Multilingual practices inevitably lead to language contact phenomena. This phenomenon occurs in Estonia, where the Russian speaking minority, often defined as a Russian diaspora, differs from the socially and linguistically dominant Estonian group with respect to their language and language practices. We suggest that the analysis of one of the languages in contact, in this case Russian, allows for a deeper understanding of the role of the other, i.e. Estonian, in the multilingual practices of the Estonian population as a whole. In this paper, we will focus on “spatial indicators” (i.e. toponyms, ergonyms, linguistic landscape objects, etc.) in the discourse on space provided by participants from the Russian-speaking population living in Estonia. These sociolinguistic foci have been partially described in several existing works which underscore the influence of Estonian on the speech of the local Russian speakers. Previous research gives insights into the peculiarities that the influence of Estonian generates: in the use of toponyms, in the naming of different language landscape objects, in the everyday language practices, and in the description and evaluation of the surrounding space (i.e. in the “spatial awareness”) of the local Russian speaking population. However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the aforementioned phenomena represent a whole that reflects the development of the speakers’ apprehension of the surrounding physical, sociocultural and sociolinguistic space. This process is put into focus in this paper and is shown to be characterized by the (re)definition of space(s) as “ours” vs “theirs”. Such processes will be revealed here by giving an overview of the “spatial components” in the speech of the Russian speaking population of Estonia in several spheres of communication (newspapers, TV shows, advertisements, web forums, etc.) and by analysing interviews involving three Estonian residents, each with a different sociolinguistic background. We attempt to demonstrate how these “spatial components” reflect the interaction of Russian and Estonian speakers, with an emphasis on their affinities across certain language practices. In the analysis of the interviews, we focus in particular on the participants’ (re)definitions of “us” vs “them” in their discourse on space. Special attention is also given to the use of Estonian insertions as a tool for evaluation and the creation of the opposition between “us” and “them” in the internet communication of Russian speakers living in Estonia.
How Software Features and Linguistic Analyses Add Value to Orthographic Markup in Transcription of Multilingual Recordings for Digital Archives
