics of a sentence. They have become one of the constant subjects of research since the 20th century: their lexical and grammatical meaning is being studied [Vinogradov 1950; Rogozhnikova 1974; Chess 1941; Shchur 1988], features of their stylistic use [Shvedova 1960], functions performed by them in the utterance [Bulgak 1990; Nikolaeva 1985; Stein 1978], attempts are being made to describe the whole variety of particles available in the Russian language [Vasilyeva 1964; Kiselev 1976]. Recently, the communicative and pragmatic functions of modal particles have come to the fore [Marusenko 1997], their semantics and functions in a sentence, utterance and text continue to be studied [Nagorny 2000; Chernyshova 1997], persuasive meanings in a sentence are studied [Kopylov 2003; Plyaskina 1999; Steksova 1992], a multidimensional description of the particles of the Russian language is carried out [Priyatkina, Starodumova 2001; Starodumova 2002]. The study of modal particles in a sentence is in a certain connection with research in the field of sentence and utterance semantics [Arutyunova 1976; Bogdanov 1977; Volodin, Khrakovsky 1985; Demeshkina 2000; Matkhanova 2000; Shmeleva 1988].
Particles almost, almost, hardly, became the subject of study and, in particular, their predicative functions were studied (at the same time, an extensive group of particles acted as the object of study, including, among other things, particles almost, almost , hardly not) [Nagorny 2000]. The works of Far Eastern linguists present the experience of a multidimensional description of these particles. Currently, there are research data on the linguistic meaning of particles almost, almost, hardly, on the predicative functions they perform in a sentence, on the types and rules of use. At the same time, their role in the organization of the semantic structure of a sentence remains unexplored, while the latter is one of the most important objects of study in sentence theory. The semantic structure of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly needs to be studied, since it is in it that the particles realize their semantic potential. Let us list the reasons why the study of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of a sentence seems important. Firstly, being service elements at the level of syntax (in its strictly structural aspect), particles almost, almost, hardly not at the functional-semantic level turn out to be “mandatory” elements, since they explicate the modus, expressing the subjective meanings of the sentence, which, for one reason or another, the speaker wished to express. Secondly, particles almost, almost, hardly complicate the semantics of the sentence, which manifests itself at the level of its semantic structure, namely: in sentences with these particles, some dictum characteristics undergo changes, dictum and modus receive an additional relationship, increases the pragmatic potential of sentences containing particles almost, almost, hardly. Thirdly, particles almost, almost, hardly not realize their semantics in different ways, being used in sentences constructed according to different semantic models. These circumstances determine the significance of the study of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence.
The object of the study is the semantic structure of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly //e.
Consider the concepts of "semantic structure of the sentence", "dictum", "modus", "persuasiveness", which are basic in our study.
Many linguists have turned to the study of the semantic organization of sentences (and statements, depending on the chosen object of study) [Arutyunova 1976; Bally 1955; Bogdanov 1977; Gak 1973; Lomtev 1979; Nagorny 2000; Paducheva 1985; Shvedova 1973; Shmeleva 1988 and others]. Interest in it remains to this day.
The semantics of the sentence is heterogeneous in nature, structure and ways of expression. This circumstance and differences in approaches to the study of the meaning of a sentence have led to different views on the content of the concept of "sentence semantic structure". Apparently, this is due to two factors: firstly, with the choice of the object of analysis (sentence or statement), and secondly, with a different understanding of the meaning of the sentence (or the meaning of the statement).
The semantic structure of a sentence can be understood narrowly, as the abstract linguistic meaning of a sentence, that is, as the semantics of typed schemes [Beloshapkova 1997; Shvedova 1973], as a proposition and a modal frame [Volodin, Khrakovsky 1985], as a subject-predicate structure [Gak 1973; Lomtev 1972 and others].
At the same time, certain meanings (general grammatical (predicative) or specific informative content of the sentence) are excluded from the semantics of the sentence. We accept a different, broader understanding of the semantic structure of the sentence coming from S. Bally and further developed in the works of 9 many linguists), which allows us to combine two global levels of meaning inherent in each sentence: objective, which is a reflection of reality, and subjective, which is a reflection of the relationship thinking subject to this reality. The advantage of this approach for our study is determined by the specifics of the functioning of the particles almost, almost, hardly not in the sentence, namely: these particles explicate the subjective meanings in the sentence, interacting with the objective ones. Description of the semantics of a sentence with the help of the concept of semantic structure, understood in a broad sense, allows us to most adequately describe the semantic features of the particles under study.
We share the opinion that the concept of "semantic structure of a sentence" includes such components as "dictum" and "modus", which are the objective and subjective layers of the meaning of the sentence [Bally 1955; Nagorny 2000; Shmeleva 1988].
Dictum and modus are obligatory semantic entities of the sentence. They are opposed to each other, but at the same time interconnected and interdependent [Bally 1955; Communicative Grammar of the Russian Language (hereinafter CGRYA) 1998; Shmeleva 1988].
Their opposition is due to the opposition of the external world and the person, the subject of speech, and the relationship is due to the fact that the subjective part of the meaning is based on the objective, and situations are possible when the mode itself becomes a dictum (for another mode).
Regardless of the position from which researchers approach the analysis of the semantic structure, recognition as a mandatory factor
10 opposition of the objective and subjective parts of the meaning of the sentence is common feature for all research in this area. In our study, the recognition of the opposition and interconnectedness of dictum and modus is fundamental.
In works devoted to the study of the objective meaning of a sentence [Arutyunova 1976; Bally 1955; Bogdanov 1977; Vsevolodova 1999; Kasevich, Khrakovsky 1985; Paducheva 1985; Fillmore 1981; Shmeleva 1988], various approaches are being taken to describe this level of meaning. We use the concepts of "dictum" and "proposition". A proposition is understood as “a linguistic embodiment of a certain state of affairs in reality, a situation” [Shmeleva 1988: 7]. This concept is included in one row with the concepts of "event", "situation", "state of affairs". The concept of "proposition" is dominated by the content side - the nomination of the essence of the situation and its participants, if any.
In a dictum described through a proposition, researchers single out several semantic layers: the actual prepositive (mandatory, model), intrapropositive (reflecting the structure of the proposition) and near propositive, “including the circle of meanings that are external to the proposition, but attached to it, serving it” [Shmeleva 1988: 9]. In the interpretation of I.A. Nagorny, the near-propositive level expands (becoming near-propositive) and provides a place for elements not only of the dictum, but also of the modus plan of content [Nagorny 2000: 130]. This is justified by the fact that there are units in the semantic structure of the sentence, which, without serving the actual proposition, concretize it.
The internal structure of a proposition can be described using the terms L. Tenier "predicate", "actant", "sirconstant" [Tenier 1988]. Predicate means main component proposition, which denotes the essence of the situation (action, state, being). Actants are the components of the proposition, denoting the participants in the situation, which are given by the predicate; they can be constant and variable, mandatory (if their appearance is predetermined by the semantics of the predicate) and optional, the number and quality of actants depends on the nature of the predicate (its valence, lexical meaning). Sir constants express the circumstances in which the process takes place; their number is not as definite as the number of actants. The essential difference between actants and circonstants is that the former are obligatory for the meaning of the sentence, since without them the meaning of the predicate is incomplete, and the latter are optional, optional.
The type of the predicate and the set of actants and circonstants attached to it determine the type of the proposition as a whole. There is no single, well-established classification of predicates and propositions in modern linguistics. This study uses a classification based on the opposition of the eventful and logical principles in the content of the proposition [Shmeleva 1988: 12 - 24] (compiled based on the developments made in this area by T.P. Lomtev, N.D. Arutyunova,
E.V. Paducheva and others). According to this classification, all propositions, depending on the nature of their structure, relation to the mode and ways of expression, are divided into event propositions (hereinafter referred to as C-propositions) and logical ones (hereinafter referred to as L-propositions).
According to the definition of T.V. Shmeleva, “C-propositions “portrait”
12 reality - ongoing events with their participants. JI-positions represent the results of mental operations and report on some established features, properties, relationships” [Shmeleva 1988: 12]. The C-propositions include the propositions of existence, state, movement, perception and action, characteristic of the four spheres in which a person's life takes place: physical, mental, intellectual and social. JI-propositions are less systematized and are represented by T.V. Shmeleva in three main groups: propositions of characterization, propositions of identification, or identification, a circle of relative propositions. C-propositions "reflect" reality, and JI-propositions represent the result of understanding relationships.
The modus of a sentence is understood as an expression of the relation of the thinking subject to the objective content of the sentence [Bally 1955: 43-48], this relation can be of two types - “the described fact to reality and the speaker to the message” [Gak 1986: 56]. There are definitions of modus as a category of utterance: “The mode of utterance is formed by the subjective emotional-evaluative and modal-pragmatic meanings of this unit” [Karabykov 2005: 154]. In this study, it is customary to consider the modus in a sentence, since the particles almost, almost, hardly express modal meanings at the linguistic level.
The modus has a complex organization. It is formed by social, qualifying categories and metacategories [Shmeleva 1988]. Our study involves an appeal to a group of qualifying categories.
Qualifying categories of mode "allow the speaker to show his attitude to events and information about them" [Shmeleva 1988: 85]. The task of these categories is to correlate what is being said with reality through the establishment of the position of the speaker, through the qualification of his point of view; At the same time, information is subjected to rethinking from the position of the author, a kind of interpretation. This group of modus categories includes modality, authorization, persuasiveness and evaluativeness. Since persuasiveness is of particular interest to us, let us dwell on it.
With the help of persuasion, “the speaker qualifies what is being reported in terms of its reliability,<.>in this case, we are not talking about truth / falsity as compliance or non-correspondence with the objective state of things, but about the subjective attitude of the speaker to this property of information - his confidence / uncertainty in the reliability of what is stated” [Shmeleva 1988: 89]. The plan of the content of persuasiveness includes an indication of the degree of confidence / uncertainty in the reliability of the information presented. As a rule, uncertainty is always explicated, and its formal expression is intended either to remove responsibility for the presentation of not entirely reliable information, or to avoid being categorical.
There is an interaction between persuasivity and authorization (authorization is “a modus category by which the information presented in a sentence is qualified in terms of sources or methods of obtaining it”): “different ways of obtaining information are perceived differently in terms of their reliability,
14 and the information obtained in one way or another can certainly be more or less reliable. Thus, "alien" is always less reliable than "one's own", and therefore the authorization indicators of citation are often simultaneously indicators of negative persuasiveness" [Shmeleva 1988: 90 - 92]. This interaction is of interest to us insofar as it is realized in sentences with the particles under study.
Persuasiveness is close to another qualifying category - evaluativeness, which is "an expression of a positive / negative attitude to events, their elements or aspects of implementation" [Shmeleva 1988: 92 - 93]. Note that in linguistic works one can come across the expression “assessment in terms of the reliability / unreliability of the reported”: in this case, in our opinion, we can talk about the use of the word “assessment” in the meaning of “qualification”. Both modal qualification and assessment are mental operations to establish the relation of the subject of speech to its object. Their difference lies in the fact that the first is a manifestation of the speaker's position regarding the relationship between the content of the sentence and reality, and the assessment is the correlation of the speaker's position with the scale of values. Another important difference is that the modal-persuasive qualification reflects only an individual point of view. Thus, qualification and assessment are comparable, but not identical and have different means of expressing their meanings. Particles almost, hardly, almost belong to the means of expressing persuasive qualifications.
In studies on the grammar of the Russian language, the subjective meanings of a sentence were described using the concept of subjective
15 modality, which is opposed in its content to objective modality.
Objective modality is the qualification of what is being said as real or unreal; subjective modality is the qualification of what is expressed in terms of its reliability or unreliability [Beloshapkova 1997]. According to the definition of I.A. Nagorny, the peculiarity of subjective modality is that it implies “qualification of the statement in terms of its correlation with the reliability or unreliability of the reported” [Nagorny 2000: 11]. If the objective modality (and predicate modality) “reflects the nature of objective connections” [Panfilov 1977: 39], then the subjective modality expresses the speaker’s assessment (qualification) of the degree of knowledge of these connections, that is, it indicates the degree of reliability of the thought reflecting the given situation.
Subjective modality includes the meanings of categorical, neutral and problematic certainty (this classification of subjective-modal meanings is based on the "degree of the author's competence regarding the correspondence / non-compliance of the reported with the real state of affairs" [Nagorny 2000: 11 - 12]):
Neutral certainty means a statement of fact.
Problematic reliability (unreliability, probability) implies the designation of a different degree of probability
16 realization of the fact in reality from the point of view of the speaker. This value is based on the insufficient degree of awareness of the subject regarding the reliability of what is being reported, on the author's assumption, which forms a set of shades that differ in the degree of probability of the fact being realized in reality.
Problematic authenticity realizes itself in the following aspects: a) logical (contains a reflection of the concept of a special, persuasive, type of relationship; expression of the subject's thought in a relatively true judgment); b) grammatical (expresses at the sentence level the meaning of problematic authenticity grammatically, by the presence or significant absence of formal means with appropriate semantics); c) semantic (persuasiveness is included in the category of modus qualifying categories that form the qualification of the objective part of the meaning of the sentence in the sentence); d) pragmatic (realizes the intention of the speaker when introducing one or another persuasive meaning into the statement). Problematic reliability is one of the most important subjective-modal meanings, which takes part in the formation of the general predicative meaning of the sentence. At the conceptual level, it corresponds to the category of persuasiveness [Nagorny 2000: 12].
The modality and mode of the sentence are correlated with each other.
Regarding the nature of this relationship in syntactic science, there is no consensus: either the modality is recognized as wider
17 unit than the mode [Arutyunova 1976], or is included in the number of modus categories [Balli 1955; Alisova 1971; Shmeleva 1988]. Since we consider a sentence as a two-part organization, the central components of which are dictum and modus, we adhere to the position that modality is only one of the aspects of the subjective principle in a sentence, and modus is its complex manifestation.
The subject of the study are particles almost, almost, hardly, considered in terms of their semantics and functioning in the semantic structure of the sentence.
V.V. Vinogradov was one of the first who almost turned to the study of particles, who noted that individual modal words expressing a certain degree of negation, and negative particle cannot form idiomatic adhesions [Vinogradov
1975]. About fifteen years ago, R.P. Rogozhnikova’s Dictionary of Word Equivalents was published, which reflected stable combinations of the Russian language, equivalent to the word in meaning and function in speech (“adverbial, auxiliary, modal units”) [Rogozhnikova 1991], in this dictionary, particles are reflected almost, almost. The identification of word equivalents is due to the fact that “... the process of phraseologization of combinations covers both full-valued and service units. All of them are stable and therefore are reproduced in speech as ready-made units" [Rogozhnikova 1991: 3]. Given, firstly, the semantics of particles is almost, almost, hardly, not identical to the semantics of the constituent components (a little, hardly, hardly; almost, almost, hardly; hardly; hardly; not; whether ), and, secondly, a relatively high
18 the frequency of their use, we consider these particles as independent. Our study is limited to the named units and does not include particles almost, almost, almost as options, since the latter are not equal to the studied particles in meaning and are associated with almost, almost, hardly primarily word-forming relationships.
The functioning of particles almost, almost, hardly not in a sentence is understood as their participation in the organization of the semantic structure of the sentence as a special semantic component. A.V. Bondarko defines the functions of language units as “the ability inherent in them in the language system to fulfill a certain purpose and to function appropriately in speech” [Lyakovoznanie 1998: 565]. In accordance with the objectives of the study, we stop at the first part of the proposed definition and do not go to the level of the statement. Such a narrow approach allows us to study particles more deeply almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of a sentence and is not new in linguistics (for example, the functioning of a sentence (language unit) can be considered in two ways: as the use of its under certain conditions and as the interaction of the elements that make up its structure [Chuvakin 1984]).
The purpose of the study is to identify and describe the features of the functioning of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence.
Research objectives:
1. Analyze the linguistic meaning of particles almost, almost, hardly not, presented in various dictionaries, from the point of view of its completeness and adequacy.
2. Establish the position and significance of the particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence.
3. Describe the implementation of the meanings of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence.
4. Establish a way of interaction between dictum and modus in sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly.
5. Build semantic models of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly.
6. Describe the implementation of these proposal models.
Research methods and techniques are determined by the nature of the problem and the goals and objectives set. The study used the techniques of descriptive, structural-semantic methods, elements of a linguistic experiment, construction, quantitative calculation, elements of comparative analysis and modeling. The study was carried out in several stages:
1. Sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly not were extracted from the texts of fiction, journalistic, scientific literature by sampling.
2. On the basis of direct observation of the functioning of particles, almost, almost, hardly not in the sentence, the modus meanings introduced by them were described.
3. Modeling of sentences containing particles was carried out almost, almost, hardly.
4. Implementations of the constructed models were established and described.
5. The specifics of the realization of the meaning of each of the studied particles depending on the sentence model were considered.
The material of the study was sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly, isolated by sampling from the texts of fiction, scientific, journalistic literature. Particles almost, almost, hardly do not function in those styles of speech in which the goals and conditions of communication allow, assume or even make it necessary to express the author's subjective attitude to what is being said about reality or to reality itself. Being a means of qualifying the speaker's own attitude to the described fragment of reality, they belong to the following functional styles of speech: colloquial, artistic, journalistic, scientific.
Below we give examples of the use of these particles. In colloquial style texts: It's five degrees at school, and they come almost naked (GT); This is almost his only normal role as a GT); journalistic style: But for some reason, these rights are lost almost from birth (V. Gurangov, VDolokhov);
The hope was not justified. The Marquis is not only not forgotten, but also immortalized in almost all European languages the terrible word “sadism” formed on his behalf (R. Kireev); in texts of fiction: The report was prepared long ago and almost learned by heart, but
Trubachevsky was still worried (V. Kaverin); He spoke of a library acquired almost a year before he left
Mee / from the international book "(V. Kaverin); “On the regime, by the way, I
I don't care, - Vlasyev answered almost calmly. “I am here and now hardly freer than I was in tsarist times” (V. Zvyagintsev); in the texts of the scientific style (educational and scientific substyle): S.I. Ozhegov also saw this, many of whose statements make it possible to think that the correctness of speech was almost identified by the scientist with its culture
B.N. Golovin); Almost every really great writer, both Russian and Western European, wrote and, in any case, thought about such concepts as the correctness of language (speech), its accuracy, expressiveness, imagery, beauty, etc. (B.N. Golovin);
Displacement" of such excitations from the genitals to other organs in psychological experiment you can hardly prove it (P. Kutter).
The use of these particles is not typical for the official business style, since it violates the communicative qualities of speech that are important for these styles, such as accuracy and relevance (for example:
D Ivanova, I almost ask you to consider me Petrova on the basis of a marriage certificate *). The particle is almost recorded in some dictionaries of the Russian language with a stylistic mark colloquial [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language / Ed. D.N.Ushakova
1994], however, it is used not only in texts of journalistic and artistic styles, but also in educational scientific style on a par with less commonly used stylistically neutral (or even with a touch of bookishness) particles synonymous with it, almost and hardly not. The use of the particle almost in a scientific style is probably due to the fact that, on the one hand, it gives the texts more expressiveness, and on the other hand, being a consequence of the non-categorical opinion of the author, it sharpens the perception of the content of the sentence by the reader, for example: Is it really necessary
22 to remind that M. Gorky, defending the classical Russian language, was forced to teach almost the basics of literary and linguistic literacy of many people who loudly called themselves writers, without having the most necessary for their souls - knowledge of the norms of the literary language (B.N. .Golovin).
The sources of the research material were texts created in the period of the end of the 19th century. - the beginning of the 21st century, since it was at this time that particles almost, almost, hardly begin to be actively used in writing and are recorded in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries of service words, etc. (in the dictionaries of the Russian language of the 11th - 18th centuries, the studied particles are not recorded, and in the dictionary of V. Dahl a language example with a particle is given almost in the article about the particle a little). The volume of sources of language material is more than 250 units.
The number of studied sentences containing particles is almost, almost, hardly not, about 1500 thousand. This amount of language material turned out to be enough to identify models and analyze their implementations. However, in sections 2.2.1. - 2.2.3, if there are no units built according to the analyzed model in the language material, sentences created by the author of the dissertation are given as an example. In the text of this work, they differ from units extracted from fiction and other works in that they do not contain the author's surname in brackets after the sentence. The use of constructs makes it possible to determine whether the absence of sentences built according to a certain model is the result of the incompatibility of a particle with the semantic structure reflected in this model.
It should be noted that the particles almost, almost, hardly differ in the frequency of use. (Conclusions about the frequency of use are made based on the language material of the dissertation, since these particles are not reflected in the frequency dictionary [Frequency Dictionary of the Russian Language 1977].) The most common particle is almost (more than 1000 cases of use), followed by almost (about 400 cases of use), the particle is unlikely to be used less often than the other two (only 9 cases of use were recorded). This is the reason for the limited amount of illustrative material with a particle and its repetition in the content of the presented study. However, we note that the presence of a small material with a particle is hardly not caused by objective reasons and is not a reason not to study it, especially since the value of this particle is invariant to the value of the other two.
The novelty of the study is: in the consideration of particles almost, almost, hardly not as components of the semantic structure of the sentence; in the construction (identification) of semantic models of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly not based on the features of the semantic structure of the sentence, understood broadly; in the analysis of implementations of sentence models with particles almost, almost, hardly.
For the first time, the particle is hardly the subject of a separate study.
The theoretical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that the dissertation supplements information about modal particles and expands
24 is the area of semantics that studies them. Modeling can be used in the analysis of all particles explicating the mode. The classes of models presented in this study and the modeling approach adopted complement supply theory.
The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of using the dissertation material for conducting special courses and special seminars on semantic syntax and morphology (when studying modal particles), as well as in creating dictionaries of function words. In the course of the study, techniques were applied that can be used in the analysis of other modal particles of the Russian language.
The following provisions are put forward for defense:
1. Particles almost, almost, hardly do not realize their semantics in the semantic structure of the sentence, while acting as the semantic components of the mode with the meaning of redundant assumption. Their presence is significant for the semantic structure of the sentence.
2. The particle is unlikely to express the meaning of "excessive assumption" in an unspecified form. In the semantics of particles, almost, almost this meaning is concretized by additional shades: 1) “exaggeration”; 2) "approximation" ("assumption").
3. In the semantic structure of the sentence, the studied particles function at the near-propositional level of the modus, adjoining the propositionally significant and propositionally insignificant components of the dictum as a semantic component "excessive assumption".
Adjacency to Propositionally Significant Components
25 is capable of making a change in the qualitative propositional characteristics of the sentence.
4. The value of the particle and the type of the serviced component determine the semantic radius of the particle (the "length" of its influence on the semantics of the sentence), which is represented by the following types: a) near, b) near complicated, c) far, d) far complicated, and e) far modifying .
5. The semantic structure of sentences with particles almost, almost, hardly can be reflected with the help of models, the analysis of which makes it possible to reveal the features of the implementation of the semantics of these particles in the aspect of their adjacency to the serviced component.
6. An analysis of the implementations of the models presented in the study suggests that there are a number of regularities in the functioning of particles almost, almost, hardly at the model level, which consist in the mutual influence of particles on the semantics of the sentence and the model of the sentence on the semantics of particles.
Approbation of the study. The research materials were presented at the All-Russian scientific and practical conference"Russian language and culture of speech as a discipline of state educational standards higher professional education: experience, problems, prospects” (Barnaul, 2003); at the Interregional Scientific Conference "Russian Syntax: New in Theory, Methodology, Object" (Barnaul, 2003); at the V All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists "Actual Problems of Linguistics, Literary Studies and Journalism" (Tomsk, 2004); on the International Conference"Culture and Text" (Barnaul, 2005).
The main provisions of the study and its results were discussed at postgraduate seminars at the Department of Theory of Communication, Rhetoric and the Russian Language of Altai state university(2004) and the departments of modern Russian language and general linguistics of the Barnaul State Pedagogical University(2004, 2005). The content of the study was reflected in 6 published papers. The total volume of publications is 2 pp.
The structure of the thesis is an introduction, two chapters with conclusions, a conclusion, a list of references, including 220 titles, and a list of accepted abbreviations and symbols.
Similar theses in the specialty "Russian language", 10.02.01 VAK code
Inferential Aspect of Semantics in the Context of Sentence Authorization in Modern Russian 2011, candidate of philological sciences Etko, Anna Gennadievna
Language expressions with modal lexemes necessary, necessary, must / must, ought to, have to 2006, candidate of philological sciences Terre, Dina Anatolyevna
Gradual function of multi-level means of language in the formation of the dictum content of the sentence 2003, candidate of philological sciences Beloglazova, Elena Vladimirovna
Semantic type of proposition and its manifestation in modern Russian speech: On the basis of statements containing information about smells 1999, candidate of philological sciences Geiko, Elena Vasilievna
Proposition and modality 1997, Zelenshchikov, Alexander Vasilyevich
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Russian language", Yushkova, Elena Sergeevna
Modeling is based on the understanding of the semantic structure of a sentence as a two-part, dictum-modus organization of meaning. Dictum and modus are understood as completely different, but interconnected and equal semantic essences of the sentence. This approach allowed us to combine the components of the objective and subjective levels of meaning in the model scheme. The objective level is conveyed through the concept of a propositive structure that has a predicate-argumental organization, the subjective level is represented by the semantic component “excessive assumption”, which at the grammatical level is expressed by particles almost, almost, hardly.
At the first stage, the basic models were identified, which reflect the propositive structure of sentences: x Psushch. (loc.); x PC0St.; x RDVIzh. (LOC.), X Replay Do? X Ract. (Y z), X Rcharact. ? X U" X Rotnosh. Y-Total 8 models.
On their basis, by including in the SKIP scheme, modified models were created (for example: x SKIP ROTnosh. y) - A total of 23 models.
At the second stage of modeling, schemes were constructed that reflect the combination of SCIP with fragments of the propositive structure and components not included in it: (SCIP) non-predicately expressed proposition (nvp); (SKIP) locative; (SKIP) temporative; (SKIP) omission. attribute; (SKIP) non-omission, attribute; (SKIP) quantifier; (SKIP) non-propositive component (VPK). SKIP in them represents SKIP 1a, SKIP 16 and SKIP 2.
Having considered the implementations of sentence models with particles almost, almost, hardly, we came to the following conclusions:
1. The semantics of these particles is not compatible with the semantics of the existence predicate, since they inevitably "switch" the type of the proposition of the sentence from the proposition of existence to the proposition of logical characterization. It is noteworthy that with all event propositions, SCIP 1a, SCIP 16 and SCIP 2 can function, and with the existence predicate (which is immediately transformed into a characterization predicate), only SCIP 1a is used.
2. Sentences with a logical proposition of characterization allow adjoining to the predicate SCIP 1a, 16 and 2, expressed by particles almost, almost, hardly. In this case, the most typical is the adjacency to the predicate SKIP 1a, expressed almost and SKIP 16, expressed almost.
3. SKIP 2, expressed by particles, almost, almost, is not combined with actants, sirconsts and attributes, since the concretizing meaning of “approximation” (“admission”) can only qualify an action, sign, quality, state and therefore is combined only with predicates and non-predicately expressed propositions.
4. The following factors can influence the implementation of a particular meaning by a particle in a sentence: the subject / object type of the actant (with the subject actant, SKIP 1a is more often used); I / he is the subject in the sentence (in the first case, the use of SKIP 1a is less likely, in the second, all three variants of SKIP can be used); temporary
123 actualization (SKIP la is more often used in the assumption of a fact in the future, SKIP 2 - in the qualification of a fact that has already happened).
5. The difference between particles almost, almost, hardly not as semantic components in the semantic structure of a sentence is as follows: particles almost and almost function in sentences with event and logical propositions as SCIP 1a, 16 and 2.
For a particle, almost at the same time, it is most typical to act as SCIP 16, adjoining attributes, quantifiers, circ constants in the characterization proposition and components not included in the propositional structure.
It is almost typical for a particle to act as SCIP 1a, then SCIP 16 and adjoin the components of the event proposition of action and the logical proposition of characterization.
It is hardly uncharacteristic for a particle to act as SCIP 1a and adjoin the predicate of event propositions (action propositions, in the first place).
Particles almost, almost, hardly, acting as
SCIPs in the semantic structure of a sentence exhibit the following properties: they react to the propositional and semantic type of the served component, influence its classification features, correct the semantics of the sentence, adjoining various propositional and non-propositional components.
Conclusion
The study of particles almost le, hardly tie, hardly not in the aspect of their functioning in the semantic structure of the sentence was due to the following reasons: firstly, these particles are a means of expressing modus semantics in a sentence, and secondly, it was assumed that they take part in the process of interaction between dictum and mode. The study of them in the semantic structure of the sentence made it possible to determine the nuances of their semantic representations and preferences in adjoining as semantic components to the components of the prepositive structure and the components of the sentence that are outside the proposition.
The chosen research methodology corresponds to the object under study, it allowed to obtain new data on the functioning of particles almost, almost, hardly not in a sentence.
In the course of the study, the linguistic meanings of particles were analyzed almost, almost, hardly, recorded by various dictionaries, including dictionaries of functional words, as a result of which the most typical meanings were identified: 1) particles are used to express an assumption; this value has two modifications: a) particles are used to express a confident assumption (meaning almost complete confidence, slight doubt); b) particles are used to express an assumption containing an exaggeration; 2) particles are used to indicate an incomplete measure of something, any sign, action, state.
The studied particles realize their semantics in a sentence, which in the aspect of its semantic organization
125 is binomial and includes dictum and modus. Particles almost, almost, hardly do not explicate the mode, adjoining the dictum (the components that make it up) as a semantic component.
Based on the linguistic meaning of particles, the meanings expressed by these particles in a sentence as modus components of semantics are revealed, the structure of this meaning is determined, namely: the basic meaning is “assumption”, the first concretizing (common and mandatory for all three particles) is “redundancy”, the second concretizing (for the studied particles - and differentiating) - a) "exaggeration" and b) "approximation" ("assumption"). The particle hardly expresses a “pure” excess assumption, not specified by additional meanings, particles almost and almost - the meaning of “excess assumption” in three versions: excess assumption, excess assumption plus exaggeration and excess assumption plus approximation (assumption).
Each of the studied particles has its own radius of influence on the semantics of the sentence, which is determined by the type of component to which the particle adjoins: a combination with a propositional predicate component implies a far and far modifying radius; combination with a propositional non-predicate component implies the implementation of the semantics of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the near radius. The presence of differences in the radius of the particles and within the radius of one particle indicates a different degree of participation of these particles in the organization of the meaning of the sentence, depending on what it adjoins.
In the course of the study, the thesis about the interaction of dictum and modus in sentences with particles was confirmed almost, almost, hardly. It was found that this interaction takes place when any of the studied particles adjoins the predicate center of the proposition of existence as SCIP 1a. The essence of this interaction is that the particle affects the qualitative propositional characteristic of the sentence, giving the event proposition of existence the signs of a logical proposition of characterization. In this function, the particles are almost, almost, hardly not close to braces, explicating logical propositions in a sentence.
The semantic implementations of particles are almost, almost, hardly dependent on the type of component they serve. In this regard, we have built sentence models in which the studied particles function. The modeling was based on the principle of two-part organization of the meaning of the sentence. The constructed models, although they reflect (partially) the so-called deep structures, do not differ in “depth”, due to the fact that they are designed to explicate, first of all, the associative possibilities of particles in the semantic structure of the sentence.
The simulation was carried out in two stages. At the first stage, models of the first level were identified, at the second - models of the second level.
Models of the first level proposals are represented by two groups: basic and modified. Basic models reflect the propositional structure of sentences containing event
127 and modified logical propositions contain the semantic component "excessive assumption". We noted that the studied particles occupy a special position in the semantic model, since they have a different status than the components of the base model. The relations of derivation are not always preserved between the base and the modified model, models x Rsusch. (loc.) and x (SKIP 1a) Rsusch. (loc.) are not correlated, since the particles, acting in the function SKIP 1a, transform the type of the proposition and the class of the predicate. The second, modified model is thus inadequate to the sentences that are built on it, since another proposition finds expression in them - the proposition of characterization.
Models of the second level reflect the combination of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the role of a special semantic component with fragments of the prepositive sentence structure and components not included in it. These models constitute propositions expressed in a non-predicate way, locatives, temporatives, attributes, quantifiers, non-propositional components - and the semantic component "overproposition" in each of its variants.
At the stage of identifying semantic models of sentences containing redundantly conjectural particles, almost, almost, hardly, we assumed that each of the models can be implemented in a sentence with any of the studied particles. An analysis of the implementations of proposal models made it possible to identify the following regularities.
With all event propositions, the functioning of SKIP 1a, SKIP 16 and SKIP 2 is possible, and with the existence predicate (which is immediately converted into a predicate
128 characterization) only SKIP 1a is used. The semantics of these particles is not consistent with the semantics of the existence predicate.
Sentences with a logical proposition of characterization allow adjacency to the SCIP predicate 1a, 16 and 2, expressed by particles almost, almost, hardly. In this case, the most typical is the adjacency to the predicate SKIP 1a, expressed almost and SKIP 1 b, expressed almost.
SKIP 2, expressed by particles, almost, almost, is not combined with actants, sirconsts and attributes, since the concretizing meaning of “approximation” (“assumption”) can only qualify an action, attribute, quality, state and therefore is combined only with predicates and unpredicately expressed propositions.
Differences between particles are revealed almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of the sentence: particles almost and almost function in sentences with event and logical propositions in the role of SCIP 1a, 16 and 2. For a particle, almost in this case, the most typical is to act as SKIP 16, adjoining attributes, quantifiers, circ constants in the characterization proposition and components not included in the propositional structure. It is almost typical for a particle to act as SCIP 1a, then SCIP 16 and adjoin the components of the event proposition of action and the logical proposition of characterization. It is hardly uncharacteristic for a particle to act as SCIP 1a and adjoin the predicate of event propositions (action propositions, in the first place).
The following factors influence the semantic status of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the semantic structure of a sentence: the linguistic meaning of the particle (for example, the linguistic meaning of the particle hardly predetermines its functioning only as SCIP 1a); connection with the propositional - non-propositional component of semantics (for example, SKIP 2, expressed by particles almost and almost combined only with a predicate or proposition expressed in a different, non-predicate way); the type of the proposition and the class of the predicate, respectively (for example, the far modifying radius of particles is almost, almost, hardly not characteristic of them only if they, in the role of SCIP 1a, are adjacent to the predicate of the event proposition of existence); the subjective/objective type of the actant (with the subjective actant, the “excessive assumption” component is more often used in an unspecified form); I / he is the subject in the sentence (with the I-subject, the use of SKIP 1a is less likely, with the he-subject, all three variants of the SKIP can be used); this factor is interconnected with the following: temporal actualization (SKIP 1a is more often used in the assumption of a fact in the future, SKIP 2 - in the qualification of a fact that has taken place; the connection with the previous factor lies in the fact that SKIP 1a is used in a sentence with the I-subject only in if the assumption refers to the future; the context of the sentence, sometimes a wider context (this factor was not the subject of a special study in the work).
In the event that none of the above conditions takes place, the ability of the studied particles to function as a semantic component of one or another semantics at the request of the speaker comes to the fore. In the mind of a native speaker, there is an idea of the differences in the semantics of each of the particles, so he can use any of them in a certain meaning, based on the characteristics of the represented situation, the situation of speaking and his own intentions.
The undertaken dissertation research made it possible to determine the semantic features of the particles almost, almost, hardly not, as well as the nature of their participation in the organization of the semantic structure of the sentence. In the perspective of research is the study of particles almost, almost, hardly not in the following aspects. It is required to determine the reasons for the use of these particles as various semantic components in sentences built according to one basic model (the answer to this question probably lies in the field of utterance pragmatics). Further, due to the fact that not all of the identified models are confirmed in the linguistic material, we assume that if the amount of linguistic material is, for example, more than six thousand, new features of the studied particles may be found both in the field of their semantics and in areas of their use. In this regard, it will be interesting to compare the particles in a stylistic aspect.
It seems important to explore the features of a linguistic personality that uses these particles in their speech (based on the fact that some authors use particles almost, almost, hardly on the pages of their works quite regularly, others do not
131 are used at all). Extra-linguistic factors should also be considered, prompting the speaker to use particles almost, almost, hardly.
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Yushkova, Elena Sergeevna, 2005
1. Avetyan E.G. Meaning and meaning. Yerevan: Yerevan Publishing House, University, 1979.-412 p.
2. Alefirenko N.F. Controversial problems of semantics. Volgograd: Change, 1999.-274 p.
3. Alisova T.B. Additional relations of modus and dictum // Questions of linguistics. 1971. No. 1.-S. 54-64.
5. Apresyan Yu.D. Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics. M.: Enlightenment, 1966. - 304 p.
6. Apresyan Yu.D. Selected writings: In 2 vols. T. 1. Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language. M.: Nauka, 1974. -472 p.
7. Apresyan Yu.D. Selected works: In 2 vols. V. 2. Integral description of the language and system lexicography. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1995. - 766 p.
8. Apresyan Yu.D. Domestic theoretical semantics at the end of the 20th century // Izvestiya Ros. Acad. Sciences. Ser. lit. and yaz. 1999. V.58. No. 4.-S. 39-53.
9. Arvat N.N. Semantic structure simple sentence in modern Russian. Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1984. - 152 p.
10. Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning: Logical and semantic problems. -M.: Nauka, 1976. -384s.
11. Arutyunova N.D. Semantic structure and functions of the subject // Izvestiya AN SSSR. Literature and Language Series. 1979. V. 38. No. 4. -FROM. 323-334.
12. Arutyunova N.D. Types of language values. Evaluation, event, fact. M.: Nauka, 1988. - 338 p.
13. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. - 895 p.
14. Arutyunova N.D., Shiryaev E.N. Russian proposal. Being type. M.: Russian language, 1983. - 193 p.
15. Bally S. General linguistics and questions French. M.: Izd-vo inostr. l-ry, 1955. - 416 p.
16. Beloglazova E.V. Gradual function of multi-level means of language in the formation of the dictum content of the sentence. Abstract diss.dokt. philol. Sciences. M., 2003. - 20 p.
17. Benveniste E. General linguistics. M.: Progress, 1974. - 447 p.
18. Bogdanov V.V. Semantic-syntactic organization of the sentence. JL: Leningrad University Press, 1977. - 204 p.
19. Boguslavsky I.M. Research on syntactic semantics. Scope logical words. M.: Nauka, 1985. - 175 p.
20. Bondarenko V.N. Negation as a logical-grammatical category. M.: Nauka, 1983. - 214 p.
22. Bondarko A.V. Grammatical meaning and meaning. L.: Nauka, 1978.- 175 p.
23. Bondarko A.V. On the interpretation of the concept of "meaning" // Dictionary. Grammar. Text. M.: Nauka, 1996. S. 316 - 321.
24. Bondarko A.V. Theory of Meaning in the System of Functional Grammar: Based on the Material of Rus. lang. M.: Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2002. - 736 p.
25. Bondarko A.V. Functional grammar. L.: Nauka, 1984. -136 p.
26. Vartofsky M. Models. Representation and scientific understanding. -sh M.: Progress, 1988.-506 p.
27. Vasiliev JI.M. Modern linguistic semantics. - M.: high school, 1990. 175 p.
28. Vasilyeva A.N. Particles of colloquial speech. M.: Ed. Moscow State University, 1964.- 130 p.
29. Vakhtel N.M., Golitsyna T.N. Sentence, utterance, speech act // Traditional and new in Russian grammar. Sat. Art. in memory of V.A. Beloshapkova. M., 2001. - S. 42 - 48.
30. Vezhbitska A. Semantics: primitives and universals // Linguistics * XX century: the system and structure of the language: reader / comp. E.A.
31. Krasina. M.: Publishing House Ros. University of Friendship of Peoples, 2004 - S. 59 - 72.
32. Vezhbitskaya A. Semantic universals and description of languages: Grammatical semantics. Key concepts of cultures. behavior scenarios. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. - 776 p.
33. Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M.: Russian dictionaries, 1997.-411 p.
34. Vinogradov V.V. On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language (1950) // Vinogradov V.V. Studies in Russian grammar. Selected works. M.: Nauka, 1975. - S. 53 - 87.
35. Vinogradov V.V. Basic questions of sentence syntax (1955) // Vinogradov V.V. Studies in Russian grammar. Selected works. M.: Nauka, 1975. - S. 254 - 294.
36. Vinokur T.G. Patterns of stylistic use of language units. M.: Nauka, 1980. - 27 p.
37. Vladimirskaya JI.M. Status of the affirmative/negative category in modern German. Abstract dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. Barnaul: Barn Publishing House. state ped. un-ta, 1999. - 29 p.
38. Volodin A.P., Khrakovsky B.C. From proposition to sentence semantics // Typology of constructions with predicate actants / Ed. ed. V.S. Khrakovsky. L .: Nauka, 1985. - S. 9 - 17.
39. Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. M.: Nauka, 1985.-228 p.
40. Vsevolodova M.V., Guo Shufen. Classes of Russian simple sentence models and their typical meanings. Models of Russian sentences with static predicates and their speech realizations (in the mirror of the Chinese language). M.: (ACFI), 1999. -169 p.
41. Gak V.G. Statement and situation // Problems of structural linguistics. M.: Publishing house Kalinin, state. at-ta, 1973. S.349-372.
43. Gatinskaya N.V. Modal words of appearance in Russian: characteristics and relationship with other categories // Semantics and pragmatics of language units. Ufa, 1999. - S. 61 - 68.
44. Grammar of the Russian language. T.2. Syntax. 4.1. - M.: Publishing House of Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1960. 703 p.
45. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M.: Nauka, 1970, - 767 p.
46. Greimas A.-J. Structural semantics: the search for a method. - M.: Academic project, 2004. 367 p.
47. Gurevich V.V. On the "subjective" component of linguistic semantics // Questions of Linguistics. 1998. No. 1. - S. 27 - 35.
48. Danesh F. Prague studies in the field of structural grammar at the present stage // Linguistics of the XX century: system and structure of the language: reader / comp. E.A. Krasin. M.: Publishing House Ros. University of Friendship of Peoples, 2004 - S. 221 - 234.
49. Danesh F. Problems of levels from the point of view of the structure of the utterance and the system of language means // Linguistics of the XX century: the system and structure of the language: a reader / comp. E.A. Krasin. M.: Publishing House Ros. University of Friendship of Peoples, 2004 - S. 235 - 244.
50. Demeshkina T.A. The theory of dialectal utterance. Aspects of semantics. Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 2000. - 190 p.
51. Demyankov V.Z. "Event" in semantics, pragmatics and in the coordinates of text interpretation // Izvestiya AN SSSR. Ser. lit. and yaz. T. 42. 1983. No. 4.- S. 320-329.
52. Dmitrovskaya M.A. Knowledge and opinion: the image of the world, the image of a person // Logical analysis of language. M.: Nauka, 1988. S. 6 - 18.
53. Dolzhenko V.Yu. Formation of the category "meaning" as a problem of historical and psychological research. Dis. . cand. psycho, science. Barnaul, 2001. - 22 p.
54. Dyachkova N.A. Polypropositive structures in the sphere of a simple sentence (Constructions with an included predicate in the subjective position). Abstract of diss. . doc. philol. Sciences. Yekaterinburg, 2003. - 30 p.
55. Jespersen O. Philosophy of grammar. Moscow: Izd-vo Inost. l-ry, 1959.-404 p.
56. Zvegintsev V.A. The sentence and its relation to language and speech. -M.: Ed. Moscow state un-ta, 1976. 308 p.
57. Zvegintsev V.A. Language and linguistic theory. M.: Editorial URSS, 2001.-248 p.
58. Zeldovich G.M. Semantic interaction of the sentence modus and the particle "at least" // Philol. science. 1991. No. 1. pp. 112-117.
59. Zolotova G.A. Communicative grammar of the Russian language / Zolotova G.A., Onipenko N.K., M.Yu. Sidorova / Ed. G.A. Zolotova. M.: Ed. Moscow State University, 1998. - 528 p.
60. Zolotova G.A. Communicative aspects of Russian syntax. -M.: Nauka, 1982.-368 p.
61. Zolotova G.A. Essay on the functional syntax of the Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1973. - 351 p.
62. Ivanova V.I. The plan of the content of the sentence-statement. Abstract diss.dokt. philol. Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1998. - 22 p.
63. Ivanova L.P. Structural-functional analysis of a simple sentence. Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1991. - 166 p.
64. Karabykov A.V. The problem of constitutive features of a sentence in Russian linguistics of the 18th and 21st centuries. -Omsk: Om Publishing House. state un-ta, 2005. - 210 p.
65. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M.: Editorial URSS, 2002.-263 p.
67. Kasevich V. B. Semantics, syntax, morphology. M.: Nauka, 1988.-311 p.
68. Kasevich V. B. Elements of general linguistics. M.: Nauka, 1977. -183 p.
70. Kiselev I.A. Particles in modern East Slavic languages. Minsk: Publishing house of BSU im. V.I. Lenina, 1976. - 135 p.
71. Kobozeva I.M. Linguistic Semantics: Textbook. -M.: Editorial URSS, 2000. 350 p.
72. Kobozeva I.M. Problems of particle description in studies of the 80s // Pragmatics and semantics. Sat. scientific and analytical reviews. M.: INION, 1991. - S. 147 - 175.
73. Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language. Word order and actual division of the sentence. M.: Enlightenment, 1976. -239 p.
74. Kodukhov V.I. General linguistics. M.: Higher school, 1974. -303 p.
75. Kokorina S.Yu. Modal particles as pragmemes in the system of speech. Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 2002. - 20 p.
76. Kolshansky V.G. Some questions of the semantics of the language in the epistemological aspect // Principles and methods of semantic research. M., 1976, - S. 5-30.
77. Kolshansky G.V. To the question of the content of the language category of modality // Problems of linguistics. 1961. No. 1. pp. 94 - 98.
78. Kolshansky G.V. The ratio of objective and subjective factors in the language. M.: Nauka, 1975. - 231 p.
79. Kopylov O.N. Interaction of qualifying modus meanings in the text (authorization and persuasiveness) / Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. Phil. Sciences. Vladivostok, 2003. - 23 p.
80. Kravchenko A. V. Classification of signs and the problem of the relationship between language and knowledge//Questions of linguistics. 1999. No. 6.- S. 3-12.
81. A brief guide to the modern Russian language / L.L. Kasatkin, E.V. Klobukov, P.A. Lekant; ed. P.A. Lekanta. -M.: Higher school, 1995. 382 p.
82. Kreidlin V.G. Service words in Russian. Semantic and syntactic aspects of their study. Abstract diss. philol. Sciences. M., 1979. - 20 p.
83. Krivonosov A.T. On the Semantic Nature of Modal Particles (Problem Statement) // Filol. science. 1982. No. 2. pp. 50 - 58.
84. Krongauz M.A. Semantics. M.: Ed. Center "Academy", 2005. -351 p.
85. Kubryakova E.S. Round table on problems of cognitive linguistics // Questions of Philology. 2000. No. 2. - S. 112-114.
86. Kubryakova E.S. The nominative aspect of speech activity. M.: Nauka, 1986.- 156 p.
87. Lyons J. Linguistic semantics. Introduction. M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2003. - 400 p.
88. Lekant P.A. The syntax of a simple sentence in modern Russian. M.: Higher school, 1986. - 175 p.
89. Linguistic research at the end of the 20th century: a collection of reviews. - M., 2000.-214 p.
90. Lomtev T.P. Fundamentals of the syntax of the modern Russian language.-M.: Izd-vo Mosk. state un-ta, 1958. 166 p.
91. Lomtev T.P. The sentence and its grammatical categories. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. state un-ta, 1972. 198 p.
92. Lomtev T.P. Sentence structure in modern Russian. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1979. - 198 p.
93. Lotman Yu.M. Inside the thinking worlds. Human text - semiosphere - history. - M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. -447 p.
94. Maysak T.A., Tatevosov S.G. The space of the speaker in the categories of grammar, or what cannot be said about oneself? // Questions of linguistics. 2000. No. 5. pp. 68 - 80.
95. Markelova T.V. Interaction of evaluative and modal meanings in Russian // Philol. science. 1996. No. 1. pp. 80 - 89.
96. Markelova T.V. Semantics and pragmatics of means of expressing evaluation in Russian // Philol. science. 1995. No. 3. 67 - 79.
97. Marusenko N.M. The specificity of the semantics of service units. Pragmatic functions of particles in an utterance. Abstract diss. philol. Sciences. St. Petersburg: St. Pete Publishing House. state un-ta, f 1997.- 20 p.
98. Matkhanova I.P. Statements with state semantics in modern Russian. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of NGPU, 2000. -149 p.
99. Methods of linguistic research. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1988.-95 p.
100. Meshchaninov I.I. Offer structure. M. - JL: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963.- 104 p.
101. Morokhovskaya E.Ya. The main aspects of the general theory of linguistic models. Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1975. - 248 p.
102. Moskalskaya O.I. Problems of the system description of syntax. -M.: Higher school, 1974. 124 p.
103. Nagorny I.A. Expression of predicativity in a sentence with modal-predicative particles. Barnaul: Ed. Barnaul, Mrs. ped. un-ta, 1998. - 131 p.
104. Nagorny I.A. Predicative functions of modal-persuasive particles. Barnaul: Ed. Barnaul, Mrs. ped. un-ta, 2000. - 309 p.
105. Nagorny I.A. Semantics of particles “hardly”, “hardly” // Russian language at school. 1993. No. 3. pp. 93 - 97.
106. Nagorny I.A. Functional perspective of sentences with modal-persuasive particles. Barnaul: Ed. Barnaul, Mrs. ped. un-ta, 2001. - 125 p.
107. German G.P. Semantic-syntactic means of expressing modality. Rostov-on-Don: Ed. Growth, un-ta, 1989. - 142 p.
108. Nemets G.P., Baikova L.I. On the pragmatics of the modality of a polypredicative sentence // Pragmatic and textual characteristics of predicative and communicative units. - Krasnodar, 1987. S. 13 - 18.
109. Nikolaeva T.M. Functions of particles in the utterance: On the material of Slavic languages. M.: Nauka, 1985. - 168 p.
110. Nikulicheva D.B. Influence of the language structure on the system of its description // Izvestiya Ros. Acad. Sciences. Ser. lit. and yaz. 2000. V. 59. No. 3. pp. 16-24.
111. General linguistics: The internal structure of the language / Otv. ed. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1972. - 565 p.
112. General linguistics: Methods of linguistic research / Ed. ed. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1973. - 318 p.
113. Onipenko N.K. Linguistic units and context / N.K. Onipenko, E.N. Nikitina // Russian literature. 2004. No. 3. pp. 53 - 55.
114. Pavilionis R.I. The problem of meaning: A modern logical-philosophical analysis of language. M.: Thought, 1983. - 286 p.
115. Paducheva E.V. Statement and its correlation with reality: referential aspects of the semantics of pronouns. Moscow: Nauka, 1985. - 271 p.
116. Paducheva E.V. On the semantics of syntax: Materials for the transformational grammar of the Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1974.-292 p.
117. Paducheva E.V. Semantic research: Semantics of aspect and tense in Russian. The semantics of narrative. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1996. - 464 p.
119. Penkovsky A.B. Essays on Russian semantics. M. : Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2004. - 460 p.
120. Pereverzev K.A. Statement and situation: on the ontological aspect of the philosophy of language // Questions of linguistics. 1998. No. 5. S. 24 - 52.
121. Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1956.-511 p.
122. Plyaskina M.V. Expressive possibilities of introductory-modal words with the meaning of persuasiveness // Quantitative Linguistics and Semantics. Novosibirsk, 1999. - S. 109 - 119.
123. Popova Z.D. Minimal and extended structural schemes of a simple sentence as one-order signs of prepositive concepts // Traditional and new in Russian grammar. Sat. Art. in memory of V.A. Beloshapkova. M., 2001. - S. 30 - 45.
124. Pocheptsov G.G. Communicative aspects of semantics. Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1987. - 132 p.
125. Pocheptsov O.G. Fundamentals of the pragmatic description of the proposal. - Kiev: Vishcha school, 1986. 115 p.
126. Priyatkina A.F. Russian language: Syntax of a complicated sentence. M.: Higher school, 1990. - 200 p.
127. Problems of functional grammar: semantic invariance / variability / Ya.E. Akhapkina, N.N. Boldyrev, A.V. Bondarko and others. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003. - 398 p.
128. Protasova E.Yu. Functional pragmatics: a variant of psycholinguistics or general theory linguistics // Questions of linguistics. 1999. No. 1.-S. 142-155.
129. Raspopov I.P. To the question of predicativity // Questions of linguistics. 1958. No. 5. pp. 70 - 77.
130. Russian grammar: In 2 volumes / Ed. N.Yu. Shvedova and others. T. 1. M .: Nauka, 1980. - 783 p.
131. Russian grammar: In 2 volumes / Ed. N.Yu. Shvedova and others. T. 2. M .: Nauka, 1980. - 709 p.
132. Ryabova A.I. Structural and semantic types of complication of the Russian sentence. -M.: Ed. Moscow state un-ta, 1992. 173 p.
133. Ryabtseva N.K. Truth in the subject-modal context // Logical analysis of language. Truth and truth in culture and language. M.: Nauka, 1995. - S. 139 - 150.
134. Ryabtseva N.K. Communicative mode and meta-speech // Logical analysis of language: Language of speech actions. M.: Nauka, 1994. - S. 82 - 92.
135. Savosina L.M. Actualization paradigm of the sentence // Questions of linguistics. 1998. No. 3. pp. 141 - 150.
136. Seliverstova O.N. Contrastive syntactic semantics: (Experience of description). M.: Nauka, 1990. - 150 p.
137. Seliverstova O.N. On the object of linguistic semantics and the adequacy of its description // Principles and methods of semantic research. M.: Nauka, 1976. - S. 119 - 146.
138. Seliverstova O.N. Proceedings on semantics. M.: Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2004. - 959 p.
139. Semantic types of predicates. M.: Nauka, 1982. - 366 p.
140. Silnitsky G.G. Semantic types of predicates and semantic classes of verbs // Problems of structural linguistics 1972. - M.: Nauka, 1973.-32-43.
141. Smirnova T.N. Semantic structure of sentences with state predicates. Abstract diss. philol. Sciences. -Kharkov, 1986. 26 p.
142. Modern American Linguistics: Fundamental Directions: (Collection of Art.) / Ed. A.A. Kibrika and others. M. : Editorial URSS, 2002. - 477 p.
143. Modern Russian / Ed. V.A. Beloshapkova. - M., 1997.-820 p.
144. Hidden meanings: Word. Text. Culture: Sat. Art. in honor of N.D. Arutyunova / Resp. ed. Yu.D. Apresyan. M.: Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2004. - 879 p.
145. Starodumova E.A. Accent particles in Russian. - Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. un-ta, 1988. 292 p.
146. Starodumova E.A. Particles of the Russian language (multi-aspect description). Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. un-ta, 2002. - 293 p.
147. Steksova T.I. Persuasiveness and categoricalness // Modality in its connections with other categories. Novosibirsk: Ed. Novosib. state ped. un-ta, 1992. - S. 18-26.
148. Stepanov Yu.S. Names. Predicates. Sentences (Semiological Grammar). M.: Editorial URSS, 2002. -360 s.
149. Stepanov Yu.S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture. M.: Academic project, 2004. - 991 p.
150. Stepanov Yu.S. Methods and principles of modern linguistics. -M.: Nauka, 1975.-311 p.
151. Stolnaker R.S. Pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics: Issue. 16. Linguistic pragmatics. M.: Ed. Foreign l-ry, 1985.-S. 419-438.
152. Tatevosov S. G. Semantics of the constituents of the noun phrase: quantified words: scientific publication. M.: IMLI RAN, 2002. - 239 p.
153. Tenier L. Fundamentals of structural syntax. M.: Progress, 1988.-654 p.
154. Theory of functional grammar: Subjectivity. Objectivity. The communicative perspective of the utterance. Certainty / Uncertainty / Ed. A.V. Bondarko. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992. -304 p.
155. The theory of functional grammar: Temporality. Modality / ed. A.V. Bondarko. L.: Nauka, 1990. - 263 p.
156. Theory of functional linguistics: Personality. Collateral. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1991.-370 p.
157. Tokarchuk I.N. Particles in linguistic and speech aspects (on the material of particles simply and directly). Abstract diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Vladivostok, 2002. - 20 p.
158. Toporov V.N. Studies in etymology and semantics. T. 1. Theory and some of its particular applications. M.: Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2005 - 814 p.
159. Traditional and new in Russian grammar. Sat. Art. / Comp. T.V. Beloshapkova, T.V. Shmelev. M., 2001. - 327 p.
160. Trubnikova Yu.V. Derivational functioning of lexical units of the text. Abstract diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 1997.-22 p.
161. Uryson E.V. Problems of researching the language picture of the world: analogy in semantics. M.: Languages of the Slavs, cultures, 2003. - 223 p.
162. Fillmore Ch. Case of case // New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 10.-M.: Progress, 1981.-S. 45-58.
163. Fillmore C. The case case reopens // New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 10. - M.: Progress, 1981.-S. 59-64.
164. Fomenko Yu.V. On the linguistic status of the sentence // Questions of the structure and functioning of the Russian language. Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 1984. - S. 71 - 76.
165. Frumkina R.M. Linguistics yesterday and today // New literary review. 2001. No. 4. -p.147-360.
166. Frumkina R.M. Self-consciousness of linguistics: yesterday and tomorrow // Izvestiya Acad. Sciences. Ser. lit. and yaz. 1999. V. 58. No. 4. S. 28 - 33.
168. Chemist V.V. Predicativity and meaning // Means of expressing the predicative meanings of a sentence (Interuniversity collection of scientific papers). M.: Ed. Moscow region ped. inst., 1983. - S. 11 - 21.
169. Hoang Fe. Semantics of the utterance // New in foreign linguistics: Issue. 16. Linguistic pragmatics. M.: Ed. Foreign l-ry, 1985.-399-405.
170. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Categories and relations in syntactic theory // Linguistics of the XX century: the system and structure of the language: a reader / comp. E.A. Krasin. M.: Publishing House Ros. University of Friendship of Peoples, 2004 - S. 311 - 320.
171. Khrakovsky B.C. Semantics and typology of the imperative / A.P. Volodin, V.S. Khrakovsky. L.: Nauka, 1986. - 270 p.
172. Khrakovsky B.C. Theory of linguistics. Russian Studies. Arabistics. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. 449 p.
173. Chafe W. Meaning and structure of language // Linguistics of the XX century: the system and structure of the language: reader / comp. E.A. Krasin. - M .: Publishing house Ros. University of Peoples' Friendship, 2004, pp. 170 - 178.
174. Chafe Wallace L. Meaning and structure of language. M.: Progress, 1975.-432 p.
175. Human factor in language. Communication, modality, deixis / Resp. ed. T.V. Bulygina. M.: Nauka, 1992. - 280 p.
176. Human factor in language. Language and the generation of speech / Otv. ed. E.S. Kubryakova. M.: Nauka, 1991.-239 p.
177. The human factor in the language: Language mechanisms of expressiveness / Otv. ed. V.N.Telia. -M.: Nauka, 1991. 214 p.
178. Chernyshova A.IO. Particles in complex sentence. Kazan, 1997.- 164 p.
179. Chesnokov P.V. Semantic sentence structure // Semantic sentence structure. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of Rostov University, 1978. - S. 3 - 20.
180. Chuvakin A.A. Fundamentals of scientific research in philology / A.A. Chuvakin, L.A. Koschey, V.D. Morozov. Barnaul: Alt. state un-t, 1990.-84 p.
181. Chuvakin A.A. Functioning of a simple sentence // Questions of the structure and functioning of the Russian language. Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 1984. - S. 77 - 85.
182. Shaumyan S. On the concept of a linguistic sign // Language and culture: Facts and values. M., 2001.- S. 149-166.
183. Shakhmatov A.A. The syntax of the Russian language. L.: Uchpedgiz, 1941. -620 p.
184. Shvedova UFO. On the relationship between the grammatical and semantic structure of a sentence // Slavic Linguistics. VII International Congress of Slavists. Reports of the Soviet delegation. - M.: Nauka, 1973.-S. 57-74.
185. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. -M.: AN SSSR, 1960.-377 p.
186. Shelyakin M.A. Functional grammar of the Russian language. M.: Rus. lang., 2001.-288 p.
187. Shirokikh E.A. Semantic relations in the group of indefinite determinants. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Izhevsk: Udmurt Publishing House, state. un-ta, 2003. - 20 p.
188. Shmelev A.D. Russian language model of the world: Materials for the dictionary. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2002. 224 p.
189. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties. -M.: Nauka, 1977. 168 p.
190. Shmeleva T.V. The modus and the means of its expression in the utterance // Ideographic aspects of Russian grammar. M.: Ed. Moscow state un-ta, 1988. - S. 168 - 202.
191. Shmeleva T.V. semantic syntax. Krasnoyarsk: Ed. Krasnoyarsk, state un-ta, 1988. - 54 p.
192. Shmeleva T.V. Semantic organization of the sentence and the problem of modality // Actual problems of Russian syntax. - M.: Ed. Moscow state un-ta, 1984. S. 78 - 95.
193. Stein K.E. Semantics and syntactic functions subjective modal particles (on the basis of one thematic series). Abstract diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1977. - 20 p.
194. Shteling D.A. Grammatical semantics in English. The human factor in language. Moscow: MGIMO; CheRo, 1996. - 254 p.
195. Shteling D.A. On the heterogeneity of grammatical categories // Problems of Linguistics. 1959. No. 1. S. 55 - 64.
196. Shchur G.S. Field theory in linguistics. M.: Nauka, 1974. - 255 p.
197. Shchur M.G. Dictionary representation of Russian particles. Abstract . diss. M., 1999. -50 p.
198. Shchur M.G. Particles in explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language // Dictionary categories. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 83 - 87.
199. Yakovleva E.S. The word in the modal perspective of the utterance // Logical analysis of language. action models. M.: Nauka, 1992. - S. 115-122.
200. List of used dictionaries
201. Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. SPb., 2000.
202. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: In 4 volumes. -M., 1935.
203. Efremova T.F. Explanatory Dictionary of Service Parts of Speech of the Russian Language. M.: Russian language, 2001.
204. Kondakov N.I. Logical dictionary-reference book. Moscow: Nauka, 1975.
205. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary (Linguistics) / Ch. ed. V.N. Yartsev. -M., 1990.
206. Lopatin V.V., Lopatina L.E. Russian explanatory dictionary. M., 1997.
207. Preobrazhensky A. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: In 2 volumes.-M., 1910-1914.
208. Rogozhnikova R.P. Dictionary of word equivalents. Adverbial, service, modal unity. M.: Russian language, 1991.
209. Dictionary of the Russian language of the 18th century: Issue 1 15. - JL, 1984 - 1989.
210. Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries: Issue 1 - 15. - M., 1975 -1989.
211. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. M .: Publishing house "Russian language" Polygraphic resources, 1999.
212. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. M., 1985 - 1988.
213. Dictionary of service words of the Russian language / A.F. Priyatkina, E.A. Starodumova, G.N. Sergeeva and others. Vladivostok, 2001.
214. Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language: In 17 volumes.-M., 1950-1965.
215. Dictionary of structural words of the Russian language / Ed. V.V. Morkovkina. -M, 1997.
216. Modern philosophical dictionary / Under the general. ed. V.E. Kemerova. -M., 1998.
217. Sreznevsky I.I. Dictionary of the Old Russian language: In 2 volumes. M., 1989.
218. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / Ed. D.N. Ushakova: In 4 volumes.-M., 1994.
219. Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. - M., 1986-1987.
220. Frequency dictionary of the Russian language / Ed. L.N. Zasorina. M.: Russian language, 1977.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
The Chinese are considered almost the most hardworking nation in the world. They can work from dawn to dusk, seven days a week, but despite the "economic miracle", most of the country's population remains poor. Why is such hard work in China not being properly rewarded? This question was answered in a very simple way by a teacher from South Korea teaching his students the basics of economics.
At the 18th Congress that completed its work today communist party China's outgoing CCP Secretary General Hu Jintao in his report boldly promised that in 2020 the country's GDP will be twice as much as in 2010. He also said that in the next decade, China will overtake or even surpass the United States in terms of GDP.
However, the leader of the party and the country did not say anything about how exactly the leadership intends to solve the economic problems existing in the country, which made his statements for many look like another empty slogan, which the Chinese have heard a lot during the 60 years of the “red dynasty”.
Recently, an economics teacher from South Korea Choi Sung-ki, explaining the basics to his students economics literally in 20 minutes in simple words ironically told why most Chinese live in poverty.
Someone recorded his lecture on video and posted it on the Internet. Chinese netizens overlaid the video with Chinese captions and circulated it widely in the Chinese blogosphere, where it aroused great interest and discussion.
So, according to Choi, the main reason for the poverty of the Chinese is the income distribution scheme existing in the PRC, which widens the gap between the poor and the rich and has already become a brake on the country's further development.
That China, with the current system, is going to overtake the US economy, Choi called "big fantasy."
Choi's lecture was titled "Happy Americans and Our Pathetic Chinese Friends."
First, he said that many luxury items in China are much more expensive than in the States. Even a cinema ticket in China costs at least twice as much. However, at the same time, GDP per capita in China is 10 times less than the US. It turns out illogical - in a country with low incomes, high prices, but Choi found an explanation for this.
He took as an example 100 thousand dollars, which must be divided among 10 people. If these 10 people live in the USA, then each of them will receive 10 thousand dollars, and if they live in China, then one of them will receive 90 thousand, and the rest of them will receive a thousand and a tail.
In this scenario, most Chinese can only buy basic necessities, and only a small part of the elite is content with luxury goods. In turn, luxury sellers raise prices to keep their business from being unprofitable, Choi concludes.
As evidence of a different approach to the distribution of income, he cited some figures. A worker in South Korea earns an average of $10 an hour, in the US $20, in Germany $30 and in China only about $0.8. At the same time, the working week in China is considered the longest in the world.
If we divide income into labor (income from labor) and non-earned (income from property) in total GDP, we get the following picture: labor income makes up 58% of US GDP, about 44% of South Korea's GDP, and only 8% of China's GDP. According to Choi, this suggests that in the PRC, those who do nothing take most of the income, while those who work receive only about a tenth of the total income.
According to a Korean economist, China has been developing its economy all this time with the help of a general mobilization of resources. However, in order to achieve a degree where the main driving force is high labor productivity, it is necessary to have a large stratum of the middle class of society with high purchasing power, which in China so far, according to Choi, "is not observed at all."
At the end of the lecture, Choi emphasized that it is countries with a totalitarian regime that give rise to great social stratification. But at the same time, there is not a single example in the world when a totalitarian government could solve the problem of social stratification. Therefore, the economist argues, such countries will never join the ranks of developed countries.
As it turned out, in fact, the solution to the economic problems existing in China, from which social contradictions also follow, is quite simple. And it is unlikely that the communist leadership does not understand this. However, the party elite, for the enrichment of which the entire Chinese economy works, has not yet demonstrated its readiness to take such a step.
Polit.ru publishes new archival materials about the famine that engulfed some regions of the USSR in the early 1930s. A heated controversy continues around the history of the Holodomor, both in historical literature, and in journalism: recently, the point of view on the Holodomor as “the genocide of the people of Ukraine by the Stalinist regime” has become widespread. However, the documents recently declassified by the Federal Archival Agency allow, according to historians, to take a fresh look at the causes of the food crisis of 1932-33. The material was published in the new issue of the journal "Domestic Archives" (2009. No. 2).
Numerous sources, both introduced into scientific circulation by Russian historians in recent decades, and recently declassified as part of the Famine in the USSR 1929-1934 project of the Federal Archival Agency, irrefutably point to the inextricable link between the famine and Stalinist collectivization. It was with its deployment in the USSR that a food crisis arose, which culminated in 1932-1933. Already at the end of 1929 - beginning of 1930, in the zones of complete collectivization, facts of famine and even single deaths on its soil were recorded. The reason for them was the consequences of forced grain procurements in 1929, which created a shortage of food in the countryside. They were a direct result of the course of the Stalinist leadership towards forced industrialization, which required sources for its implementation. For this purpose, increased tasks were set for peasant farms for grain delivery. In 1930, in order to increase the marketability of grain production, a complete collectivization was launched.
On the connection between grain procurements, collectivization and industrialization at the turn of the 1920s-1930s. the correspondence of I.V. Stalin with V.M. Molotov. In a letter dated August 21, 1929, Stalin notes: "Grain procurement this year is the main thing in our practice - if we fail at this, everything will be crushed." A week later, in another letter, he pointed out: “Grain procurement went well ... If we win with bread, we will win in everything, both in the interior and in the foreign policy Stalin emphasizes the importance of grain procurement even more clearly in his letter of August 6, 1930: “Force the export of grain with might and main. This is now the nail. If we take out the grain, there will be loans."
The grain problem comes to the fore. Collective farms are forcibly planted. Bread was needed for export and to meet the needs of industrial centers, the flagships of the first five-year plan. This problem is being solved by means of a sharp increase in grain procurement plans. Thus, in 1930, state grain procurements, in comparison with 1928, doubled. A record for all years is exported from the villages on account of grain procurement Soviet power the amount of grain (221.4 million centners). In the main grain regions, harvesting averaged 35-40%, while in 1928 they fluctuated between 20-25%, and in the whole country they amounted to 28.7% of the harvested crop. Even more impressive were the results of the 1931 grain procurement campaign. Despite the losses due to drought, even more grain went into grain procurement than in the climatically favorable 1930 - 227 million centners. Of the 1932 harvest, grain procurements amounted to 182.8 million centners, more than two-thirds were provided by collective farms and state farms. What was the reason for such a rush?
The fact is that since 1930 the USSR began to pursue a policy of returning the status of tsarist Russia, lost as a result of the revolution, as the main exporter of grain to European countries. The Stalinist leadership set the goal of pushing the USA, Australia and Canada, which dominated there, from the European grain market. To do this, it was necessary to obtain on favorable terms export quotas for wheat in the amount of grain exports. pre-revolutionary Russia: not less than 5 million tons per year . And the Soviet Union is following this path, concluding with European countries relevant contracts. Such a line was optimal from the point of view of the possibilities available to the USSR to obtain currency for the needs of industrialization, but it required the accelerated collection and timely export of huge volumes of grain abroad. It could be obtained in a short time only by using the resources of the collective-farm-state-farm system created for this purpose. Otherwise, the USSR was expected to fail to fulfill export contracts and, as a result, to disrupt the industrialization plan.
August 24, 1930 I.V. Stalin wrote to V.M. Molotov about this: “It would be necessary to raise (now) the daily export rate to 3-4 million poods at least. Otherwise, we risk being left without our new metallurgical and machine-building (Avtozavod, Chelyabzavod, etc.) plants. wait with the export until the price of bread on the international market rises to the "highest point". reserves. But we don't have them. To wait, we need to have secured positions on the international grain market. And we haven't had any positions there for a long time - we are only gaining them now, taking advantage of the conditions that are specifically favorable for us created in this moment. In a word, we must madly speed up the export of grain.
According to the letter of the People's Commissar of Supply of the USSR A.I. Mikoyan I.V. According to Stalin on April 20, 1931, from the first collective farm harvest in 1930, 5.6 million tons of grain were exported to Europe. It was planned to send 3.75 million tons of wheat from next year's harvest abroad. In total for 1930-1933. at least 10 million tons of grain were exported from the USSR to Europe. It was "export on the bones", at the cost of death from starvation and suffering of millions of Soviet citizens, both in rural areas and in cities. According to V.P. Danilov, only the rejection of grain exports in 1932 would have made it possible to feed approximately 7 million people according to the norms of prosperous years, exactly as many as, most likely, became victims of the famine in 1933.
The overwhelming majority of victims were suffered by the main grain regions of the USSR - the zones of complete collectivization. It was in them that wheat and rye were traditionally grown for export. Moreover, the lion's share of Soviet grain exported in 1930 (70%) fell on two regions of the USSR - the Ukrainian SSR and the North Caucasian Territory, and the rest - on the Lower Volga and the Central Chernobyl region. A similar situation repeated itself in 1931. By the Decree of the STO of the USSR of August 17, 1931, tasks for grain exports were distributed as follows: Ukraine - 1350 thousand tons, North Caucasus - 1100 thousand tons, Lower Volga - 830 thousand tons, Middle Volga - 300 thousand tons (Doc. No. 1). Thus, the economic specialization of the regions directly affected the scale of the tragedy in specific regions of the USSR: the grain regions, the main breadbaskets of the country, suffered the most.
The sources reveal both the fundamentally unified mechanism for the emergence of famine in grain regions, and their gradual and simultaneous entry into it. In the Ukraine, the North Caucasus and other agrarian regions of the country, there was a huge shortage of food in the city, and especially in the countryside. For example, the first five-year plan provided for an increase in grain production from 731 million centners in 1927/1928 to 1,058 million in 1932/1933, i.e. from 36 to 45% of the average annual growth. In 1932, the real harvest of grain crops in the USSR amounted to 500-566 million centners, i.e. almost 2 times less than according to the plan of the first five-year plan, and 1.3 times less than before the start of collectivization. In the same series, there is a catastrophic reduction in the number of working and productive livestock, which most negatively affected both the results of field work and the level of nutrition of the population. During the years of collectivization, animal husbandry has lost half of its livestock and about the same amount of finished products. Only in 1958 did the country manage to exceed the level of 1928 in terms of the main types of animal husbandry.
The size of the food shortage in the country is evidenced by the facts of a sharp reduction by 1933 of state stocks of food grains. On February 9, 1931, according to the People's Commissar of Supply of the USSR A.I. Mikoyan, there were 1011 million poods of food on the balance sheet; in January 1933, their actual presence, according to the results of the inventory carried out by the Committee of Reserves at the STO of the USSR, amounted to 342 million poods, i.e. decreased by almost 3 times.
Forced collectivization also destroyed the centuries-old system of survival of the village in conditions of famine. As a result of grain procurements in the countryside, there were no insurance stocks of grain and other products in case of emergency: they went to the expense of procurements. Dispossession removed from rural life the owner, who traditionally helped the poor during the famine.
The Stalinist leadership did not want a famine, but created it by its policy in the field of planning mandatory state deliveries of agricultural products by collective farms, state farms and individual farms, as well as specific actions to fulfill them. Grain procurement planning turned out to be imperfect, like the entire Stalinist bureaucratic management system. agriculture countries under collectivization. Grain procurement plans were calculated on the basis of reports received from the localities on the size of sown areas in the regions and the average annual yield in them over several years. The main criterion for the size of the assignments for grain delivery was the growth in the sown area of the collective farm and state farm sector, on which the local authorities relied, reporting to the Center on the success of collectivization. This indicator was taken as a basis by the planning authorities (Narkomzem, Narkomsnab), setting the appropriate parameters. At the same time, they focused on the best collective farms and state farms, which further overestimated the plans for grain delivery.
In the memorandum of the People's Commissar of Agriculture of the USSR A.Ya. Yakovlev to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin on the system of grain procurements for 1933 of September 17, 1932, its fundamental shortcoming was that "the determination of the size of procurements for each individual collective farm is left only to the discretion of the district ... the district acts along the line least resistance, i.e. takes all the surplus bread."
The existing system of planning grain procurements in the early years of collectivization fully met the intentions of its organizers, since it was aimed at withdrawing the maximum amount of grain from the collective farms. This is directly indicated, for example, in the memorandum of A.I. Mikoyan I.V. Stalin, written in May 1932 and having a characteristic title - "On the rate of delivery of grain by collective farms and MTS." It reported that the actual norms for the delivery of grain by collective farms from the harvests of 1930-1931. "were significantly higher" than the established level and reached an average for the main grain regions in 1930 - 31.5%, in 1931 - 37%, and it was proposed, when concluding contractual agreements, not only to maintain these figures, but also to increase them to the level of 40% of the gross harvest.
The grain procurement planning system had a particularly negative impact on the individual sector of the agrarian economy. In order to force the individual farmers to join the collective farms, clearly inflated, unrealistic plans were set for them. Secretary of the OK All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of the TsChO I.M. Vareikis in a memorandum to I.V. On November 28, 1932, he reported to Stalin: “The main difficulty in grain procurement lies in the individual sector ... the grain procurement plans for the individual sector turned out to be significantly exaggerated, and the bulk of the unharvested grain was with the individual farmer, who puts up furious resistance, hides bread in pits, in neighbors, squanders it, etc." . The unfulfilled grain delivery plan of the individual farmers was shifted to the collective farm sector, further worsening its already difficult situation.
The obvious miscalculations of the Stalinist leadership in the field of state farm construction also played a negative role. According to his plan, grain and livestock farms were to become beacons, models for collective farmers and individual farmers in terms of the organization of production and high marketability of agricultural products, help them in establishing economic activities, and prove the advantage of large-scale mechanized production over small, based on manual labor. But the result was the opposite.
In the autumn of 1931, it became clear that the vast majority of state farms in the USSR were not in a position to fulfill the plans for grain procurement and supply of livestock products established for them. In the materials created on the initiative of I.V. Stalin, a special commission for checking the economic activities of state farms, which worked in the regions in October-November 1931, stated: "State farms ... actually hung on the neck of the state, deceived it in their reporting, demanded state support ... downplayed grain delivery plans and reported inflated numbers," in almost all of them "an enormous number of people were fed", "impossibly swollen states", which "ate up marketable products." The conclusion was drawn: "Under the current state of accounting, bread on state farms can be stolen by wagons." They were reduced delivery plans by increasing assignments to collective farms and individual farms.
Departmental confusion made it difficult for the Center to obtain reliable information. In a memorandum from the head of the ECU of the OGPU, Mironov, to Stalin dated November 12, 1931, it was said that the facts revealed by the OGPU were "a significant underestimation of the grain delivery plan for the Tractor Center" due to a delay in his apparatus received from the MTS additional information about the growth of sown areas under grain crops. On October 7, 1931, an employee of the central office of the OGPU Akulov reported to L.M. Kaganovich: "Reporting on grain procurements at Soyuzkhleb, Khlebzhivtsentr and Traktortsentr is in such a chaotic state that this year it is possible to repeat last year's gap between the actual availability of grain and the book balance ... which leads to the impossibility of judging the actual availability of bread" . In the same row, mass theft in the mills of Ukraine and other regions of the country.
The costs of planning grain procurements and managing agriculture were more than offset by administrative resources. Relying on state violence against the peasantry became the main method for solving the problems of creating collective farms, withdrawing food resources from the countryside for the needs of industrialization, and so on. Plans for grain procurement and other deliveries of agricultural products by collective farms, state farms and individual farms were established with the direct participation of Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich, with a focus on the highest possible level, without taking into account the interests of the peasants. So, for example, I.V. On February 1, 1931, Stalin approved the proposal of Ya.E. Rudzutak to ensure the implementation of the grain delivery plan by confiscating insurance and consumer funds from collective farmers, based on the fact that "they will have reserves in unthreshed bread" . In May 1932, the leader did not support local initiatives to stimulate collective farmers by setting fixed figures for sowing and grain delivery in the plans, despite the request of Leonov, Secretary of the East Siberian Regional Committee. At the same time, Stalin did not satisfy the request of the secretary of Kazkraykom F.I. Goloshchekin on the reduction of the grain procurement plan for Kazakhstan due to a decrease in the sown area for grain and the importation from Siberia of seeds that did not pass acclimatization and had a reduced germination capacity.
Plans were curtailed only when it became clear that, despite the powerful pressure from the Center, they would not be fulfilled in full and on time. But until this moment, personally from I.V. Stalin and his closest associates received threatening directives about the need to fulfill the plan at any cost, and all attempts by local authorities to achieve its reduction were resolutely suppressed. Here is just one typical example - a telegram dated September 10, 1932 from the first secretary of the Ural Regional Committee of the CPSU (b) I.D. Kabakov to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin with a request not to increase the September grain procurement plan (Doc. No. 8). The answer is negative (Doc. No. 9).
Stalin showed firmness in ensuring the fulfillment of grain delivery plans. So, in the second half of November 1931, a directive was sent to the localities, in which the party leadership was asked to "immediately organize a change in grain procurements." Otherwise, the issue of "change of leadership" with all the ensuing consequences threatened to be raised.
Mass repressions "on the basis of the fight against sabotage of grain procurements" in the autumn of 1932 unfolded in the grain regions of the USSR under the close supervision of I.V. Stalin, who encouraged and stimulated them. This is evidenced, for example, by his resolution on the telegram of L.M. Kaganovich and the leadership of the North Caucasus Territory of November 4, 1932 on repressive measures in the region: "This information is transmitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine, secretaries of the regional committees of Ukraine" . Another document is the directive of I.V. Stalin F.I. Goloshchekin of November 21, 1932 (Doc. No. 13): "To strike first of all at the communists in the regions and below the regions, who are entirely in captivity of the petty-bourgeois elements and who have fallen on the rails of kulak sabotage of grain procurements" . In the same row, approved by I.V. Stalin, the initiative of Chernov, chairman of the USSR Procurement Committee, dated November 25, 1932, on the need for repression "against the secretaries and chairmen of the Republic of Kazakhstan who disrupted the harvesting of wheat" .
Judging by the telegram to the localities dated November 29, 1932, the leader closely followed all the "facts of sabotage of grain procurements", demanding "to send to the Central Committee all copies of interrogations and reports on the case of sabotage of grain procurements." In a telegram to the Secretary of the Ural Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, I.D. Kabakov dated December 7, 1932 (Doc. No. 16), he said that "a party card will not save" a local asset from arrest, just as it happens in " Western Siberia, Ukraine, the North Caucasus ". On December 11, 1932, Stalin and Molotov sent a directive to the Lower Volga Territory: "Arrest, give 5-10 years to those who gave the order to stop the grain delivery." In a telegram to the secretary of the West Siberian regional committee of the CPSU (b ) Eikhe of December 20, 1932. Stalin welcomed Eikhe's "initiative against saboteurs and state farm leaders."
Finally, in late 1932 - early 1933, Stalin personally showed firmness at the stage of completing the grain procurement plan, which resulted in the actual confiscation of all food supplies from the rural population of the main grain regions, primarily Ukraine, the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga. This can be judged, for example, from the note of M.M. Khatayevich to Stalin dated October 22, 1932 (Doc. No. 10), which detailed the reasons for the failure of grain procurements (the fault of the Ukrainian leadership) and spoke of the impossibility of the republic's fulfillment of the plan without the use of emergency measures. In particular, it was reported that the unreceived bread could be taken only by identifying and seizing the hidden, plundered and improperly distributed bread, and further that these measures would require enormous pressure and huge organizational work. And it was deployed after the decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 1, 1933, according to which the Ukrainian peasants had to "voluntarily hand over to the state previously stolen and hidden bread." Otherwise, reprisals awaited them. In the Ukrainian SSR, they began in January 1933.
This is the time of grain procurement lawlessness not only in Ukraine, but also in the main grain regions of the country. In the resolution "On the fulfillment of the plan for the delivery of grain by state farms" on January 2, 1933, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks pointed out the need to arrest and prosecute the directors of state farms who did not fulfill the plan. Despite the deadline for completing grain procurements - the beginning of January, the Politburo of the Central Committee on January 22, 1933 decided: "Continue grain procurements in those areas and collective farms that have not yet fulfilled the annual plan for grain procurements." At the same time, on the initiative from above, in the grain regions, counter plans were sent to the collective farms that had already completed the procurement, which in fact meant the confiscation of all food resources.
The center literally "blood bound" the local leadership in grain procurement. So, on November 22, 1932, the Politburo granted "a special commission consisting of Kosior (general secretary of the Central Committee of the CP (b) U. - Auth.), S. Redens and Kiselev (CCC) for the period of grain procurements the right to finally decide on sentences to capital punishment punishment so that the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine once a decade reports on its decisions on these cases to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" .
It should be emphasized that local authorities, primarily the regional and republican party leadership, played a very negative role in causing a food disaster, for which they bear responsibility together with the central leadership. Many local leaders not only unconditionally carried out the orders of I.V. Stalin and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, but they themselves initiated repressions against the peasants, hushed up the real extent of the famine before the Center, and concealed their own miscalculations and mistakes with "victorious reports". All these phenomena stemmed from the nature of the Stalinist bureaucratic model, when for an official of any rank the main thing was the unquestioning, at any cost, the implementation of the orders of the leadership. At the same time, the Center encouraged the initiative of local authorities, which contributed to the solution of the task. So, on December 16, 1932, the Politburo of the Central Committee supported the initiative of the secretary of the Nizhny Novgorod regional committee of the CPSU (b) A.A. Zhdanov, received personally by I.V. Stalin, "on carrying out repressive measures in relation to the Spassky and Ardatovsky districts", which disrupted grain procurement plans (Doc. No. 17, 18). And the leadership of the Lower Volga Territory, by its telegram dated February 16, 1933, initiated the decision of the Politburo to establish a blockade of the starving regions of the region, following the example of Ukraine and the North Caucasus, in order to prevent peasants from leaving there (Doc. No. 22, 23).
We can confidently speak about the responsibility of the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U S.V. Kosior for the scale of the tragedy in Ukraine. First of all, according to the documents, conflicting information about the situation in the republic's agriculture came to the Center from Ukraine. For example, on March 16, 1932, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, in response to a telegram from Kosior to Stalin about the situation with seeds in the Ukrainian SSR, indicated that “the situation with seeds in Ukraine is many times worse than it follows from Comrade Kosior’s telegram, therefore The Politburo invites the Central Committee of the CP(b)U to take all measures in its power to avert the threat of disruption of sowing in Ukraine. On April 26, 1932, Kosior stated in a letter to Stalin: “We have individual cases and even individual villages starving, but this is only the result of local bungling, excesses, especially in relation to collective farms. Any talk about “famine” in Ukraine must be categorically discarded. The serious assistance provided to Ukraine gives us the opportunity to eliminate all such outbreaks." Stalin's reaction to this position of Kosior is characteristic. He demanded to check the state of grain procurements in the regions of Ukraine and report to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the measures taken (Doc. No. 4).
The inspector of the RKKA cavalry, member of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR S.M. Budyonny. Having familiarized himself with the situation, at meetings with collective farmers, he openly accused the local authorities, primarily the republican ones, of organizing the famine, which “for two years deceived the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the government about high yields”, brought “unrealistic plans” to the regions. As a result, collective farmers and individual farmers were "left hungry" . Budyonny's criticism aroused sharp objections from Kosior, who wrote to Kaganovich on June 30, 1932: "If Budyonny and other "benefactors" set the collective farmers and local organizations of Ukraine against us, then there is no need to talk about the fulfillment of this year's plan."
The position of S.V. Kosior reflect two notes addressed to I.V. Stalin with a difference of three days. The first - the above-mentioned secretary of the Dnepropetrovsk regional committee of the CP (b) U M.M. Khataevich dated March 12, 1933, the second - by Kosior himself dated March 15. Khataevich reported that he was "literally overwhelmed with daily reports and materials about cases of starvation deaths, swelling and diseases from starvation," that he "received more and more reports of corpse-eating and cannibalism," asked Stalin for additional food aid.
In his note in the section "On the difficult food situation in Ukraine," Kosior confirmed Khataevich's information about the famine in the republic. However, he noted that the information at his disposal from the field, both from the regional committees and through the OGPU, “on the extent of the hunger strikes is extremely contradictory” and “a serious and sober assessment of the situation without hushing up and glossing over, as well as without exaggeration and panic, in areas, as a rule, not yet. At the same time, Kosior "faked" Khataevich, pointing out that "Dnepropetrovsk advertises too much and sticks out its plight." He called the cause of the famine in Ukraine "bad management and an unacceptable attitude towards public good (losses, theft and waste of bread)." Kosior also condemned the actions of regional party leaders who, instead of "serious work" to mobilize internal resources, seek to "get help from the Center." As a result, Kosior asked Stalin to immediately give 300 thousand tons of grain for one Kiev region. The rest of the regions, according to him, will need it only by the beginning of the sowing season.
On April 26, 1933, Kosior informed the leader about the progress in handing over obligations to collective farms and individual farmers to hand over grain "according to the new law." The content of the note seemed so important to Stalin that he instructed: "Prepare 50 copies for distribution to the members of the meeting on May 12." Kosior believed that the main reason for all the difficulties was the "wrecking" activity of the Ukrainian People's Commissariat of Agriculture in accounting for the size of sown areas on collective farms. They were exaggerated in view of the "prospects for collectivization", as a result of which the plans for grain procurements exceeded the actual area of arable land.
In 1932-1933. mass famine struck not only Ukraine, but also the Volga region, the North Caucasus, the Central Chernozem region, the Urals, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan and other regions of the Soviet Union. The number of those who died as a result of famine in the regions turned out to be directly proportional to the volume of grain seized there at the expense of grain procurements and exports. Data of the All-Union population censuses of 1926 and 1937. show that at least four regions of the RSFSR - the Saratov region, the ASSR of the Nemtsev of the Volga region, the Azov-Black Sea Territory, Chelyabinsk region- suffered no less than Ukraine. A comparative analysis of census materials records the rate of reduction of the rural population in the regions of the USSR affected by famine in the early 1930s: in Kazakhstan - by 30.9%, in the Volga region - by 23%, in Ukraine - by 20.5%, in the North Caucasus - by 20.4%. According to the authoritative Russian demographer V.B. Zhyromskaya, from hunger in the early 1930s. outside Ukraine, on the territory of the RSFSR (excluding Kazakhstan), at least 2.5 million people died, and together with Kazakhstan - about 4-5 million people. This does not take into account the losses of the population of the RSFSR from the famine of 1934.
The actions of the Stalinist regime to overcome the famine crisis were reduced to the allocation of significant food and seed loans to the main grain regions of the USSR, including Ukraine (Doc. No. 27), which found themselves in the famine zone, and with the personal consent of I.V. Stalin. In April 1933, by decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the export of grain from the USSR was stopped. In addition, emergency measures were taken to strengthen the collective farms with the help of the political departments of the MTS, to develop gardening and personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers and urban residents. In 1933, the grain procurement planning system changed: fixed grain delivery rates were established from above.
The documents presented in this publication are mainly authentic decisions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, notes of the secretaries of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and personally I.V. Stalin, republican and regional party bodies, reports of the OGPU and its local structures - selected from the archives of the President Russian Federation(AP RF), the Central Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (CA FSB RF), the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) and the Russian State Archive of Economics (RGAE). These sources, according to the compilers, most clearly reflect the causes and extent of the national disaster of 1932-1933.
Introductory article, preparation of the text for publication and comments V.V. KONDRASHINA, E.A. TYURINA.
Decree of the SRT of the USSR
"On fixing commodity-varietal wheat of export regions for export"
No. 176/s
Secret
Moscow Kremlin
The Labor and Defense Council decides:
In order to ensure the placement of Soviet wheat harvested in 1931 on foreign markets, as well as to eliminate the diversity of types and samples that cause significant complications in the implementation, carry out the following measures:
GARF. F. R-5674. Op. 3 s. D. 18. L. 304-307. Script.
Telegram from the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V.M. Molotov
leadership of Kazakhstan and the Middle Volga region
about the disruption of grain procurements
Of all the republics and regions of the USSR, Kazakhstan and the Middle Volga are the only regions where grain supplies are constantly falling from five days to five days. In the last five days you have prepared less bread than in Nizhny Novgorod region, Moscow region, Tatarstan Republic, Eastern Siberia. The decision of the plenum of the Central Committee on grain procurements is frustrated by you in the most rude way. The Central Committee and the Council of People's Commissars are turning to you with the question: do you intend to immediately organize a change in grain procurements, and if you have no hope in this, then shouldn't the question of changing the leadership be raised in order to move grain procurements forward?
Secretary of the Central Committee Stalin
Presovnarkom Molotov
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 78. L. 117. Original. Manuscript.
Cipher telegram of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V.M. Molotov
First Secretary of the Central Volga Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks M.M. Khataevich
on facilitating the plan of state farms at the expense of the collective farm and peasant sector
Top secret
We accept your proposal to facilitate the plan of state farms at the expense of the collective farm and peasant sector, but only on condition that the state does not lose a single pood of grain from this operation. We warn you that if the plan is not fulfilled one hundred percent, the Central Committee will be forced to take drastic measures.
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 79. L. 150. Certified copy.
Note of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U S.V. Kosior
on the need to clarify the political situation in the villages of Ukraine
Tov. Kosior!
Be sure to read the suggested materials. Judging by the materials, it seems that in some places in the Ukrainian SSR, Soviet power ceased to exist. Is this true? Is it really so bad with the countryside in Ukraine? Where are the organs of the GPU, what are they doing? Maybe they would check this case and inform the Central Committee of the CPSU about the measures taken?
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 61. D. 794. L. 18. Copy.
Telegram from the first secretary of the Central Volga regional committee of the CPSU (b) V.P. Shubrikova
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V.M. Molotov
about the lack of bread in the cities of the region
Series G
From Samara
Moscow, SNK Molotov
Komzag STO Chernov
Zebrak Reserves Committee
[In] Samara, Penza, Chapaevsk, Orenburg bread for one day. [D]ue to the impossibility of delivering commercial grain to the cities in a timely manner, we ask you to allow the consumption of 3-4 thousand tons of the State Fund, located [in] these cities [at] the expense of the supply plan. We earnestly ask you to immediately resolve the issue, [in] otherwise, complications [in] working supplies are not excluded. Kraikom Shubrikov
KomzagSTO Vasiliev
RGAE. F. 8043. Op. 11. D. 52. L. 258. Certified copy.
Note of the First Secretary of the North Caucasian Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks B.P. Sheboldaeva
Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
on the need to reduce the grain procurement plan in the region
The situation with the harvest and grain procurements has developed in the region is difficult. If at the end of June, beginning of July, I believed that the harvest in the region was equal to last year, and maybe even better, now it is obvious that this year's gross output in terms of grain, in comparison with last year, is lower, the harvest in wheat is especially reduced. (winter and spring). When the procurement plan is fulfilled, the collective farms are left with much less grain than last year.
It is difficult to ascertain the significance of the individual causes that led in July to a sharp decline in crop prospects. Undoubtedly, the poor management of collective farms and state farms (late sowing, lack of crop rotation, poor cultivation of fields) was reflected in the loading of grain, which gave a huge weediness and thinning of bread, but there were also special natural conditions("fuse", "stack", "rust", "fog", etc., as agronomists and practitioners call these phenomena), which sharply reduced the yield of spiked crops, and in some areas nullified (Georgievsky, Verkhne ]-Aleksandrovsky, Mozdoksky, former Prokhladnensky, etc.). Finally, harvesting conditions (rains for a month and a half) have already led to some losses (germination).
Collective farmers work this summer better than last year, but there is heightened alertness. In particular, in relation to grain procurements.
The main dissatisfaction of the collective farmers goes along the line: a) criticism of our poor management of agriculture and against the administration; b) almost everywhere one can hear openly expressed fears that "there will be the same thing in the region as in Ukraine", and kulak provocation of this kind is almost never rebuffed; c) complaints about the lack of clothing and other manufactured goods.
In bringing the grain procurement plan to the attention of the district and the collective farm, we meet with enormous resistance from the district leadership and the fear of bringing the plan to the collective farm. On collective farms, where plans are strained, i.e. there is no grain left for fodder and the food fund is being cut (less than 1.5-2 kg per workday), there are numerous refusals to accept the plan, women's bagpipes, refusal to work by collective farmers and individual cases of exits from collective farms.
We brought the final plans to the districts by July 25, and after that it became obvious that in 19 districts (Kropotkinsky, Salsky, Georgievsky, St[aro]-Minsky, Kursavsky, Vinodelensky, Mechetinsky, Otradnensky, Armavirsky, V[erkhne] - Donskoy, Nov[o]-Aleksandrovsky, Kamensky, Kurganensky, Mineralovodsky, Nevinnomyssky, Timashevsky, Ust-Labinsky, Tikhoretsky, or Kanevskoy) we miscalculated, just as the districts themselves miscalculated. Moreover, the overall situation with productivity turned out to be worse during harvesting and threshing than expected. All this has put us in an extremely difficult position with regard to a number of areas in which the inconsistency of our plans (sometimes more than the gross harvest, crops) is obvious not only to the collective farms and collective farmers, but also to us.
To correct these apparent inconsistencies, to ease the tension of the plan as a whole, I ask you to allow: a) to draw up the entire plan for the collective farm and peasant sector in these areas at the expense of 5.5 million pounds deployed by us in the regions as 4% insurance. In doing so, it must, of course, be borne in mind that this weakens the guarantee of the complete fulfillment of the plan; b) reduce the Central Committee's plan for wheat by 5 million poods by increasing rye by 2 million poods and corn by 3 million poods. This exemption is the minimum one absolutely necessary now in order to maneuver when the collective farms are bringing the plan to fruition and fulfilling it in the near future.
I cannot say with certainty that under these conditions 136 million poods will be fulfilled in the collective-farm and peasant sector. I think that by 10-15 million it will be underfulfilled. But this will be shown by the further struggle for bread.
The situation is approximately the same with state farms, which, apparently, will not get 5-6 million tons. Yakovlev has already taken measures to reduce the plan for the state farms of the system of the North Caucasus at the expense of more productive areas, and if it is carried out in the indicated amounts, then the plan will obviously be ensured.
I consider it absolutely necessary to significantly change the pace of harvesting compared to last year, based on the need to concentrate much more effort on the timely harvesting of row crops. (vacated areas for sowing winter crops), winter sowing and the rise of plough. Namely: to prepare in July 6 million poods, in August - 50 million, in September - 40, in October - 40, in November - 30, in December - 15, and in total 181 million from the general plan of the region for all sectors with a garnet of 186 million poods.
Despite [despite] mass work, the grain procurements single-handedly ... refused to fulfill the plan.
Does the Central Committee consider it permissible: a) to carry out joint threshing of bread on the basis of social work individual farmers under the control of the Council; b) deprive those who do not fulfill the plan of the right to buy manufactured goods and c) in isolated cases bring [to] legal liability under the relevant parts of Article 61 of the Criminal Code for failure to fulfill the plan approved by the meeting of citizens?
In several regions we have a complete loss of wheat, and, in any case, the surviving one is not suitable for seeds. Therefore, it will be necessary to provide these areas with seed aid for winter wheat in the amount of approximately 1.5 million poods, partly in exchange for fodder crops. At the disposal of the region, except for 10% of deductions from the garnets (about 1.2 million pounds), which will be received throughout the year, there are no resources, so the issue can only be resolved in the center.
Sheboldaev
Litter: "PB members".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 81. L. 107-110. Script.
to the first secretary of the North Caucasian Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks B.P. Sheboldaev
with a refusal to cut the grain procurement plan
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Dispatched from Sochi 17-40 08/22/1932.
Entered the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union for decryption on August 22, 1932, h. 20 m. -
In. No. 1386 sh
Rostov-on-Don, Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party Comrade. Shebaldaev,
Copy: Moscow, Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks tov. Kaganovich
I received your note on the reduction of the plan and sent it to the Central Committee. I cannot support you because of the poor work of the region in the field of grain procurement. If, surviving the drought, the Middle Volga surrendered 4 million poods in the third five-day period, and your region did not surrender even 2 million, then this means that the regional committee has dwindled in the face of difficulties and surrendered its position to the apostles of gravity, or the regional committee is diplomatic and tries to lead the Central Committee by the nose. Agree that I can not support in this kind of work.
Transcribed on 23.08.1932 at h. 10 min. 30. 5 copies printed. A.Damme.
Litter: "Archive of the 2nd sector, Comrade Kaganovich".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 81. L. 105. Original.
Cipher telegram of the first secretary of the Ural Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.D. Kabakov
with a request not to increase the September grain procurement plan
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Dispatched from Sverdlovsk on 09/10/1932 at 03:30.
Received by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union for deciphering on September 10, 1932, h. 14 min. thirty
In. No. 1470 sh
Moscow Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Comrade. Stalin
In August for September we were given a grain procurement plan of 183,000 tons, which included the grain procurement plan and the repayment of the loan. On September 9, a message was received from the Procurement Committee about an increase in the September plan by 82 thousand tons. The grain procurement plan for September was put into place by September 1, the harvesting went poorly, there were rains, the ripening of late crops was delayed. Now all the forces are thrown into the harvesting of grain, it is necessary to complete the harvesting at all costs in the next 10-15 days, the situation with draft power is disgusting, the carriage is extremely difficult.
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 81. L. 148. Original.
Telegram from the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
with a refusal to apply for a reduction in the September grain procurement plan
Top secret
Cipher
Sverdlovsk. Uralobkom. Kabakov
Due to the situation in the USSR, unfortunately we cannot satisfy your request. Therefore, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union decided: "Reject the petition of Comrade Kabakov to reduce the plan for grain procurement and the plan for the return of seismic loans for the month of September and maintain the plan for grain procurements in the amount of 183 thousand tons and the plan for the return of seismic loans, in addition, 82 thousand tons." No. 96/1671
sh.Secretary of the Central Committee Stalin
Litter: "Archive of the 2nd sector of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 81. L. 149. Certified copy.
Note of the First Secretary of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee of the Communist Party (b)U M.M. Khataevich
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
about the impracticability of the grain procurement plan in Ukraine
Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - comrade. Stalin
Today it's only 9 days since I've been working in Ukraine. It would be at least strange on my part if I pretended to have any exhaustive knowledge of the local conditions and situation. But what I still consider it necessary to write about.
To complete your entire annual plan grain procurements In addition to the 140 (plus) million poods of grain that have already been procured, the Ukraine must give about 235 million poods more. For me, it is already absolutely indisputable that Ukraine will not give this amount of bread. If you have before you only calendar dates on the progress of the annual grain procurement plan, without any calculations and concrete verification of its feasibility, then in themselves these dates, i.e. the fact that on October 15, for the first, most decisive, 3.5 months of grain procurements, only a little more than one third of the plan was fulfilled, and for the remaining 2.5 months, usually less important role in procurements, it remains to fulfill about 2/3 of the annual plan, then this fact in itself says that this or that underfulfillment of the grain procurement plan is inevitable here. But the most general check and superficial calculations show that the plan for grain procurements in a number of districts is indeed greatly overstretched. In the Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk regions, where the current grain procurement plans provide for the withdrawal of more than 5 centners per hectare of crops, there are many collective farms that are clearly overtaxed, where, if the plan is fulfilled, the collective farm is left without seeds, fodder or food. The plan is also overstressed for a considerable part of the districts of the Kharkov region. Perhaps this overstrain was created only now as a result of the fact that a significant part of the grain was lost during harvesting, plundered and squandered, but the fact is that now you will not find such a quantity of grain that is required to fulfill the entire grain delivery plan on the collective farms in these places. .
According to the annual plan, the individual farmers must hand over 52 million poods throughout Ukraine according to the annual plan, and on October 15 they took a little more than 12 million from them. there is no hope of taking it completely now that they have managed to squander and hide most of their crop.
During the third five-day period of October, only 2.9 million poods of grain were harvested throughout Ukraine, in all sectors, compared to 4 million in the second and 6 million poods harvested in the first October five-day period. Since the creation of the Soviet Ukraine, there has never been a case that so little grain was prepared during the five-day period during the decisive months of grain procurement.
Nothing else than demobilization and the greatest demagnetization prevailing in a significant part of the district and rural assets can explain such an unheard of low progress in procurement. The indications given in September about the possibility of some weakening of work on grain procurements in order to fit in with the sowing, in fact, led to the fact that people stopped the struggle for grain, and the struggle for sowing almost did not intensify. The grain procurement curve then rolled irresistibly down until October 15th. The fourth October five-day period should give an upward turn in this curve. But there is little consolation if instead of the 2.9 million poods harvested during the third five-day period, it gives 4 million poods to fulfill the plan by the deadline - January 1 - it is required to give at least 14-15 million poods of bread every five days. And to postpone the fulfillment of the grain procurement plan until after January 1 would be more than difficult and dangerous. The interests of the cause require that in January-February all attention and all efforts be concentrated on preparations for spring sowing, on filling seeds, on putting the tractor park and the collective farm horse in order.
The conclusion from all this should be that since it is already clear that the Ukraine will not give all the 235 million grain due from it, then it should be made clear as soon as possible exactly how much grain we should be fighting for here.. Amendments to the grain delivery plans for a significant part of the collective farms in the Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Odessa regions should be introduced as soon as possible. Without this, the distribution of incomes, especially their natural part, is delayed in these collective farms; The vast majority of Ukrainian collective farmers do not yet know what and how much they will receive in their hands, what their workday is equal to, or they know that they are entitled to very little in kind. According to all data, one of the main reasons for Ukraine's continuing strong lag in the main agricultural campaigns is the reduced well-being of collective farmers, the lack of proper production activity on collective farms. In order to bring about the change which is so urgently needed here, in order to quickly create a proper rise in production among the masses of the collective farms, it is necessary, first of all, to tackle the distribution of collective-farm incomes and, on this basis, to improve the organization of labor on the collective farms and of all collective-farm production.
And for this it is necessary as soon as possible to introduce necessary amendments to the grain procurement plans of those collective farms that are in fact retaxed. Without this, it is impossible to develop with due tenacity, firmness and perseverance the struggle to obtain the quantity that can and should be prepared in Ukraine. In order to raise grain procurements properly from their present shamefully low level, very strong pressure will be required. Such pressure will be easier to carry out, and it will have the desired effect only if such adjustments are made to the current plan for grain procurements, in which there would be confidence that the amount of grain left on the collective farms will ensure their minimum need for food, fodder and seeds.
It is, of course, extremely difficult for me to say exactly how much grain it will actually be possible to procure in the Ukraine. I am too young Ukrainian for this. But, I'm afraid that it smells like something like 70 million pounds here (of which 55-58 million are in the collective farm and peasant sector) .
I decided to take the initiative to raise this question only because I think that this matter cannot be put off any longer for a single day. Almost all the leading members of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U, including comrades Kosior and Chubar, dispersed to grain procurement, winter sowing and beet harvesting. I was alone in Kharkov. They will return only by November 1st. And I consider it impossible to wait until November 1 with the information of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the situation with grain procurements in Ukraine.
With communist greetings,
Khataevich
Litter: "Letter from Comrade Khataevich".
AP RF. F. 83. Op. 40. D. 82. L. 136-140. Script.
Note by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U S.V. Kosiora
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
about grain procurements and sowing in Ukraine
Tov. Stalin!
Today I received from Khatayevich a copy of the letter he sent you about the grain procurement plan. I believe that Khataevich did the wrong thing by doing all this without my consent. .
Before I left for the districts, we had a conversation about the plan for grain procurements and seemed to have agreed that we would put this question before you after my arrival. We did not agree on figures, because this required further elaboration. Khataevich's independent posing of this question puts me in an uncomfortable position before our PB CP(b)U, and to some extent before you.
Now on the subject. We will certainly have to ask for a discount. but I don't think it should be too hasty. What I saw in the regions confirms this position. Now there is still a lot of unthreshed black bread in stacks. Although, of course, there are facts of re-taxation of some collective farms, as Khataevich writes, it is still impossible to determine at present with any precision which collective farms have been re-taxed.
Most of the steppe regions fulfilled the grain procurement plan only by 40-50%, the final results of the harvest on collective farms are unknown. To begin now to carry out a broad reduction of the plan is to undermine the plan itself. This is all the more important because the month of October in the steppe (and the steppe provides the bulk of the grain) actually fell out of the harvest, since (and this is 3/4 true) all the draft living and mechanical power was switched to sowing, and threshing and grain procurement ceased.
From October 25th there will be a major switchback to threshing and grain harvesting. Thus, November will be the month of the busiest grain procurements., deciding the fate of the annual plan. There is also laxity in relation to grain procurements, but it is also true that all districts now live with the idea of sowing at all costs.
By postponing grain procurements we shall lose some grain even on the collective farms, and we shall lose especially much in the individual sector. Especially the trouble is that grain procurements have completely stopped not only in the collective farm sector, but also in the individual sector. Undoubtedly, the squandering of grain flourishes, of course, not in the bazaars, but underground in huts, which is almost completely not being fought.
It's safe to say that we won’t get at least 25 million bread in the individual sector. In addition, it is necessary to correct the plan for the collective farms of the Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Donetsk and Kharkov regions by 25 million, of course, for the individual sector, no reduction in the plan can be done now. These 25 million should be considered as underfulfillment of the plan for the individual sector by the end of the year. Discounts for regions and collective farms, I would consider it necessary to carry out in the second half of November not to shake the November grain procurement plan.
Now about the situation with sowing. The steppe is catching up with the pace of sowing with all its might. I have no doubt that both Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk regions will finish sowing in the rural sector, but they are being pulled down by the state farms of Zernotrest. For example, one Odessa region has a plan for sowing 350 thousand hectares of state farms out of a total plan of 2146 thousand hectares, and so far 40% have been sown by state farms, moreover, for Zernotrest it is much less, and for individual grain state farms, the percentage of sowing reaches 20-25. Tractors on state farms work very badly, the personnel are extremely weak, even if they were given more tractors, then, as I have seen on a number of occasions, they are now unable to digest and master these tractors.
The financial situation of state farms is downright desperate. Not only did they not pay wages for several months and did not pay the collective farms for the help they provided them, but a number of state farms do not even have 50-100 rubles. to send a telegram or to leave. As a rule, there are no own in-kind funds, except for bread, the feeding of workers, including tractor drivers, is very poor, amenity premises are either worthless or completely absent, and all this taken together leads to low labor productivity and high turnover. , the lack of workers in general and tractor drivers in particular - they scatter.
All in all, I think we will bring winter crops in Ukraine to 10 million hectares, i.e. underseeding 5-6%. Seedlings everywhere are very good, especially those sown in dry land. In this matter, we are undoubtedly dealing with the wild conservatism of the specialists, and behind them the collective farms and even our workers. Evidently, Yakovlev also succumbed to these sentiments. If we didn’t sow in dry land, then our sowing would be at least 20 percent less. Collective farmers now everywhere regret that they did not sow more in dry land. There are cases when the sown grain lay dry in the ground for a month, 20 days, etc., some argued that it had already shrunk and disappeared, and then the rains began and beautiful, friendly shoots appeared.
The weather now throughout the south of Ukraine, even on the Right Bank, is exceptionally favorable both for sowing and for strengthening late shoots.
The mood in the mass of collective farms is also not bad.. Memories of last year fade. The situation is worse in the Kiev and Vinnitsa regions, in the so-called Uman and Belotserkovsky regions, where, despite large discounts on grain procurements, and in a number of regions of actual liberation, sowing is still very poor.
Odessa
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 82. L. 132-135. Script.
Ciphergram of the first secretary of the Kazakh Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks F.I. Goloshchekin
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
about repressions during grain procurements
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Dispatched from Alma-Ata on 18-21 November 21, 1932.
Received by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union for interpretation on November 21, 1932, h. 22 m. 10
In. No. 1839 sh
Moscow Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to Comrade Stalin
1) Only three districts are listed on the blackboard, not 19, as reported by Kahiani.
2) In relation to 14 decisive grain regions, commodity repressions were applied, without an announcement on the black board.
3) In the districts, the list of which we communicated to the Central Committee on October 28, only individual collective farms where there is stubborn resistance to grain procurements are listed on the black board, 87 collective farms in total.
4) With regard to Kyzyl-Orda, Karamachi-Kazalinsk, against which Kakhiani especially protests, they are not listed on the black board, but it was proposed to the regional committee to identify collective farms that should be listed on the black board, in these areas we have high-quality collective farms for bread and rice. At the same time, in these regions, where the plan was reduced by about half compared to the original, procurements are at an unacceptably low level. For example, in Kyzyl-Orda - 17% of the plan, theft and theft are developed there to the extreme.
5) We also consider correct our point about declaring to the collective farmers in the settled agricultural areas, listed on the black board, who are especially resistant to procurement, that until the plan is fulfilled, they are not allowed the extended right to individual use of livestock according to the decision of the Central Committee of September 17. The announcement in the regional and district press of this item and the item on a possible eviction by the regional committee was recognized as incorrect and it was proposed to correct it.
6) By November, the situation with grain procurements in Kazakhstan was at a low level: less by 8 million pounds than last year at this time, and in the regional committee a large number of facts of exceptional resistance to grain procurements had accumulated, both in the form of passive and active, up to sabotage and terror, and mass facts of communists linking up with the class enemy on the basis of sabotage and pressure on individual collective farms.
Therefore, after receiving telegrams from the Central Committee of November 8, the regional committee considered it quite right to apply similar measures to individual districts and collective farms. Which were indicated in the telegram.
7) The Territory Committee admits its mistakes that it did not promptly bring to the attention of the Central Committee the measures taken above.
8) In view of the situation with the telegram to the Central Committee of Kahiani, and bearing in mind that we have entered the most difficult period of preparations, the regional committee asks the Central Committee to give its decision on this issue.
Secretary of Kazkraykom Goloshchekin
Deciphered 22.11. 1932 13h 10m. 4 copies printed. Chechulin, Batekin.
Litter: "comrade Stalin. Archive of the 2nd sector".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 83. L. 138-138v. Script.
Cipher telegram of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
leadership of Kazakhstan
on the need for repression during grain procurements
Top secret
Cipher
Alma-Ata. Regional Committee of the CPSU (b) vols. Goloshchekin, Isaev, Kakhiani
Kahiani's cipher with an expression of dissatisfaction with the latest orders of the Council of People's Commissars and the Regional Committee of Kazakhstan regarding grain procurements has been received. Comrade Kahiani's assessment under other conditions would be correct, but under the present conditions it is completely wrong. Tov. Kahiani does not take into account that over the past five days, grain procurements in Kazakhstan have been falling in jumps and leading to a virtual cessation of procurements, and this despite the fact that the procurement plan has been reduced to the maximum, and the debt under the procurement plan exceeds 10 million pounds. Under such conditions, the task is to strike first of all at the communists in and below the districts, who are entirely in captivity of the petty-bourgeois element and have fallen into the path of kulak sabotage of grain procurements. It is clear that under these conditions, the Council of People's Commissars and the regional committee could not do otherwise than switch to repressions, although, of course, the matter cannot be limited to repressions, since a broad and systematic explanatory work is necessary in parallel.
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 83. L. 137. Certified copy.
Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
"On accelerating the consideration by the courts of cases of malicious non-fulfillment of obligations
under contracting agreements for the delivery of agricultural products
and on strengthening responsibility for these violations"
No. 1748/366s
Secret
Moscow Kremlin
Propose to the Council of People's Commissars of the Union Republics to give the judicial authorities a directive on the consideration of cases of malicious non-fulfillment of obligations under contracting agreements for the delivery of agricultural products within three days and on increased liability for these violations.
Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. Kuibyshev
Deputy Executive Director of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR I. Mezhlauk
GARF. F. 5446. Op. 1c. D. 466. L. 90. Original.
Cipher telegram of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
plenipotentiaries of the OGPU of Ukraine, regions and territories of the RSFSR
about sending materials on sabotage to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks,
sabotage and theft of property on collective farms
Done secret
The Central Committee proposes that you send and continue to send to the secret department of the Central Committee copies of those interrogations and reports on the case of sabotage of grain procurements, sabotage on collective farms and theft of public and state property on collective farms and state farms, which in your opinion are of interest from the point of view of instructive conclusions.
Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I. Stalin
Litter: "Archive of the 2nd sector".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 84. L. 84. Certified copy.
Cipher telegram of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
to the first secretary of the Ural regional committee of the CPSU (b) I.D. Kabakov
on the use of repression against the directors of state farms in the Urals
in case of non-fulfillment of the grain procurement plan
Top secret
Cipher
Tt. Kabakov, Oshvintsev, Mirzoyan
Mirzoyan's cipher about the non-fulfillment of the plan by state farms is considered unconvincing, formally bureaucratic. The regional leadership cannot escape responsibility for the state farms' failure to fulfill the plan. The Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee oblige you to inform Moscow of the names of the directors of the lagging state farms, and to the directors to announce on behalf of the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee that if the plan is not carried out, they will be arrested as deceivers, saboteurs and enemies of the Soviet state, just as a number of directors of state farms in Western Siberia and Ukraine have been arrested , North Caucasus. Announce to the directors that a Party card will not save them from arrest, that an enemy with a Party card deserves more punishment than an enemy without a Party card.
Litter: "Archive of the 2nd sector, Yurkin".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 84. L. 139. Certified copy.
Ciphergram of the Secretary of the Gorky Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks A.A. Zhdanov
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
with a request to allow repressions in the Spassky and Ardatovsky districts of the region
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Sent from Gorky on December 21-12, 12/14/1932. Received by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for deciphering on 12/15/1932, 10 o'clock - m.
In. No. 1973 sh
Moscow, Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to Comrade Stalin
The Gorky Territory Committee asks the consent of the Central Committee to carry out the following measures in relation to two districts of the region - Spassky and Ardatovsky, which, due to kulak sabotage and resistance from part of the communists and activists, are failing: : the termination of the supply of goods and the export of goods from the regions, the complete prohibition of collective farm trade, the early collection of loans and other payments from collective farmers and individual farmers, the cleansing of the state, cooperative and collective farm apparatus from alien and hostile elements, the withdrawal of counter-revolutionary elements by the OGPU bodies and the early purge of party organizations in these areas .
The krai committee dismissed the secretaries of the indicated districts from work, transferring the question of their stay in the party to the kraiKK, dissolved the bureau of the raion committees and sent commissions of the krai committee to the districts to carry out these decisions. The secretary of the krai committee Zhdanov
The original cipher telegram is in the original protocol of the PB of the Central Committee.
Litter: "Prot. PB. No. 126, p. 52/24".
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 85. L. 6. Certified copy.
From the protocol No. 126 of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
about repressions in the Spassky and Ardatovsky districts of the Gorky Territory
Top secret
52/24. Telegram from Comrade Zhdanov.
Agree with the proposal of the Gorky Regional Committee to carry out repressive measures against the Spassky and Ardatovsky regions, which failed the main agricultural campaigns.
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 40. D. 85. L. 5. Copy.
Information of the secret political department of the OGPU of the USSR
Top secret
| Region | Number of districts | Total left | Including | |||
| collective farmers | individual farmers | hard drives and fists | activists | |||
| Kievskaya | 47 | 26344 | 10027 | 10682 | 1562 | 163 |
| Kharkiv | 19 | 20129 | 7423 | 12698 | - | 8 |
| Dnepropetrovsk | 42 | 12421 / 3845 | 5201 / 1348 | 6260 / 1565 | 559 / 471 | 401 / 161 |
| Donetsk | 32 | 9561 | 3036 | 5037 | 1308 | 180 |
| Odessa | 26 | 3950 / 4020 | 1790 / 1850 | 1474 / 1412 | 655 / 758 | 31 |
| Chernihiv | 25 | 5593 / 837 | 434 / 62 | 3453 / 289 | 1701 / 486 | 5 |
| Vinnitsa | 24 | 5068 / 511 | - | - | - | - |
| AMSSR | - | 2151 | 285 | 1284 | 539 | 43 |
| Total | 215 | 85217 / 9213 | 28196 / 3260 | 28196 / 3260 | 6324 / 1715 | 831 / 161 |
Note: The numerator shows singles, and the denominator shows the number of families.
Secretary of the SPO OGPU Svetlov
CA FSB RF. F. 2. Op. 11. D. 6. L. 150. Original.
From the protocol No. 130 of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
on the allocation of food aid to the workers of state farms, MTS, MTM ,
non-party and party assets of the collective farms of the North Caucasus,
Dnepropetrovsk and Odessa regions
51/24. The issue of the North Caucasus.
Release 300 thousand poods of grain (rye) at the disposal of the North Caucasian Regional Committee and the Regional Executive Committee for the food needs of the workers of state farms, MTS, MTM, as well as the assets (party and non-party) of needy collective farms.
Extracts sent vols. Chernov, Sheboldaev - in cipher.
52/25. Question of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee.
Release 200 thousand poods of grain (rye) at the disposal of the Dnepropetrovsk regional committee and the regional executive committee for the food needs of the workers of state farms, MTS, MTM, as well as party and non-party activists of needy collective farms.
Extracts sent vols. Chernov, Khataevich - in cipher.
53/26. Question of the Odessa Regional Committee.
Release 200 thousand poods of grain (rye) at the disposal of the Odessa regional committee and the regional executive committee for the food needs of the workers of state farms, MTS, MTM, as well as party and non-party activists of needy collective farms.
Extracts sent vols. Chernov, Weger - in cipher.
Secretary of the Central Committee I. Stalin
RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 162. D. 14. L. 60. Original.
Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
"On seed and food loans for the North Caucasus"
№ 198/32
Secret
The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decides:
1. To release 14.2 million poods of grain to the North Caucasian Territory to provide seed assistance to needy collective farms, as well as state farms. Of these, 3 million pounds - in the order of exchange.
2. Seeds should be released in the form of an interest-free loan with a return in the autumn of 1933 in kind, plus payment of administrative and transport costs to the state, also in kind, at the rate of 10 poods for every 100 poods.
3. Release of seeds to produce from the following sources and the following crops:
4. Over the seed loan release North Caucasus 500,000 poods of oats for fodder aid, as well as 250,000 poods of rye and 250,000 poods of corn for food aid to needy collective farms.
5. Expenses for the issuance of seed aid to be attributed to the state budget.
6. Oblige the People's Commissariat for Comrade Andreev's personal responsibility to ensure the transfer of seeds empty and to establish special supervision over the rapid advance of seed loads.
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. Molotov (Scriabin)
Deputy Executive Director of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR I. Miroshnikov
GARF. F. R-5446. Op. 1c. D. 468. L. 52-53. Script.
Cipher telegram of the second secretary of the Lower Volga regional committee of the CPSU (b) Ya.G. Goldina
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
with a request to carry out measures in the region to combat mass exoduses
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Moscow Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party Comrade. Stalin
In a number of districts of the region, the departure of peasants in large part with their families to the Central Chernobyl Region, the Middle Volga and other regions is observed. According to the GPU, more than 8,000 people have already left.
We ask you to extend to our region all the measures taken in the North Caucasus and Ukraine to combat mass departures.
AP RF. F. 3. Op. 30. D. 189. L. 34. Original.
From the protocol No. 131 of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
about the unauthorized departure of peasants from the Lower Volga Territory
74/40. Telegram from the Lower Volga regional committee.
Oblige the OGPU to extend to the Lower Volga the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 22, 1933 on the unauthorized departure of peasants from their region, their detention and forced return to their old places of residence. Secretary of the Central Committee L. Kaganovich
RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 3. D. 916. L. 17. Original.
Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
"On seed and food aid to collective farms and state farms of Ukraine"
Special folder
1. Determine the size of the semen loan to state farms and collective farms in Ukraine at 20,300 thousand poods (including state farms - 1,700 thousand poods), by dispensing this semsud with the following crops: wheat - 5,250 thousand poods, barley - 7,625 thousand poods, oats - 6 million pounds, legumes - 700 thousand pounds, corn - 500 thousand pounds, vetch - 190 thousand pounds, millet and buckwheat - 35 thousand pounds.
2. Approve the following distribution of loans for collective farms in certain regions of Ukraine (in thousand pounds):
| Wheat | Oats | barley | Legumes | corn | Total | |
| Kievskaya | - | 427 | - | 183 | - | 610 |
| Chernihiv | - | 61 | - | 122 | - | 183 |
| Vinnitsa | - | 244 | - | 183 | - | 427 |
| Kharkiv | 1586 | 1525 | 976 | 92 | - | 4179 |
| Dnepropetrovsk | 1220 | 1281 | 2745 | 30 | 183 | 5459 |
| Odessa | 549 | 1006 | 2440 | 30 | 212 | 4237 |
| Donetsk | 1525 | 793 | 915 | 60 | 30 | 3323 |
| AMSSR | - | 63 | 122 | - | - | 185 |
| Total | 4880 | 5400 | 7198 | 700 | 425 | 18603 |
3. Set the exchange fund at 1500 thousand poods, of which: oats - 900 thousand poods, legumes - 600 thousand poods.
4. To provide fodder assistance to collective farms for the maintenance of working horses, allow the use of 3 million poods of various wastes (bran, cake, elevator waste) and, in addition, release 1 million poods of oats.
5. To provide food assistance to needy collective farms, rural assets, as well as for workers of state farms, MTS and MTM, release 2300 thousand poods of grain (rye and corn) for the period of spring field work with the calculation of their delivery before the thaw. Approve the following distribution of prodssudy for collective farms in certain regions of Ukraine: Dnepropetrovsk region. - 1 million pounds, Odessa region. - 800 thousand pounds, Kharkov region. - 300 thousand pounds, reserve - 200 thousand pounds.
6. Semssudu and prodssudu to release interest-free. The administrative and transport costs of the state shall be charged upon the return of the seed and food debt in the amount of 10 poods for every 100 poods.
7. Start shipment immediately.
Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I. Stalin
Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. Molotov (Scriabin)
GARF. F. R-5446. Op. 1c. D. 468. L. 71-72. Certified copy.
Note of the Chairman of the GPU of the Ukrainian SSR V.A. Balitsky
Deputy Chairman of the OGPU of the USSR G.G. Yagoda
due to food shortages
In addition to the telephone conversation with you, I inform you about my instructions given to the heads of the regional departments of the GPU of Ukraine after receiving the notes of Comrades. Rozanov (Kyiv) and Krauklis (Dnepropetrovsk), on the issue of food difficulties in these areas:
1. I suggested that the heads of the regional departments on these issues inform only the first secretaries of the regional committees and only orally, after a thorough check of the information transmitted, so that our notes would not "wander" through the apparatus and, in turn, would not become sources of various rumors. He also suggested not to draw up special memorandums for the GPU of Ukraine on these issues, but to inform only me with your personal letters.
2. He pointed out to the heads of the regional departments that the class enemy is using food difficulties for agitation against the Soviet government, will sow panic, provoke us, etc., and in his special directive he gave a number of specific instructions on this issue. He suggested carefully checking the sources of the information received, taking into account that the "twins" and other counter-revolutionary, Petliurist elements would try to misinform us, he cited the example of the Babansky district of the Kiev region.
3. He drew attention to the need for a thorough check of the actual situation in the regions also because dependency tendencies are not ruled out not only on the part of collective farms, but also on the part of local authorities, which will try to use food difficulties in individual places for this purpose.
4. He pointed out that many district and even regional senior officials, including the Chekists, instead of fighting and rebuffing any provocation, often succumb to panic moods themselves and repeat all sorts of provocative rumors. An example of this can be the "fact" that you were interested in yesterday, reported by the secretary of the Kiev Regional Committee Comrade Demchenko at our Politburo (with the participation of Comrade Mikoyan), where Comrade Demchenko stated that mountains of corpses were brought to Darnitsa to the slaughterhouses. After my rebuke on Comrade Demchenko's report, he nevertheless continued to insist on the reliability of this fact, and only on the second day, after this "case" that we carefully investigated, and it was established that nothing of the kind had happened, did Comrade Demchenko admit that he had been introduced into delusion by the regional committee worker.
How is it now? On the third day, Comrade Khataevich telephoned me from Dnepropetrovsk and informed me that, thanks to timely measures taken, the acuteness of the situation in this matter was on the wane. In the Kiev region, the well-known resolutions of the Central Committee also resolve the issue.
We have taken all measures to eliminate the difficulties that have arisen as soon as possible.
Chairman of the GPU of the Ukrainian SSR V. Balitsky
CA FSB RF. F. 2. Op. 11. D. 3. L. 12-14. Copy.
From a letter from the doctor of the Zvenigorod district hospital of the Kiev region P. Blonsky
People's Commissar of Health of the Ukrainian SSR S.I. Kantorovich
about the situation in the area in connection with the famine
People's Commissariat of Health of the Ukrainian SSR comrade. Kantorovich
<…>As a doctor, I directly observe the situation of the Zvenigorod district and its neighbors, and I judge the rest from the words of eyewitnesses. In short, in villages and small towns - one continuous horror. Incredible poverty, constant mass starvation. Mass death from starvation. About 30% of the population of the villages are malnourished or swollen. The birth rate has been reduced to an unusually small size. Malnutrition, necrophagia became common. There are almost no dogs or cats in the village - they are all eaten. Crime has increased to incredible proportions. Starvation leads to crimes never heard of before. I'm not talking about the famous cutting of spikelets. Everyone (not only the peasants) became thieves from malnutrition. Begging is unprecedented. An incredible number of "speculators", or better to say "people of the air" (that is, those engaged in the same activities that the Jewish poor in the shtetls were engaged in until recently), have divorced. There are an awful lot of arrests; there are not enough prisons: in Zvenigorodka, a prison was recently opened, which was closed 8 years ago.<…>
The court is in full swing. Many of those arrested by the police died. In 1932 alone, more than 10 thousand fled to different parts of the USSR from the Zvenigorod region. There are an extremely large number of destroyed residential buildings and households in Zvenigorodka and in the villages; there are a lot of plump, emaciated people on the streets. In a word, the situation is no better than after the invasion ... of a cruel enemy, a military siege or a natural disaster.<…>
To combat hunger, something was done last year, but it was done somehow, I would say, unofficially. It was impossible even to talk about hunger, "shame" overcame. With such "shame", of course, very little was done. This year, too (even before the beginning of March), talking about the famine was considered almost a counter-revolution.<…>
Local organizations (district and regional) cannot cope with the famine without full-fledged material and organizational concrete assistance from the highest bodies of the party and government. This was hindered and hindered by the insignificance, in comparison with the size of the disaster, of the food fund and the untimely receipt of it. Meanwhile, as they say, the elevator at the station. Zvenigorodka is full of bread, the mill in Zvenigorodka works around the clock. There is a working oil mill and a fruit-grower in the city. There is a sugar factory 5 versts away.<…>
The politically harmful "theory" that is very widespread among managers and ordinary workers is that the starving people themselves are to blame for the famine, they did not want to work, they say, and if so - let them die - it's not a pity. In this state of mind of those who have to fight against hunger, of course, there can be no tangible results from their activities in the fight against hunger. These "theories" are all the more strange in the mouths of Soviet workers because they copy the views and statements of all ... all times, that whoever is poor and hungry is to blame. The death rate is increasing in the light of such facts that quite a few collective farmers with a large number of workdays are starving, that even this year the working collective farmers of those collective farms who worked well (the village of Ozirne, Zvenigorod district) are starving, that all these "loafers" willingly go to work and they work in state farms, factories, plants, mines, and so on, and are not shy with the distance, up to Sakhalin, Batum, Leningrad, nor with the severity and harmfulness of work, that just real old, so to speak, "with experience" loafers are far from starving in any case, less than the mass, until recently, of agricultural workers in the sweat of their brows. Strange as it may seem, these "theorists" did not even think about the question why the recent toilers of the earth began to work little on the earth or did not want to work at all? What killed their impulse, their desire for agricultural labor, what unsettled them from the rut of labor?<…>
Some kind of commercial, purely exploitative approach to the starving. They are not seen as people in misfortune, but only as a living force to be used for work. Hence - not the fight against hunger, as with a national disaster, but only the task of restoring manpower, and the horse is held in higher esteem than man. The loss of a horse is punished, but the mass death of people is not punished.
P.Blonsky
CA FSB RF. F. 2. Op. 11. D. 56. L. 259-261. Certified copy.
Ciphergram of the first secretary of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee of the Communist Party (b)U M.M. Khataevich
General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin
asking for an additional food loan
Top secret
Making copies is prohibited
Dispatched from Dnepropetrovsk on 23-10 06/27/1933.
Received by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union for decryption on June 28, 1933, h. 9 m. 40
In. No. 985 sh
Moscow, Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Comrade. Stalin
The continuous rains that have been going on for the past 10 days have greatly delayed the ripening of the grain and the harvest. On the collective farms in a number of regions it is completely eaten up, all the bread allotted to us is being eaten up, the food situation has greatly worsened, which is especially dangerous in the last days before harvesting.
I beg you, if possible, to give us another 50,000 poods of food loans.
Khataevich
Transcribed on 06/28/1933 at part 11, room 25. 5 copies printed. E. Ivanova.
Resolution:"It is necessary to give. I. Stalin".
Litter:"Molotov, Kaganovich, Chernov, Stalin".
RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 11. D. 64. L. 35. Original. Resolution - autograph.
See: Kapustyan A.T. National Historiography of the Famine of 1932-1933. in Ukraine // Ural Historical Bulletin. Yekaterinburg, 2008. No. 2(19). pp. 96-101.
There. L. 175-176. Zelenin I.E. Stalin's "revolution from above" after the "great turning point". 1930-1939: Policy, implementation, results. M., 2006. S. 120.
CA FSB RF. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 747. L. 337-338.
RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 11. D. 64. L. 35.
Imprinted above the line.
Narkomsnab - The People's Commissariat of Supply of the USSR was formed by a decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated November 22, 1930 to manage, plan and regulate the procurement and contracting of agricultural products, supply food and consumer goods to the population, and cooperation with raw materials, manage the food industry and general management of Soviet trade . By the Decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of July 29, 1934, it was divided into the People's Commissariat of the Food Industry of the USSR and the People's Commissariat domestic trade THE USSR. A.I. Mikoyan.
Grain trust - a state association of grain state farms was established in July 1928 by decision of the July plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. In 1931, it was reorganized into an association of union trusts (Zernosovkhozobedinenie), which, by a decree of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 2, 1932, was transferred to the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat of State Farms of the USSR. In 1932 it was reorganized into the Main Department of Grain State Farms, in 1935 it was reorganized into five production-territorial departments (Ukraine and Crimea, the Volga region, the East, Siberia).
Kolkhoztsentr - the All-Russian Union of Agricultural Collectives was formed by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of December 30, 1926 and a resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of March 16, 1927 to manage the construction of collective farms and their associations, to represent the interests of the collective farm movement in government agencies and public organizations, assistance in the correct organization of the economy of the collective farms and the organization of their internal regulations, the organization of the marketing of the products of the collective farms and the supply of their means of production. Liquidated in December 1932, functions transferred to the People's Commissariat of the USSR.
The paragraph on the left is underlined in Stalin's red pencil with two lines. The resolution was adopted by a poll of members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. (See: arch. No. 131 dated March 1, 1033, p. 74/40 // RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 3. D. 916. L. 1, 17.)
He realized that she was not only close to him, but that now he did not know where she ended and he began.
To feel a person is not only to come to his aid in time, but also to leave him alone in time.
When a man needs a woman, he is little interested in her past and even the present ... He just cares about her future!
Everyone wants the truth to be on their side, but not everyone wants to be on the side of the truth.
Everyone wants to be informed honestly, impartially, truthfully - and in full accordance with his views.
Don't accept any negativity. Until you accept it, it belongs to the one who brought it.
When God wants to give you a gift, he wraps it up in a problem. And the bigger the gift, the bigger the problem he wraps it up.
Give a man what he needs and he will want comfort.
Provide him with amenities - he will strive for luxury.
Shower him with luxury - he will begin to sigh in exquisiteness.
Let him get the exquisite and he will crave follies.
Give him whatever he wants - he will complain that he was deceived and that he did not get what he wanted at all.
One day the storm will end and you won't remember how you survived it. You won't even be sure if it's actually over. But one thing is certain: once you get out of the storm, you will never again be the person who entered it. Because that was the whole point of it.
The best way get rid of the enemy - everywhere speak only good things about him. They will tell him this, and he will no longer be able to harm you: you have broken his spirit ... He will still fight against you, but without much zeal and perseverance, because subconsciously he has already stopped hating you. He is defeated without even knowing his own defeat.
- In contact with 0
- Google Plus 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
