Aesthetic perception of the Russian sound speech by Germans (a case study of German internet forums)

The article is devoted to the aesthtic assessment of the sound of Russian speech as reflected in German Internet forums. Segmental and suprasegmental features of Russian pronunciation which evoke in native speakers of German empathy and / or antipathy towards Russian sounding speech, are described. The ordinary Germans' naive assessment of Russian souding speech differs from that by professional linguists. Germans who are not familiar with the theoretical basis of the phonetic structure of the Russian language pay attention, first of all, to those pronunciation features that are not characteristic of the phonetic basis of the German language. Among them on segmental level are the following: trembling sonant [r̥], vowel [ᵻ] and back-lingual slit [ɣ] after vowels [e], [i] and consonants [lʲ], [nʲ], [j], the pronunciation of which in German in this position is pronounced as ich-Laut [ç]. The Germans also seem to dislike clusters of consonants that are absent in the German language, for example, -рск-, -здр- etc. The presence of these sounds in the Russian language allows ordinary Germans to characterize Russian sounding speech as rude, despite the remarks of the Germans that there are many “soft” sounds i.e. palatalized consonants in the Russian language. The main difference at the suprasegmental level, which in the scientific literature is designated as the opposition of the German “staccato” and Russian “legato”, finds its confirmation in the statements of German members of the forum. The rhythmic organization of Russian speech is assessed by common Germans as discordant and indistinct, since, unlike German speech, Russian speech is characterized by relaxed articulation, non-forced vocalization, an extended melodic range and an irregular rhythmic patterns. In addition, the use of different pitch movements in friendly and aggressive communication encourages Germans to qualify the speech of Russian speakers in obvious situations of friendly communication as confrontational.

Semantic Priming in Monolingual Russian and Bilingual Russian (L1)-English (L2) Speakers in a Single Word Naming Task

Identifying and exploring factors that influence bilingual language processing has been the topic of much psycholinguistic research. Semantic priming is typically used to examine semantic processing and refers to the phenomenon in which semantically related items (doctor-nurse) are processed faster and more accurately than semantically unrelated items (doctor-butter). The aim of the chapter is to address two key questions: 1) how the two languages of a bilingual are organised or stored and 2) how the two languages are processed. A review of the literature shows that there are currently no theoretical frameworks that explain Russian monolingual or Russian (L1)-English (L2) bilingual storage or processing. Monolingual Russian speakers and bilingual Russian (L1)-English (L2) speaking university students were asked to name target words under related or unrelated conditions. The results show that the magnitude of the semantic priming effect was determined by L2 proficiency. The implications for these findings is discussed within the current bilingual theoretical models.

SPACE DISCOURSE IN A LANGUAGE CONTACT SITUATION: “US” VS. “THEM”

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.

Israeli Russian: Case morphology in a bilingual context

The current study investigates case morphology development in a bilingual context. It is aimed at investigating potential mechanisms driving divergences in heritage language grammars as compared to the baseline monolingual standards. For the purposes of the study, 95 bilingual and monolingual children and adults were compared. Bilinguals residing in Israel acquired Russian from birth, while the age of onset of Hebrew varied. The participants completed a production task eliciting accusative case inflections. Both child and adult heritage speakers of Russian with early age of onset of Hebrew (before the age of 5) showed divergences in the production of the accusative case inflections as compared to monolingual Russian-speaking controls (adult and child), whereas grammars of Israeli heritage Russian speakers with later ages of onset of Hebrew, after the age of 5, were found to be intact. On the basis of Russian in contact with Hebrew, the study discusses how heritage language grammars differ from the baseline grammars of monolingual speakers and which mechanisms are associated with heritage language ultimate attainment. The effects of the age of onset and cross-linguistic influence from the dominant societal language are discussed as potential factors affecting the acquisition / maintenance of linguistic phenomena in heritage language grammars.

Translanguaging space and translanguaging practices in multilingual Russian-speaking families

Translanguaging is seen both as a threat and as an opportunity for minority language development and transmission. While the theme of translanguaging has been explored especially in a context of migration, the novelty of this study lies in its investigation of the multiple contexts in which translanguaging is examined. In order to understand the nature of translanguaging, we adopt a novel interdisciplinary approach and view it in all its complexity, including liminal spaces of linguistic landscape. Family language policy affects the home linguistic environment. Our purpose is to investigate language choices by multilingual Russian-speakers in Cyprus, Sweden and Estonia, immigrant and minority settings, and try to understand how they are reflected in the multilingual interaction of the families. Using ethnographic participant observations and oral spontaneous multilingual production, our study attempts to describe how communication is managed through translanguaging practices among multilingual Russian-speaking families members in the cultural and linguistic environments of the three countries. By looking closely at the complexities of translanguaging space, it is our ambition to gain new insights about how it is organised and how translanguaging becomes a valuable linguistic resource in multilingual families. Our results indicate that translanguaging practices can be used in family conversational contexts and contribute to the creation of a rich and positive family repertoire. A new norm of Russian has been developed in all the three settings. A language shift can happen more quickly than expected, and, thus, it is important for parents to provide many opportunities for practising Russian as the L1.

Biz birgemiz, or Revisiting the Diversification of Russian Language in Kazakhstan

The criteria for pluricentric languages, generalized by the Working Group on NonDominant Varieties of Pluricentric Languages (WGNDV), as well as our earlier condition of tightness, opacity, incomprehensibility of Kazakh Russian were used to discuss the possibility of its gradual formation. Two main conclusions were made: a) the Russian language of the post-Soviet space currently meets the criteria for pluricentric languages; b) the Russian language in Kazakhstan is going through rapid and noticeable diversification processes. The arguments of Kazakhstani linguists who assert (B.Kh. Khasanov, E.A. Zhuravleva, D.D. Shaibakova, etc.) or deny (Z.K. Sabitova, A.K. Kazkenova, etc.) the qualifications of the Russian language as variant in Kazakhstan - a country of long-term and massive Kazakh-Russian bilingualism. Generations of Russian speakers (monolinguals - ethnic Russians, Koreans, Ukrainians and others and bilinguals - Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Uighurs and others) with a dominant Russian or a dominant ethnic language - are involved in the processes of Soviet Russification and modern Kazakhization with different effects. Nowadays the diversification of the Russian language in Kazakhstan is taking place against the background of a fundamental change in the status and functional state of the Kazakh and Russian languages; reducing the number of native Russian speakers; fundamental changes in Kazakh-Russian bilingualism, reflected in the crisis of the linguistic identity of a part of Kazakhstanis, in a linguistic shift towards the Russian language (Koreans, part of Kazakhs, Ukrainians, small ethnic groups, etc.) and a turn of the linguistic shift of Kazakhs; strengthening the position of the Kazakh language in business, culture, education, mass media, interethnic communication; the changed vector of influence of languages (Kazakh Russian) and the openness of the Russian language for oral and written borrowings, especially in media texts; finally, new communication needs of Kazakhstanis. The long-term linguistic and cultural borderland, which forms the internalized conceptual-mental picture of the world inherent in Kazakhstanis, has become a fundamental factor stimulating the diversification processes of the Russian language in Kazakhstan.

Immediate recall as a secondary text: Referential parameters, pragmatics and propositions

Since the process of recalling combines comprehension and speech production, it is viewed as an extremely complex though understudied linguo-cognitive phenomenon. Recalls as secondary texts or text derivatives are also considered to be a good material to explore cognitive aspects of secondary texts production, information conversion procedures and types of transformations of primary texts. The notion of secondary texts also implies multiplicity, as an original text may be retranslated into numerous secondary texts different in quality and degree of completeness. The purpose of the study is to model the propositional secondary retold texts and to identify the specifics of the recipients interpretation of the main event in the text. It is aimed at discriminating the differences between the primary expository text and its 134 immediate recalls produced by 15-year old native Russian speakers. In order to reveal the specifics of the propositional content of a primary expository text and its recalls, their recipients used the following methodological operations: the description and interpretation of the semantic roles of the first and second arguments aligned to predicates on the basis of the verbs semantic properties; the employment of the psycholinguistic model of the utterances generation; the characteristic of memory as a complex of cognitive and mnemic processes; the definition of cognitive-semantic discourse structures; and the understanding of a proposition as a stable component of an utterance independent of the surface grammar. The comparison of the original text and its recalls with the use of innovative denotative maps enabled us to define successful and unsuccessful expression of propositional structures and the main idea of the original text. The classification of texts includes four groups based on the number of the reproduced propositions and types (weak or successful) of the reflection of the primary text denotative card. The authors designed and successfully implemented an innovative 11 stage-algorithm of revealing patterns of a printed text comprehension and its immediate recalls including the primary visual perception of the text, its primary interpretation, reading, encoding, reflection, preparation for an oral presentation, desobjectivation (distribution of semantic roles), interpretation, reflection, oral implementation and text. The work fills in certain gaps in the research, such as the specifics of immediate recalls production, identification of changes in propositional structures of immediate recalls, and expanding the corpus of semantic roles similar to Frame Net. The findings can be successfully applied in natural language processing and linguistic didactics.

Historical assessments in Estonian society: The identity of Estonians and Russian speakers in the context of local memory politics

The article examines the foundations of the historical paradigm of the modern Republic of Estonia and the degree of its perception by the local population. With the proclamation of independence, the local establishment decided to completely break with the Soviet past and had to construct not only its own political mechanism, the vertical of power, but also a new historical paradigm that could become a fastening link of the emerging statehood, as well as the Estonian society itself (its Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking parts). The Estonian memory policy directly influenced the shaping of the collective identity of the local population – to a greater extent Estonians than Russian speakers. The state historical policy failed to become a fastening link for the multinational Republic and predictably defends (and even implants) the historical views of the titular population, without considering other points of view.

Intergenerational differences in Russian color naming in the globalized era: linguistic analysis

The present study is an apparent-time analysis of color terms in Russian native speakers (N = 1927), whose age varied between 16 and 98 years. Stratified sampling was employed with the following age groups: 16–19, 20–29, and so on, with the oldest group of 70 years and over. Color names were elicited in a web-based psycholinguistic experiment (http://colournaming.com). Participants labeled color samples (N = 606) using an unconstrained color-naming method. Color vocabulary of each age group was estimated using multiple linguistic measures: diversity index; frequency of occurrences of 12 Russian basic color terms (BCTs) and of most frequent non-BCTs; color-naming pattern. Our findings show intergenerational differences in Russian color-term vocabulary, color-naming patterns, and object referents. The CT diversity (measured by the Margalef index) progressively increments with speakers’ juniority; the lexical refinement is manifested by the increasing variety of BCT modifiers and growing use of non-BCTs, both traditional and novel. Furthermore, the most frequent Russian non-BCTs sirenevyj “lilac”, salatovyj “lettuce‐colored”, and birûzovyj “turquoise” appear to be the emerging BCTs. The greatest diversity and richness of CT inventory is observed in Russian speakers aged 20–59 years, i.e., those who constitute the active workforce and are enthusiastic consumers. In comparison, speakers of 60 and over manifest less diverse color inventory and greater prevalence of (modified) BCTs. The two youngest groups (16–29 years) are linguistic innovators: their color vocabulary includes abundant recent loanwords, predominantly from English and, not infrequently, CTs as nouns rather than adjectives. Moreover, Generation Z (16–19 years) tend to offer highly specific or idiosyncratic color descriptors that serve expressive rather than informative function. The apprehended dynamics of color naming in apparent time reflects intergenerational differences as such, but even more so dramatic changes of sociocultural reality in the post-Soviet era, whereby Russian speakers, in particular under 60 years, were/are greatly impacted by globalization of trade: new market product arrivals resulted in adoption of novel and elaboration of traditional CTs for efficient communication about perceived color

КОЛЛЕКТИВНАЯ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТЬ И ОБЩЕСТВЕННО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ПОВЕДЕНИЕ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ ЛИТВЫ ВО ВЗАИМОСВЯЗИ С ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ПОЛИТИКОЙ

В статье рассматривается процесс складывания коллективной идентичности населения независимой Литвы в период 1990–2010-х гг. во взаимосвязи с местной политикой памяти. В момент обретения самостоятельности, в 1991 г., Литва являлась полиэтничным государством, где наряду с литовцами, составлявшими до 79% населения, проживали русскоязычные и поляки. В результате, местные власти столкнулись с необходимостью конструирования не только собственного политического механизма, вертикали власти, но и коллективной национальной идентичности, способной стать скрепляющим звеном нарождающейся государственности. Значительную роль в достижении данной цели сыграла литовская историческая политика, направленная не только на представителей титульного населения, но и на местные национальные меньшинства. В данной статье мы делаем попытку проследить особенности складывания коллективной идентичности, общественно-политического поведения литовцев, русскоязычных и поляков через исторические воззрения данных групп, а также степень восприимчивости населения Республики к государственной исторической парадигме. The article examines the collective identity of the population of independent Lithuania during the 1990s - 2010s in conjunction with local memory politics. At the time of gaining independence in 1991, Lithuania was a multinational state. Along with the Lithuanians, who constituted up to 79% of the population, it also had Russian-speaking and Polish residents. As a result, the local authorities faced the need to construct not only their own political mechanism but also a collective national identity capable of binding the emerging statehood. A significant role in achieving this goal was played by the Lithuanian historical policy, aimed not only at the ethnic Lithuanians but also at local ethnic minorities. In this article, we attempt to trace the formation of collective identity, the socio-political behavior of Lithuanians, Russian-speakers, and Poles through the historical views of these groups and the degree of susceptibility of the population of the Republic to the state historical paradigm.