Lexical interference in English-Finnish bilingualism
- Тип работы:
Детальная информация о работе
Выдержка из работы
Section 10. Philology
Svetlana Kushnaryova, Crimean V. I. Vernadsky Federal University, Taurida Academy (structural subdivision), Institute of Foreign Philology, Chair of the Theory of Language, Literature and Sociolinguistics, postgraduate student E-mail: kushnarevasv92@gmail. com
Lexical Interference in English-Finnish bilingualism
Abstract: The aim of the article is to determine the specific features of cross-language interference functioning, fixed in the speech of the English-Finnish bilinguals. The object of the study is the process of lexical interference manifestation under the Finnish-English bilingualism. The main aim of the article provides the following tasks: determining the particularity of the concept of the term '-interference'-, the consideration of the implications that cause this phenomenon, and analysis of lexical interference existence in the context of the Finnish-English bilingualism.
Keywords: bilingualism, interference, language situation, sociolinguistics, sociophonetics, Finglish.
A number of fundamental works, in which linguists indicate the or positive and is expressed by: a) deviations from the norm in one
necessity of the in-depth and comprehensive study of the language functionality characteristics in a dynamic assimilation of cultures in terms of a multi-ethnic society, reveal topical issues of the language contact theory, borrowings and bilingualism (V. I. Belikov, Z. M. Bo-goslovskaya, U. Weinreich, A. Wierzbitskaya, V. Vinogradov, T. G. Vinokur, J. Gumperz, M. Johnson, A. I. Domashnev, W. Labov, J. Lakoff, A. Schweitzer, G. V. Stepanov, E. Haugen, L. Schatzman, T. Shevchenko, R. O. Jacobson, V. N. Yartseva and others). The notion of language as a single holistic formation has changed since scientists came to understanding of the whole diversity of a language structure, due to linguistic and extralinguistic factors.
The main conditions, under which the language functionality undergoes internal and external changes, are indicated in the linguistic conception of Ferdinand de Saussure, who delineates the language system and the social nature of language, highlights the characteristic features of & quot-language"- and & quot-speech"- terms, presents the study of language in synchrony and diachrony.
It is noted that when the language operates in the natural and socio-cultural environments, different from the original ones, a natural process is the emergence of language variation in the communication process.
Thus, in the monograph of U. Weinreich & quot-Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems& quot-, published in New York in 1953, & quot-cases of deviation from the norms of the language occurring in bilingual speech as a result of ownership of two or more languages, i. e. as a result of language contact& quot- [4, 34] are described, which led to the emergence of a new concept within the scientific field of linguistics studies — cross-language interference.
It is known that in linguistic literature, the term itself was first introduced by the representatives of the Prague Linguistic Circle in 1948 and further the interference phenomenon aroused interest of many scientists. Interference analysis was reflected in the works ofJ. Baudouin de Courtenay, M. V. Vereshchagin, A. Diebold, A. E. Karlynsky, N. B. Mechkovskaya, V. V. Klimov, V. Y. Rosenzweig, E. Haugen and L. V. Scherba.
It is supposed that linguistic interference should be understood as interaction of contact languages, which might be either negative
language under the influence of the other one (negative interference) — b) acquisition, consolidation and strengthening of skills in one language under the influence of the other one (positive interference). In other words, linguistic interference is a kind of & quot-intervention of elements of one language system to another, which might be both constructive and destructive& quot- [10, 105].
Another definition of interference, is proposed by V. A. Vinogradov and accentuated in the & quot-Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary& quot- edited by V. N. Yartseva: & quot-Interference (lat. inter — «each other», «mutually» and ferio — «to touch», «to hit») — is language systems interplay under bilingual environment, emerging either from contacts of two languages, or due to the individual assimilation of the non-native language- interference is expressed in deviations from the norm and the second language system under the influence of the mother language& quot- [6, 325].
Investigations conducted suggest that the phenomenon of interference is represented at all levels of the language system. There are many approaches to the definition and classification of interference. V. V. Alimov in the manual & quot-Interference in Translation& quot- offers the following types of interference: — phonic (phonetic, phonological and sound-reproducible) — - grammatical (morphology, syntax and punctuation) — - lexical- - orthographical- - semantic- - stylistical- - intralinguistic [1, 66].
A. D. Petrenko in the work & quot-Social Phonetic Aspects of Language Variation& quot- gives & quot-evidence of bilinguals usage of different phonetic systems with overlapping characteristics'- that further allows '-to predict the phonetic form of interference& quot- [11, 156].
According to U. Weinreich, under grammatical interference & quot-the identification of the morpheme or grammatical category of the language A with the morpheme or category of language B& quot- takes place [3, 36]. The speech of bilingual speakers undergoes changes due to the transfer of grammatical categories of one language to other significant parts of words of the other language.
Under lexical interference are primarily meant & quot-all the changes, provoked by the cross-language links in the lexical inventory composition, as well as in functions and usage of the lexical-semantic units in their semantic structure& quot- [7, 129].
Section 10. Philology
In addition to the above-mentioned classification, depending on the & quot-direction"- of the situation of communication, interlingual interference might be — positive, negative, or two-way- according to the type of speech activity of a communicant — impressive (receptive) or expressive (productive) — in the form of manifestation — the interference of the first or second language, overt or covert- in-tralinguistic (internal) or cross-language (external) — depending on the & quot-origin"-- according to the nature of a native language skills to a foreign language study — both direct and indirect- complicated, volatile or destructive — as a result of obtaining a certain result of speech activity- and extralinguistic: realities, body language, nonverbal behavior, ideology .
V. T. Klokov highlights cultural and lingvo-cultural interference. According to the author, in cultural interference & quot-the transfer ofsome behavior stereotypes, certain norms, ideological concepts, as well as linguistic means of communication peculiar to the native (transmitting) culture is made& quot- [9, 113]. In interference of lingvo-cultural character & quot-the transfer of the part of the linguistic and paralinguistic elements of the native language, which in some way are connected with the extralinguistic elements of culture, is made& quot- [9, 114].
Interference viewed as part of sociolinguistic areas of linguistics byJ. Bagan in the work & quot-Contact linguistics& quot- is directly related to the functions of language and its social status in a multilingual society, which leads to the emergence of another type of interference — a sociolinguistic one .
Social dominance of one language over another is determined, as a rule, by the state language policy, and is considered to be a variation with respect to the norms of the linguistic situation in the country in which the language and form of the language are strictly selected and used only in certain localities, communities and under special circumstances (territorial and social stratification language and speech) that, in turn, confirms the existence of so-called situational (or contextual) interference .
It is noted that situational interference depends on the social position of not only the languages used at the time of speech contact, but also on the social status of speakers, as well as the situation of communication at the time of communication. For example, living in the city or in the village, belonging to a certain type of activity, profession, age, level of education and mentality may also lead to differences in the tendency to perpetuate the interference in the contact languages [5, 269].
Taking into account the theoretical principles and practical achievements in the field of interference, it is possible to analyze the most typical manifestation of lexical interference in the context of the English-Finnish bilingualism (contact language Finglish).
Examples of Nouns interference (Eng-Fing-Rus): an accident — accidentti- a battery — patteri (батарея) — a billion — biljoona (миллиард) — a book — puuka (книга) — butter — putter (масло) — canine — kaniini (клык) — etiquette — etiketti (этикет) — a hamburger — hampurkki (гамбургер) — a hotdog — hoddari (хот-дог) — harmony — harmonikka (гармония) — house — haussi (дом) — liquor — likoori (ликёр) — a motorist — motorist (автомобилист) — a novel — novella (роман) — a park — parkki (парк) — petrol — petrol (бензин) — public — puplikki (общественность, публика) — a telephone — telefooni (телефон) — risk — riski (риск) — a sweater — veteri (свитер).
Examples ofVerbs interference (Eng-Fing-Rus): to boot — buu-tata (надевать ботинки) — to save — seivata (сохранять) — to print — printata (печатать) — to chat — tsatata (болтать) — to format -for-matoida (форматировать) — to edit — editoida (редактировать) — to bach — patsata (жить самостоятельно, вести холостяцкий образ жизни) — to run — runnata (бежать) — to talk — tolokata (говорить) — to go upstairs — upsteelle (идти на верхний этаж) — to park (парковаться) — parkata- to rollerskate (кататься на роликах) — rollerskataa.
Examples of Adjectives interference (Eng-Fing-Rus): smart — smartti (умный) — isolated — eristetty (отдельный, изолированныый) — legal — laillinen (правовой, юридический, легальный) — lazy — laiska (ленивый) — rich — rikas (богатый) — sore — sairas (болезненный) — tragic — traaginen (трагичный) — stylish — tyylikas (стильный) — weird — vieras (странный) — exact — eksakti (точный) — global — globaali (глобальный).
Examples of Interjectionss interference (Eng-Fing-Rus): hey — hei (эй) — okay — okei (хорошо) — Pronoun: he — he (он) — Neologisms: phone + tablet = phablet (смартфон с сенсорный экраном с широкой диагональю) — gay + boy = gay by (ребенок, воспитывающийся в однополых семьях) — blog — vlogi (видеоблог) — grey + beige = greige (серый и бежевый цвета) — fame — feimi (известный, благодаря социальным сетям) — chick lit — mimmikir-jallisuus (развлекательная литература для девушек).
The presented examples reflect the interference processes, that take place in the English and Finnish languages, resulting in the enrichment of modern contact & quot-hybrid language& quot- Finglish with new lexical units. There is a tendency to absorb by the recipient language lexical elements of the native language of the speaker and the emergence of neologisms in the live speech of communicants.
Interest of modern linguists in interference issues in the context of bilingualism is rather obvious, therefore, the implementation at the other levels of the language system (phonetic, grammatical, sociolinguistic) of represented in the article linguistic phenomenon needs to be further studied.
1. Alimov V. V. Interference in Translation: on a material of prof. reference point. intercultural. communication and transl. in prof. communication: [Proc. Guide]/Vladimir Alimov. — Moscow: URSS: KomKniga, 2005. — 229 p.
2. Bagan J. Contact linguistics/J. Bagan//[Electronic resource]. — Available from: http: //www. fanread. net/book/10 934 728/?page=22 (reference date 01/18/2016).
3. Belikov V. I. Sociolinguistics: Textbook. The text for high schools/V. Belikov, L. P. Krysin. — M.: Publishing House of the Russian State Humanitarian University, 2001. — 439 p.
4. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and Multilingualism//New in linguistics. Language contacts. — M.: Nauka, 1972. — Vol. 6. — P. 25−60.
5. Weinreich U. Language Contacts: Status and Research Issues: Trans. from English. /U. Weinreich. — Kiev: Vishcha school. Publishing house at Kiev un-te, 1979. — P. 36.
6. Vinogradov V. A. Interferences//Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary/V. A. Vinogradov/Ch. Ed. V. N. Yartsev. — M.: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1990. — 685 p.
7. Zhluktenko Y. A. Linguistic Aspects of Bilingualism/Y. A. Zhluktenko. — Kiev: Publishing house with Kiev un-te, 1974. — P. 129.
8. Interference at the Morphological Level//[Electronic resource]. — Available from: http: //mydocx. ru/4−82 926. html (reference date 01/18/2016).
9. Klokov V. T. Intellectual Interference as a Factor in the Semantics of the Word//Questions of Romano-Germanic Linguistics Intercollege. Sat. scientific. tr. /V. T. Klokov. — Saratov: Publishing House of Saratov University, 1988. — Vol. 9. — P. 112−116.
10. Komissarov V. N. Interference Problem in Translation//Interferenz in der Translation. Coll. scientific articles in English., It., and Russian languages/V. N. Komissarov. — Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopedie, 1989. — P. 103−108.
11. Petrenko A. D. Social Phonetic Aspects of Language Variation/A. D. Petrenko//Scientific Journal Proceedings of the Southern Federal University. — Rostov-na-Dony: SFU, 2014. — № 4. — P. 150−161.