2. Khlehnikov‘s repudiation of the dictionary
The develoyment of writing leads to a certain standardization of a language. The dictionary helps reduce the language to certain norms of spelling, pronunciation, grammar and so on. A large number of colloquialisms, regional variants, slang terms and so on are either ignored or set outside the normal bounds of the written language. In this sense, literacy becomes a limitation. Mandel'stam associates it with a small vocabulary, which is "a sign that the speaker does not trust his native soil, and dare not set his foot wherever he likes“.[1] The literate social strata dare not set foot outside the bounds of what is "literate" and "correct": Mandel'stam comments that the Russian Symbolists "have not more than five hundred words among them“.[2] He contrasts this with the "turbulent morphological flowering" of language in the hands of Khlebnikov, who multiplies roots, evolves new words out of existing ones and knows no limits to his vocabulary.[3] Markov comments that "Khlebnikov‘s vocabulary is easily the richest in Russian literature."[4] It is obvious that this is closely associated with the fact that Khlebnikov rarely if ever thought of using a dictionary, happily inventing his own words and. meanings as he went along. In Khlebnikov's work, all dictionary-definitions, norms, literary correct usages and standards are either disregarded or challenged in some way.
3. His hostility to Moscow-standard Russian.
This point will be discussed in the next chapter: it is relevant to the theme of Khlebnikov's tendency to identify "bookish" language with the state, opposing both almost as if they were one and the same thing. We may note here, however, that most of the futurists were "provincials", whose anarchistic rebellion always included an element of revolt against the "correct" and "literary" linguistic norms historically set by Moscow in opposition to the regions. This was particularly the case with Khlebnikov, as Mar-
