Greek borrowings in Latin. Original Russian vocabulary Borrowing foreign language vocabulary into the Russian language in different eras
Formation of the vocabulary of the Russian language is a long and complex process. From the point of view of origin, two lexical layers can be distinguished in the Russian language:
1) original Russian vocabulary;
2) borrowed vocabulary.
Let us consider the structure of each of the layers in more detail. 1) In accordance with the genealogical classification of languages, the Russian language belongs to the Indo-European family of languages and is included in the East Slavic group of the Slavic family of languages. In the Russian language, the following layers of native Russian vocabulary, different in origin and time of appearance, can be distinguished:
1) Indo-European;
2) common Slavic;
3) East Slavic;
4) actually Russian.
The oldest layer in the original Russian vocabulary is Indo-European words, that is, words that were inherited by the ancient languages of the Indo-European family after the collapse of the Indo-European linguistic community (until the 3rd - 2nd centuries BC). The similarity of such words is found when comparing many Indo-European languages:
Russian: three;
Ukrainian: three;
Serbo-Croatian: three;
Czech: tfi;
English: three;
Old Indian: tra "yas (m. p.), trini, tri (m. p.);
Latin: tres;
Spanish: tres.
Words of Indo-European origin include: 1) Some kinship terms: brother, grandfather, daughter, wife, mother, sister, son, etc.;
2) Names of animals: bull, wolf, goose, goat, cat, sheep, etc.;
3) Names of plants, food products, various kinds of vital concepts: peas, oak, millet, water, meat, day, firewood, smoke, name, month, etc.;
4) Numerals: two, three, ten, etc.;
5) Names of actions: protect, be (eat), carry, command, believe, twirl, see, give, divide, eat (eat), wait, live, have, carry, etc.;
6) Names of signs and qualities: white, cheerful, big, barefoot, decrepit, alive, evil, etc.;
7) Prepositions: without, before, to, etc.
Common Slavic vocabulary- these are words that arose during the period of linguistic unity of the Slavs (the period from the 3rd - 2nd centuries BC to the 6th century AD). Common Slavic words show phonetic and semantic similarities in the languages of the southern and western Slavs.
Compared to Indo-European vocabulary, modern Russian has much more common Slavic vocabulary (at least 2 thousand lexemes), and is also more diverse in subject matter. Common Slavic vocabulary includes:
1) The names of the tools of the agricultural labor process, as well as the main tools and parts of weapons: harrow, rake, scythe, hoe, sickle, plow, needle, hammer, knife, saw, axe, awl, spear, bow, arrow, bowstring, etc. .;
2) Names of agricultural labor products and cultivated crops: wheat, cereals, flour, birch, wood, viburnum, cabbage, maple, cranberry, flax, linden, wheat, rye, apple, barley, etc.;
3) Names of animals, fish, birds, insects: otter, hare, mare, cow, fox, elk, snake, grass snake, lizard, tench, eel, woodpecker, magpie, swift, mosquito, etc.;
4) Names of parts of the human body: thigh, eyebrow, head, tooth, hand, skin, knee, face, forehead, leg, nose, shoulder, arm, body, ear, etc.;
5) Kinship terms: grandson, godfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, aunt, etc.;
6) The names of the home and its parts, many vital concepts: door, house, road, hut, porch, bench, stove, floor, ceiling, canopy; spring, winter, summer, autumn; clay, iron, gold; kalach, porridge, jelly; evening, morning, night; century, hour; oak forest, frost, spark, forest, hole, etc.;
7) Abstract vocabulary: excitement, grief, deed, good, evil, thought, happiness, etc.
During the period of pan-Slavic unity, a large number of adjectives appeared, denoting various signs and qualities of objects and phenomena: red, dark, black; tall, long; loud, healthy, sour, cunning, bright, etc.
During this same period, many words appeared that denoted various actions and states: knit, guess, swallow, look, warm, hold, milk, doze, ring, wait, wish, etc.
The appearance of some numerals, pronouns, adverbs dates back to this period: one, four, eight, one hundred, thousand; you, we, your, which, everyone; inside, everywhere, yesterday, tomorrow, etc.
East Slavic vocabulary arose during the period of East Slavic unity (approximately from the 6th to the 14th - 15th centuries). These are words common to the languages of the East Slavic group: Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian. As a rule, they are absent in other Slavic languages. Compare:
East Slavic words are called differently Old Russian words, since they go back to the Old Russian language of the era of Kievan Rus (IX century). This is a diverse vocabulary that reflects in all its diversity the political, economic, social and cultural life of the ancient Russian state.
For example, the following words are East Slavic (Old Russian) in origin:
a) Numerals: eleven, twelve and further to twenty, twenty, thirty, forty, ninety, etc.;
b) Nouns: sackcloth, fight, fidget, blackberry, chaffinch, tub, pantry, baggage, settlement, syllable, troubles, etc.;
c) Adjectives: caustic, dark, etc.;
d) Verbs: get excited, fidget, murmur, etc.;
e) Adverbs: after, today, etc.
Actually Russian vocabulary- these are words that arose from the formation of the Russian nationality (from the 14th century) and are born in the language at the present time.
Russian words proper, which appeared already during the period of independent existence of the Russian state, are absent in the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. Compare:
Words of this category are characterized by the presence in their composition of the following word-forming elements specific to the Russian language:
1) Nouns are characterized by the presence of suffixes with the general meaning of “tool, device” -schik, (-chik), -ovschik, -lschik, -lk, -ovk, -k, -tel, -ost: mason, marker, diver, lighter, locker room, leaflet, anti-aircraft gun, fire extinguisher;
2) Verbs formed in the following ways:
a) Suffix-prefix method: run away, cower, get through,
b) Denominative verbs: carpenter, shoemaker;
3) Adverbs like friendly, boyish;
4) The vast majority of derived prepositions and conjunctions:
a) prepositions: due to, about, thanks to,
b) conjunctions: so far, so that, since, because, etc.
Every people lives among other peoples. Usually he maintains diverse ties with them: trade, industrial-economic, cultural. The consequence of these connections is the influence of peoples and their languages on each other.
The languages of contacting peoples also experience mutual influence, because they are the main means of interstate and interpersonal communication. The main form of linguistic influence of one people on another is the borrowing of foreign words. Borrowing enriches a language, makes it more flexible and usually does not infringe on its originality, since it preserves the basic vocabulary of the language, the grammatical structure inherent in a given language, and the internal laws of language development are not violated.
The reasons for foreign language borrowing may be external(extralinguistic or extralinguistic) and intralingual.
External reasons:
1. Close political, trade, economic, industrial and cultural ties between peoples;
2. Designation using a foreign word for some special type of objects or concepts. For example, to denote a servant in a hotel, the word portier (compare: bellhop) has become stronger in Russian. The fate of many scientific and technical borrowings is similar:
Relevant (compare Russian: essential);
Local (compare Russian local);
Transformer (compare Russian converter), etc. Political and economic terms can also be borrowed that denote concepts that are currently missing in the language, for example: pluralism, privatization, etc.
Intralingual reasons(most often directly or indirectly related to external ones):
The socially determined need for the specialization of concepts is supported by the inherent tendency of language towards increasing differentiation of linguistic means by meaning (semantics). As a result of this tendency, the meaning of a Russian word can be split into two: one meaning is determined by the Russian name, and the second is assigned to a foreign language, borrowed word. Compare, for example, pairs of words that are close in meaning, but not synonymous in meaning: story (Russian) - reportage (borrowed); universal (Russian) - total (borrowed).
Topic 4. Race, ethnicity, languages: their relationship. Contact languages as a specific result of language contacts.
Ancient syncretism of the meanings of “language” and “people” in the word language, dating back to Old Church Slavonic texts, it is known to languages of various families: Indo-European (for example, Lat. lingua), Finno-Ugric (and not only Finnish or Hungarian, but also Komi-Mari), Turkish, and some African languages. This semantic duality speaks of the close connection between the concepts of “language” and “people” in the minds of people: one people are those who speak the same language, and language is what the people speak, it unites the people and distinguishes them from others peoples Indeed, the ethnic and linguistic principles of population grouping largely coincide and are interrelated. Moreover, both principles are opposed to the anthropological (racial).
Races unite people by inheritance biological similarity (skin color, hair type, skull structure, eye color and shape, lip shape, etc.). The sound language of man is older than races. The formation of language and the formation of the species Homo sapiens are interconnected; this happened approximately thousands of years ago. years ago. The division of humanity into races is associated with the settlement of tribes from the common ancestral home of humanity (Central or South Africa, according to anthropologists) throughout the entire territory of the Earth and occurred much later, under the long-term influence of climatic and geographical conditions. On the other hand, the modern genealogical grouping of languages (depending on the degree of kinship of languages originating from a common source language - the proto-language) also developed independently of further fragmentation and mixing of races.
Naturally, certain correspondences exist between the boundaries of territories inhabited by one race and the boundaries of linguistic families. For example, the languages of the Malayo-Polynesian family are not spoken by any people of the Eurasian (white) race; on the contrary, the languages of the Caucasian family are not found in territories inhabited by peoples of the Negroid (black) and Mongoloid (yellow) races. However, this is only a geographical coincidence of fundamentally different entities.
Like everything genetic, biological, the racial factor latently and deeply determines the mentality of peoples. It is natural to assume that languages could also experience such a general influence. However, there is no evidence of such a relationship. At the individual level, which language is native (maternal) for a particular person depends not on his anthropological characteristics, but on the linguistic community in which he grew up. In the USA, English is the native language of both whites and blacks, as well as many Indians. In Kazakhstan, according to the 1979 census, over one percent of Kazakhs named Russian as their native language. Thus, there is no "anthropological" predisposition of people of different races to the languages of certain families or groups.
The map of the peoples of the world and the map of the languages of the world have a completely different relationship. They not only coincide in many respects, but are also significantly interdependent. The fact is that the very formation of a separate ethnic community (tribe, nationality) is associated with the linguistic unification of the population of a certain territory. A common language, along with a common territory, economic life, a certain common culture and ethnic identity, is an essential feature of an ethnos. On the other hand, a particular language entity is perceived as a language (and not as a dialect or jargon) only if it serves a particular people and at the same time the entire people.
Genealogical classification languages of the world (from Greek. genealogia - pedigree) reveals family ties between the languages that make up a particular language family(for example, Indo-European, or Turkic, or Semitic-Hamitic, Afroasiatic, Finno-Ugric, etc.; more than 20 families of languages are known). Language families are divided into groups languages (for example, within the circle of the Indo-European family there are groups Indian, Iranian, Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, Romance, Celtic, Greek, Albanian, Armenian, Anatolian, Tocharian). The map of the world's languages is based on the genealogical classification of languages.
Is language a mandatory feature of an ethnic group?
At the same time, in reality - in historical and geographical reality - parallelism between ethnic and linguistic communities does not always exist. Often one people uses not one, but several languages. Thus, in modern Switzerland, which is the state of the Swiss nation, four languages coexist: German, French, Italian and Romansh. Two languages - English and Irish - are used by the Irish. Two very different Finno-Ugric languages - Moksha and Erzya - are spoken by the Mordovian nation.
Another kind of asymmetry is widespread in the world: one language is used by several or many peoples.
How to distinguish a language from a dialect?
In some languages, the differences between territorial dialects are so significant that inhabitants of different lands cannot understand each other without the help of Koine or a standard language. This is the degree of differences between the Low Saxon and Bavarian dialects of the German language, the Transcarpathian dialects and dialects of the Kharkov region of the Ukrainian language, the Samogitian and Aukshaitsky dialects of the Lithuanian language, and the northern and southern dialects of the Chinese language. The opposite picture is often observed: people speaking different languages understand each other without an interpreter. For example, all Turks, Finns and Estonians, Danes and Norwegians, Serbs and Croats communicate without an interpreter. Then what is the difference between a language and a dialect? The status of a language formation (i.e. language, dialect, argot, functional style, etc.), like the ethnic status of a certain community of people, is determined by the self-awareness of the corresponding group. Linguistic self-awareness is the speaker's idea of what language they speak.
Let’s say that a researcher or an expert from a humanitarian intermediary organization is faced with the task of determining the status of the linguistic entity spoken by residents of locality A—is it a language or a dialect? (For example, such an examination was required to choose the language of radio broadcasting or the language of instruction in the created schools.) Let us also assume that the researcher sufficiently understands the speech of the residents of locality A and the residents of neighboring territories B and C: he sees how the everyday communication of monolingual neighbors from the lands goes A, B and C; sees that in structural and linguistic terms, language systems A, B and C are different from each other; at the same time, the researcher has sufficient knowledge of these language formations to ask residents A, B and C about everything that interests him.
To solve the problem, the researcher must find out how (i.e., what linguonym) the residents of A themselves call the language they speak among themselves. Theoretically, the following answers are possible:
1) we speak A
2) we speak B
3) we speak C
4) we speak D
In the 1st case (i.e., if residents of A believe that they speak not languages B, C or D, but their own language A, separate from languages B, C and D), the researcher states exactly this: in A speaks in language A, which is not a dialect of neighboring languages B and C and the distant language D. Moreover, for sociolinguistic examination it does not matter whether the residents of A and B or A and C understand each other without an interpreter: if they understand, then A and B ( or A and C) are closely related, but certainly different languages; If speakers A and B need a translator, then these languages are quite far from each other.
In the 2nd case (residents A believe that they speak language B), the researcher states: language formation A is a dialect of B. In this case, as in the 1st case, two options are possible for residents A and B to communicate: without an interpreter (if two dialects of one language or a dialect and the corresponding supra-dialectal language have not moved much away from each other) and with the help of a translator (if there is a significant linguistic distance between two territorial varieties of one language). Similarly in the 3rd and 4th cases: A is a dialect in relation to C or D.
If you need to determine the status of the language entity spoken in locality B, then you need to ask the residents of B, and not A, not C, and not D, about this, i.e., in relation, for example, to the situation in Polesie, you need to ask the residents villages and cities of Polesie, and not Kiev, Minsk, Warsaw or Moscow (Possible specification: what is the speech of the inhabitants of Polesie - a Belarusian dialect (or dialects), a Ukrainian dialect / dialects or an independent Polesie (Yatvingian) language?).
Thus, when determining the status of a language education, the sociolinguistic criterion (i.e., self-determination by speakers of their language) takes precedence over the structural-linguistic criterion (which depends on the degree of proximity of two language formations, which is expressed in the possibility or impossibility of communication without an interpreter) . If a group of speakers considers their native speech to be a separate language, different from the languages of all neighbors, then what this group speaks is a separate independent language. While respecting human rights, both linguists and politicians must accept this point of view.
Linguistic self-awareness necessarily includes a linguonym (language name): Gagauz, Belarusian, Galician, Yatvingian etc. In the linguistic consciousness of many speakers (including, of course, non-professionals), in addition to the linguonym, there are also ideas about which languages the native language is adjacent to, which it is more similar to, which it is less similar to, etc.
Supra-ethnic multilingual communities: consolidation and good neighborliness or time bombs?
Ethnic development in the modern world is characterized by some new trends that significantly change the traditional relationship between the concepts of “people” and “language”. In many regions of the Third World, ethnic communities larger than nations are emerging. Their borders coincide with the borders of states or large regions within states and, to one degree or another, correspond to the borders of former European colonies. This situation is quite common. A number of tribes and smaller ethnic groups speak virtually different, and not always related, languages. In interethnic communication within the region, they use several intermediary languages - sometimes one of the tribal languages of the region, but more often the languages of their neighbors. However, despite real language barriers, the tribes of the region are characterized by a common ethnic identity, have a single self-name, i.e. they represent one people. The state unites dozens of such internally multilingual peoples.
In the largest African country by population - Nigeria - 80 million inhabitants speak 200 languages (according to some estimates, about 500 languages), and many languages are spoken in neighboring countries - Ghana, Dahomey, Togo, Niger. The three main languages of Nigeria - Hausa, Yoruba, and Ibo - are spoken by about half of the population. It is these languages, which have writing and literary traditions, that are considered candidates for the role of a national language. Imported languages are also used: in Muslim religion and culture - classical Arabic; in the official sphere, in fiction - English (which has the status of the official language of the state); in interethnic business contacts - pidgin English. And yet, despite the ethnic and linguistic diversity, despite the fact that the largest languages of Nigeria, being widespread beyond its borders, are not specifically Nigerian and, therefore, can hardly serve as a means of ethnic identification; Despite the processes of formation of new nationalities and strong inter-ethnic strife, the slogan of unity of all the people of the country is popular in Nigeria:<единое государство - единая нация - единый язык>. The question of one<государственном>, or<официальном>, the language in Nigeria is far from being resolved, but this movement contributes to the formation of the features of a supranational community.
Thus, in ethno-linguistic situations in third world countries, language ceases to be a sign of an ethnic group and a means of ethnic consolidation. With this in mind, a possible specification: what is the speech of the inhabitants of Polesie - a Belarusian dialect (or dialects), a Ukrainian dialect / dialects or an independent Polesie (Yatvingian) language? There is a sharp asymmetry in the ratio of the number of languages and peoples: there are significantly more languages than peoples, since several multilingual population groups can consider themselves one people. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed.) determines the number of languages on Earth in the range from 2.5 to 5 thousand. At the same time, there are over 1,300 different peoples on Earth (as of 1983).
The order of the members of a sentence in Roussenorsk allows for fluctuations, but the most common is the postposition of the predicate. With a transitive verb, there is a strong tendency to arrange the members of the sentence as follows: the verb occupies the final position, an unmarked direct object adjoins it to the left, the next position to the left is occupied by a dative object with a preposition ro, even further to the left are temporal and locative constants, also introduced by the preposition ro; the subject is in the leftmost position, at the beginning of the sentence: Moja paa dumosna grot djengi plati"I paid a lot of money at customs"; Davajpaa moja skib kjai drikkom"Have some tea on my ship."
The most puzzling feature of Roussenorsk grammar is the syntax of negation. Negation rate njet/ikke is located before the word to which it refers, generally repeating the order of Russian and Norwegian; there is, however, one serious exception. In Roussenorsk, various verb actants (direct object, dative, subject) can be placed between the negation and the verb itself, which looks extremely unusual from the point of view of both lexifier languages: Kor ju ikke paa moja mokka kladi?"Why don't you brought should I have flour?"; Raaden dag ikke Russefolk arbej."On this day the Russians not work ut". The origin of this feature should perhaps be sought in Finnish, where a similar syntax for negation is quite common.
Formation of developed contact languages
In a certain situation, pidgin can become the only language of a society whose members are quite closely related to each other, and begin to serve all the communicative needs of this society, in particular, be used as a language of family communication. At the same time, pidgin becomes the native, and often the only language of the new generation. This process is called nativization(from English native"native"), or creolization, pidgin, and the new stage in the development of contact language is Creole, or CreoleChinese language. Term Creole dates back to Portuguese, which originated in Brazil crioulo, originally denoting an African slave born in America.
Pidgins could be creolized in different social conditions: in mestizo (mixed) families that arose in coastal European fortifications, on plantations, as well as among fugitive slaves (Maroons), who revived traditional African culture in the New World. Many creolists believe that nativization could have occurred even before the pidgin stabilized, that is, at the prepigin stage.
With the expansion of the functions of the contact language, its vocabulary increases, and its phonetic and grammatical structures become more complex. This process had its own specifics in different types of Creoles. The creoles that emerged in the forts were more influenced by the lexifier language. In the Maroon languages, with the expansion of vocabulary and the complexity of grammatical means, on the contrary, the African substrate was most strongly manifested. Under plantation slavery, the contact language quickly became the language of the family. In parallel with the existence of pidgin, which was teetering on the brink of standardization, and increasingly new pre-pidgin idiolects, each region of the plantation economy arose its own creole varieties of the contact language. This has led to the fact that modern Anglo-Creole languages of the Caribbean, ultimately going back to a common pidgin, often have a different African substrate (in Jamaica, for example, it is primarily Yoruba and Twi, in Suriname - Kikongo). Let us consider in a little more detail the history of the formation of the creole languages of Suriname.
From the end of the 16th century. the coast of modern Suriname, like all of Guiana, was an arena of rivalry between the Dutch, British and French. In 1651, the British settled here (the planters, along with their slaves, moved mainly from Barbados), but in 1667 Suriname passed to the Netherlands, whose colony it remained until 1975.
For the linguistic future of the country, the most important period was the second half of the 17th century. With the transition of Suriname to the Netherlands, British colonists, along with their slaves, gradually traveled to the West Indies, primarily to Jamaica; At the same time, the influx of Dutch settlers and new slaves increased, but by 1671 the “old” slaves, brought back to British Suriname, numerically predominated (1300 versus 1200 new ones). Nothing is known about the contact languages of this period, but it is quite logical to believe that in the early 1660s a fairly stable English-based pidgin had already developed here, to which the main creole language of Suriname ultimately goes back - fucked20. This and other contact languages of Suriname finally emerged only in the 18th century. Previously, their stabilization and creolization was hampered by the influx of new Africans, whose pidgins, both brought from slave markets and insufficiently assimilated local varieties, eroded the emerging standard.
An important destabilizing factor was also the Portuguese-based contact language brought by the slaves of the 200 Jewish planters expelled from Brazil. According to some sources, the Portuguese Creole Ju-tongo(“Hebrew language”) existed in Suriname until the middle of the 19th century.
Under the influence of the slave trade, both the English and Portuguese Creoles of Suriname were formed in interaction. The most interesting result of this process was Saramacca, the language of the so-called forest blacks (Dutch. bosnegers), living now in the middle reaches of the river. Suriname (about 20 thousand speakers).
The origins of the Saramacca tribe are well known. The first mass escapes from the coast into the jungle occurred in the 1690s; it was then that clans of “forest blacks” were formed, whose names (machau, kadosu,biitu) go back to the names of planters of Jewish-Brazilian origin (Machado, Cardoso, Britto). By 1710, the formation of a new ethnic group was essentially completed: a 50-year period of armed clashes between the “forest blacks” and the troops of the Dutch colonial administration began, when the freed slaves were very wary of the new arrivals, suspecting them of spying for the authorities. After the conclusion of peace with the Dutch (1762), the Saramaccans pledged to hand over all future fugitives to them.
The Jewish planters came from what was known as New Holland, a territory in northeastern Brazil centered on Moritzstadt (modern Recife) that the Netherlands held from 1630 to 1654. Marrano Jews (who outwardly converted to Christianity) settled in Brazil from 1580; here they sought refuge, fearing religious persecution in the Iberian Peninsula. Under Dutch rule they openly returned to Judaism; At the same time, many Sephardic Jews, expelled from Spain and Portugal and finding temporary shelter in the Italian city of Livorno and the Netherlands, moved here. With the return of these lands to Portugal, the new colonists were forced to leave the country within three months. They emigrated first to Cayenne and then to Suriname (still under British rule, in 1664).
The most plausible scenario seems to be the following scenario for the formation of the Saramacca language. Slaves brought to Suriname at the end of the 17th century used English pidgin with a strong influence of African substratum (the Dutch did not export slaves from Africa). Those of them who ended up on plantations with the working language of Ju-Tongo were forced to master it too. In the new communicative situation, a new pidgin emerged, the lexifiers of which were Portuguese Creole and English pidgin. Since the tendency to escape was especially characteristic of recent slaves, it was this language that became the main means of communication of the first “forest blacks.”
As a result, the main vocabulary of the Saramaccan language is highly heterogeneous: 37% of its basic vocabulary goes back to Portuguese, 54% to English, and 4% each from Dutch and African languages. Saramacca contains the largest African linguistic component of any New World creole. In everyday vocabulary, there are about 140 units dating back to Ki-Kongo and slightly less to Ewe (note that these languages are not related, and they are spoken in different parts of Africa, separated by thousands of kilometers). It was from the areas where these languages were spoken that 2/3 of the slaves who arrived in Suriname by the beginning of the 18th century originated. There are even more words of African origin in ritual languages used in local cult practices. It is curious that in the Sranan there is a small layer of words of Hebrew origin - for example, trefu"food taboo" kaseri"ritually pure" (cf. Russian. treph, kosher); in Saramaccan the corresponding concepts are expressed by units of African origin. This is additional evidence that at the time of the escape the common language of the slaves was pidgin, its lexical enrichment and creolization already taking place in the jungle.
The scenario of the emergence of the Saramacca language shows that the formation of creole languages was a complex process in which the future of the languages themselves depended on the demographic and linguistic characteristics of those who were involved in the sphere of their use: a creolized language with an already stable grammatical structure and a rich vocabulary was often subject to decreolization under the influence of a new contingent of speakers trying to assimilate it, which was numerically superior to the previously established Creole linguistic community. “New” beginning bilinguals may have already been proficient in a pidgin (or different pidgins) that independently arose from the same lexical basis as the Creole they were trying to acquire. As a result, a new pidgin emerged, which was later creolized; this process could be repeated several times.
We almost never have actual linguistic information on the history of modern creoles; only some stages of the formation of the Creole ethnos and the final product of linguistic evolution are known - the modern creole. I went through one of the most difficult stories cryo(the language of interethnic communication in Sierra Leone, native to 500 thousand people). The area of modern Freetown from the end of the 16th century. often visited by the Portuguese, an English fort was founded here in 1663; There is evidence that both Portuguese and English pidgins were used here at this time. By the end of the 18th century. the number of Afro-European mulattoes reached 12 thousand people. In 1787-1792 About 2 thousand former slaves who received freedom for participating on the British side in the North American War of Independence were resettled here in three batches. In 1800, 550 Maroons from Jamaica were added to the settlers. After the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain (1807), all blacks liberated by the English fleet and illegally transported across the Atlantic were delivered here. According to the 1848 census, in Sierra Leone, among the 11 thousand such freed Africans, there were more than 7 thousand Yoruba. Naturally, such a complex ethno-demographic situation could not but be reflected in the language of Freetown. With the spread by the end of the 19th century. Krio into the interior of the mainland (naturally, in pidgin form), it was influenced by the local languages of Mende, Temne and Vai.
In relatively rare cases, native speakers of the lexifier language were also included in the process of developing the Creole language standard. This happened when a certain group of Europeans, “poor whites,” found themselves in territorial isolation from the bulk of their relatives in the metropolis and in social isolation from the colonial slave-owning elite in the colony, while at the same time being in constant everyday contact with Creole speakers. If such a European group turned out to be numerically comparable to the Creole group, the result of their communicative interaction is an intermediate Koine, which over time becomes native to both language groups, even if there is no significant crossbreeding between them. Such "half-creole" may be relatively uniform (as in the Cayman Islands in the West Indies), in other cases the dialects of whites and creoles may retain some originality (French-Creole language of Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean).
An intermediate situation arose where most Europeans were bilingual and fluent in Creole, but the social and cultural barriers separating them from the slaves and their descendants were quite strong. Communicating only with domestic slaves, these Europeans could not influence the general Creole standard, while their own native language was influenced by the Creole. The rising generations of whites became the conductor of such influence - sometimes children communicated more with nannies, servants, and fellow slaves than with their own parents. Such communication led to diffusion between the language systems of different social strata. This process influenced the formation of some regional varieties of European languages (the white dialect in the southern states of the United States, Louisiana French, some varieties of Brazilian Portuguese). It is believed that the specificity of the Afrikaans language was developed under similar conditions.
Analysis of the synchronous state of such linguistic formations often does not allow us to objectively assess which of the processes we are dealing with: the rapprochement of the creole with the lexifier language or the erosion of the norm of the standard language under the influence of the creole. It is not without reason that in the history of creol studies, most of the Anglo-Creole languages of the Caribbean are classified as dialects of English. The term creoloid.
All contact languages based on English that arose in the Atlantic Ocean basin are interconnected, and the history of their origin and complex evolution goes back only a few centuries. Meanwhile, their differences from each other are quite large, which complicates or completely eliminates mutual understanding.
A completely different opportunity for the creolization of pidgins arose in connection with the reservation system that developed in North America and Australia. When the Grand Ronde Reservation was formed in Oregon in 1856, Chinook slang became the leading language of communication among representatives of 15 tribes.
Saramacca and Sranan are said to be common in Suriname, Guyanese to the immediate west of them in Guyana (formerly British Guiana), Jamaican and Barbados to the respective islands of the West Indies; galla (English) Gullah - the most archaic variant of Black English, distributed primarily on the coastal islands of North and South Carolina; Nigerian pidgin and cryo - on the African shore of the Atlantic.
The creolization of pidgin in the northern territory of Australia followed a similar path. It became widespread at the end of the 19th century, proving to be the most suitable means for solving new communication problems: indigenous Australians needed to maintain relationships not only with immigrants, but also with previously little or completely unknown aboriginal groups, since many tribes were forced to move under the European onslaught to new territories. In 1909, about 200 Aborigines took refuge at the Roper River Anglican Mission - the remnants of eight tribes that had suffered greatly from civil strife and persecution in previous years. The functional development of this pidgin was most intensive among the students of the boarding school that opened here. After World War II it began to creolize. Now this new language, called Kriol(Kriol), is the main means of communication for approximately 10 thousand people and operates in more than 100 settlements. It began to be used in school teaching and in radio broadcasting.
The fate of the pidgins in Melanesia was completely different. On the plantations they expanded their functional capabilities, but mixed marriages were rather an exception here; upon returning to their homeland, Melanesians found themselves in a traditional ethnic environment, and pidgin remained an auxiliary language for them. But in this capacity it gained unexpectedly rapid distribution. During the decisive period for Tok Pisin, New Guinea was under German rule (1885-1914). The German administration and missionaries actively used this language.
In administrative centers, pidgin is gradually becoming the main language of communication, being almost no one’s native language. As a result of this evolution, this variety of contact language is extended pidgin- in functional terms, it is in no way inferior to languages that have gone through a different path of formation. Such a process is possible only in a multilingual society in the absence of a traditional intermediary language. In the form of a limited pidgin, this language quickly spread to areas not controlled by the colonialists: it was repeatedly noted that Europeans, penetrating for the first time into the interior regions of New Guinea, were often faced with the fact that the pidgin was already known there.
In recent years, the nativization of Tok Pisin has also occurred in rural areas, and this is possible even in an ethnically homogeneous environment: among representatives of the Murik people, who have long been engaged in trade in the lower reaches of the river. Sepik, it replaced the ethnic language, as it turned out to be a very convenient means of communication with any trading partners.
The lack of symbolic value in the native language is quite natural for the Papuan trading people. In the Papuan understanding, the object of trade can be such cultural elements as ornament, melody, dance, a certain type of hairstyle, clothing and jewelry. Moreover, in many cases, it is not the items themselves that are sold and bought, but the right to manufacture them. After the “copyright” for some intangible object is acquired, it is regarded as an element of its own culture. With this approach to cultural phenomena, the loss of an ethnic language and its replacement with another, more convenient in communicative terms, not only does not entail nostalgia, but can be considered as a profitable commercial transaction.
The evolution of the contact language, characterized by its constant stabilization, on the one hand, and lexical and grammatical expansion, on the other, is continuous. Creolization is a discrete phenomenon: a language either becomes native to someone or it does not. Nevertheless, the main distinction between types of contact languages has to be made in a continuous rather than a discrete domain: prepigin and early pidgin are both sociolinguistically and structurally different from extended pidgins and creoles; the first are auxiliary languages limited use, the latter are not fundamentally different from any other natural languages.
Contact continuum
In the course of historical evolution, contact languages developed both due to internal resources and under the influence of external influences. Communities that used contact languages rarely found themselves in complete isolation, but for a long time they experienced the influence of the “upper social barrier.” Therefore, knowledge of European languages, and therefore the possibilities for the latter to influence new languages through the bilingualism of the contact community itself, were very limited. If this situation changed, the contact language began to be influenced by the dominant European language.
When a European language turned out to be different from the lexifier language (Dutch in Suriname, English in Trinidad or the Seychelles), its influence was limited to vocabulary and partly syntax. But the interaction between the lexifier and the creole had fundamentally different results: the so-called post-Creole continuum arose.
Concept language continuum, developed and widely used in dialectology, it was first applied to creole languages by R. DeCamp when analyzing the relationship between the Anglo-Creole languages of the Caribbean and English. The nature of the dialect and contact continuums is fundamentally different: the first has a spatial (territorial) motivation, the second - social. At each point of the dialect continuum there is a unique local standard, but it is difficult to identify any local standards in the social space of the contact continuum.
The post-Creole continuum develops in most situations where a lexifier language begins to compete with the Creole language in everyday use. For example, mutual understanding between the most "orthodox" version of Guyanese Creole and standard English is excluded. But in real urban speech there are numerous intermediate variants, sometimes bearing little resemblance to both standard English and “orthodox” Creole.
The simplest model for describing the post-creole continuum was developed by W. Stewart, who proposed to distinguish between the variety of creole that is most distant from the lexifier (basilect) and the closest one to it (acrolecture) with a series of intermediate varieties (mesolekComrade).
In reality, post-Creole societies are usually diglossic. An individual’s linguistic competence consists of mastery of a more highly valued “individual acrolect” and a less prestigious “individual basilect,” and they are assigned socially differentiated functions. The speakers themselves may not be aware of the complexity of the language situation. Meanwhile, post-Creole linguistic situations are probably the most complex object of sociolinguistics. The one-dimensional continuum model of their description simplifies reality, but it is precisely the simplicity of the one-dimensional model that makes it an effective tool of analysis, and any multidimensional model can be considered as a combination of several multidirectional one-dimensional continua, say, continua of individual basilects and acrolects.
The possibility of the emergence and developmental results of such continua do not depend on the evolutionary stage of the contact language: under suitable sociolinguistic conditions, the contact continuum can develop from prepigin, various variants of pidgin and from creole. An example of a post-prepigin continuum is the so-called Gastarbeiter-Deutsch, the German language of immigrant workers in the Federal Republic of Germany. The modern Fijian ethnolect of Indians in Fiji represents a post-pidgin continuum. In Hawaii, until recently, post-pidgin and post-Creole continuums coexisted in interaction.
For a continuum to arise, it is necessary, firstly, that speakers of the contact language have social motivation to master a more prestigious normative language, identical or close to the lexifier language, and secondly, that samples of such a target language are available to them. The results of the development of the continuum depend on the degree of motivation for mastering a new communicative system, on the proximity of the target language to the lexifier, on the availability of samples, their actual proximity to the target language and a host of accompanying circumstances.
Creole and the target language are not initially variants of the same system, but two very different systems, although due to their lexical proximity there is some degree of mutual understanding between them. At an advanced stage, the process of decreolization is equivalent to a linguistic change in a dialect or urban vernacular under the influence of borrowings from a normative language.
In the initial phase of development of the continuum, individual idiolects begin to experience the interference influence of the prestigious language. Gradually, the contact language polarizes into basilect and acrolect varieties, each of which continues to shift towards the target language. Basilect and acrolect varieties are decreolized unevenly: the spectrum of mesolects can both narrow and expand.
Decreolization can go quite far, and the post-Creole state turns out to be so close to the lexifier language that it is no longer entirely correct to consider it as an independent language, distinct from the lexifier. For some social reasons, decreolization may stop, and a unique standard is developed that has ethnocultural value for its bearers (for example, black English,"dialect" of African Americans in the USA). In these cases, it can be argued that the motivation to acquire the superstrate language ceases; it is no longer the target language; there is even a tendency to form a standard based on the basilect, so that the differences between the two linguistic entities are more prominent.
During the development of the contact continuum, the target language and the lexifier on the basis of which the pidgin was once formed are almost never identical. In the process of pidginization, the model is usually colloquial sociolects, sailors' jargon, etc. In its development, acrolect is guided by more prestigious standardized codes.
Functioning of developed pidgins and creole languages
Language situations in the countries where Creole languages are spoken vary greatly. In some cases, these languages are native to the vast majority of the country's population (Haiti, Jamaica and a number of other island states of the West Indies, the Republic of Cape Verde), in others - where the Creole ethnic group represents one of several large ethnic groups of the population - these are the main languages of interethnic communication (Suriname, Sierra Leone, Mauritius). Finally, there may also be small creole-speaking groups whose language is used only for intra-ethnic communication (such groups exist in a number of states in America, South and Southeast Asia, and Australia; of the languages mentioned, these include Saramacca and Brocken).
Extended pidgins are primarily used as languages of interethnic communication (at the same time, as indicated, their creolization gradually occurs). In their communicative capabilities, developed extended pidgins, like creoles, are fundamentally in no way inferior to languages that were formed in other ways. The range of functions they perform is determined not by their origin, but by their official status and the attitude of the speakers themselves towards them.
Here are some examples.
Bislama has been proclaimed the national language of the Republic of Vanuatu, but the tradition of its use in government structures is still just emerging and in official use it is inferior to English and French - the languages of the former metropolises. Solomon Islands pidgin has no official status, although it is widely used in the media. Among the Pacific contact languages, it is the most functionally developed Tok Pisin. Although three official languages are declared in Papua New Guinea (Tok Pisin, Hiri Motu, English), it is Tok Pisin that serves as the main working language of the central government and most provincial administrations. Fiction is created in all these languages. The role of Tok Pisin in New Guinea society is well characterized by the following report from the Post-Kurir newspaper about the meeting of the prime ministers of Papua New Guinea and Japan (1977): “During the negotiations, Mr. Somare, who speaks excellent English, used pidgin. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Tony Siaguru, translated the pidgin into English, and the Japanese translator, in turn, translated for Mr. Fukuda. As a PNG official later reported, Mr. Somare decided to use the pidgin because he could express it better. your thoughts on it."
Most Europeans (linguists are no exception) have traditionally considered creoles and pidgins to be just distorted forms of English, French and other languages. This prejudice for quite a long time prevented the successful functional development of creoles and extended pidgins, the publication of literature in them, and their use in education and official spheres. In 1953, the UN even ordered Australia, which at the time administered the Trust Territory of New Guinea, to abolish the use of pidgin for administrative purposes and to stop subsidizing those schools where it was taught.
An important functional difference between extended pidgins and creoles is that the former do not function fully throughout the entire territory of their distribution. For many speakers in the remote central regions of New Guinea, Tok Pisin continues to be an auxiliary means of elementary interethnic communication, that is, a stable but not expanded pidgin. However, as an intermediary language it is gradually replacing regional lingua francas.
Examples of the rapid structural and functional development of pidgins and the growth of their prestige are also observed in other regions of the world. For example, fanagalo, which arose in southern Africa as a pidgin for maintaining basic interethnic communication and a few decades ago was associated exclusively with the “master-servant” relationship, has become the leading language of communication in multinational work groups, it is widely used in everyday life; South African Indians often resort to it. It is curious that Fanagalo, although no one's mother tongue, becomes a symbol of identity even for white South Africans. The following indicative episode is described in the literature: a white South African who emigrated to New Zealand is filmed by a friend in order to send it to his acquaintances in South Africa as a Christmas gift. He, at first embarrassed, says into the lens: Hey wena? Ini wena buka?"Hey, you? Where are you looking?" - and after a pause adds: Kanjani lapakaya? “How are things at home?” The use of fanagalo in this case illustrates its important symbolic value for the speaker.
Language contacts
The uniqueness of a particular language is determined by 2 groups of factors:
its origin, which determines its place in the circle of related languages;
the process of its interaction with related and unrelated languages, i.e. language contacts.
There are no genetically pure, unadulterated languages. Any modern language is a fusion of linguistic elements originating from different, related and unrelated, languages and dialects.
Language contacts, interaction and mutual influence of languages that arise as a result of contact between groups speaking these languages. Y.K. usually occur in certain geographical areas and are caused by ethnic, historical and social factors. The result of linguistic language at the level of idiolect is interference. Interference is the interaction of language systems in conditions of bilingualism, which develops either through contacts between languages, or during individual mastery of a non-native language; is expressed in deviations from the norm and system of the second language under the influence of the native language.
Sometimes peoples spontaneously develop a special, simpler version of their language in order to communicate in it with foreigners. Over time, this particular variant may become the main one and even displace the original language. As a result, a whole group of geographically close and closely contacting languages sometimes acquires common properties. In such cases they talk about a linguistic union.
Models of language mixing
Substrate is the underlying language, traces of the local repressed language in the language of the aliens.
Superstrate – traces of the lost language of the aliens (who acquired the local language) in the language of the indigenous population.
Adstrate is the result of the mutual influence of languages under conditions of long-term contacts, in which the assimilation of languages does not occur.
For example, Roman expansion led to the Latinization of Gaul, Dacia, Raetia, and the population of the Iberian Peninsula, but the Norman conquest did not make the language of Britain Romance. (SUBSTRATE) Differences in the number of newcomers, in the intensity and depth of contacts with the local population, as well as differences in the nature of the relationship between the newcomers and their former homeland had an impact. Roman colonization, in comparison with the Norman conquest, was more widespread and widespread. At the same time, a mixture of multilingual populations occurred; however, the Roman provinces were included in the administrative and partly cultural life of the Roman Empire, so their linguistic connection with the metropolis did not cease.
In England after the Norman invasion, the socio-linguistic situation was different. England did not become a French province. The newcomers formed a small ruling class - the feudal aristocracy and clergy, but the main population remained German-speaking. The strict hierarchy and inertia of feudal society prevented inter-class contacts and thereby the shift of languages. At the same time, the ruling classes, to some extent, had to know the language of the majority of the population. "Probably by the second generation the Normans could already use English, although the language of home and court use was probably Anglo-Norman. Subsequently, the Norman nobility became increasingly anglicized; for a period, perhaps for several centuries, they were bilinguals" (Ivanova, Chakhoyan 1976, 19). SUPERSTRAT)
Mixing of languages- the result of long-term bilingualism.
Borrowed:
articulatory features
Related languages- common origin.
Affinity of languages- a community of genetically unrelated languages that arises as a result of their long historical contacts.
Pidgin languages
Pidgin– a type of mixed language that arises as a result of the need to communicate in a multilingual territory. Pidgin languages can arise from related languages (for example, in Africa, based on the crossing of Bantu languages); unrelated languages, most often as a result of crossing European and local languages.
Examples of pidgins
Beachlamar is an English-based pidgin. Spread at the beginning of the 19th century. in coastal areas of Oceania; originated as a means of communication between indigenous people and the crews of European whaling and trading ships.
The Kyakhta language is a pidgin that existed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. in the regions of the Amur region, Manchuria and Transbaikalia, bordering China (the name is from the city of Kyakhta).
Russenorsk (Russian-based) is a mixed Russian-Norwegian language (one example of a pidgin) that served the communication of Pomeranian and Norwegian traders on the northern coast of Norway.
Fanagalo is a Zulu-based pidgin spoken in South Africa, mainly in the mines of Zambia, Zimbabwe and the Witwatersrand (South Africa). About 70% of the Fanagalo vocabulary comes from Zulu, the rest from English, Afrikaans and other Bantu languages (in Zimbabwe there is a strong influence of Shona, in Zambia - Bemba).
Spanish pidgins are creole languages and pidgins formed in the 15th - 20th centuries on the basis of the Spanish language and widespread in different regions of the globe, in places of former Spanish colonization. (Mexico, Peru, Colombia)
The language of the commonwealth is simplified Japanese, used in the early years after the founding of Manchukuo.
Creole languages- a further stage in the evolution of pidgin, which from a simplified lingua franca gradually becomes native to a significant part of the population of mixed origin and turns into an independent language. Most creole languages, like pidgins, arose during the era of European colonization of America, Asia and Africa in the 15th-20th centuries. However, only a few of them are now independent languages: the Creole language of Haiti, the Cape Verdean Creole language of Cape Verde, Papiamento (Aruba), and still in Suriname. Traditionally, in the metropolis and even among residents who speak Creole languages, a disdainful attitude towards Creole speech prevails as incorrect, corrupted, and unprestigious. Most modern creole languages remain in one way or another connected to their source language, many of them (for example, the Luso-Creole languages of Asia) are on the verge of extinction, others have already become extinct, and still others are tending to converge with the source language in a process known as decreolization .
Simplifying sounds in Tok Pisin:
nail ("nail") nil knee ("knee") nildaun ship ("ship") sip sheep ("sheep") sipsip cut ("cut") kat,katim
Tok Pisin as a national language
Specific features:
the intensity and speed of the process that allows representatives of different ethnic groups to understand each other;
level distribution of elements of mixed languages: vocabulary is borrowed from European languages (the content side of communication), phonetics, grammar are “native” (language communication techniques);
reduction of grammar and vocabulary.
Common features of pidgins in grammar:
lack of inflectional category of case;
the number is expressed analytically (for example – la - all “all”);
gender is expressed by a pronoun, phrase (for example, this woman, she is my brother);
The plural is expressed by a phrase (for example, by adding by and by – bymby).
in vocabulary: Vocabulary is limited, does not convey complex concepts; Many concepts are conveyed by metaphorical phrases.
in phonetics: Phonetics is characterized by the introduction of articulatory habits of the donor language.
Language contacts
Language contacts are recognized as one of the most important external factors in the historical development of language in modern linguistics. Science is practically unaware of structurally and materially homogeneous languages, the development of which would proceed in isolation from external influences: this circumstance obviously allows us to assert that in some very general sense, all languages can be characterized as “mixed”. The consequences of language contacts are so diverse and significant - in some cases they lead to various types of borrowings, in others - to the convergent development of interacting languages (accordingly enhancing centrifugal tendencies in the development of individual representatives within groups of related languages), - thirdly, - to the formation of auxiliary “common” languages, fourthly, to linguistic assimilation, which in some areas of linguistics even saw the fact of contacts as a decisive stimulus for the development of the language system34. The importance of studying language contacts and their results is determined by the fact that it can shed light on the features of the very structure of the language system.
Language contacts are a complex and multi-stage process closely related to the development of society. Already such a general characteristic as the activity or passivity of one or another party participating in contact is determined by extra-linguistic factors - the cultural or social authority of the speakers of a particular language, which determines the functional importance of the latter: this is all the more obvious if we consider that language contacts usually involve the existence of a number of other - cultural, economic, etc. contacts, even ethnic ones.
Contact between two languages occurs as verbal interaction between people speaking these languages. Even minimal mutual understanding is impossible until both parties (or one of the parties) take at least one step towards the partner. This step consists of mastering at least a few words of the partner’s language. With prolonged and intensive contacts between multilingual populations, a significant part of the speakers, to one degree or another, know the language of their neighbors. Thus, the contact of languages is carried out through individual bilingualism (or bilingualism) of some part of the speakers, which creates a situation of bilingualism (see pp. 103 - 105).
Depending on the extent to which a bilingual speaks two languages, individual bilingualism can be symmetrical (a person knows both languages equally) or asymmetrical (one language is known to a person to a greater extent, the other to a lesser extent). Asymmetrical bilingualism is, of course, a more common case (as are unbalanced language situations.
Depending on how two languages function in the speech activity of a bilingual, a distinction is made between autonomous and combined bilingualism. With autonomous bilingualism, a bilingual constructs speech in each language, using the linguistic means of only the corresponding language (Fig. 1). With combined bilingualism, speech in the language that a person knows less well is constructed using the means of the first (primary) language.
An increase in the volume of speech activity in a 2nd language (for example, as a result of increased contacts with those for whom this language is the main one) increases the degree of knowledge of this language (as a 2nd) by a bilingual. However, if bilingualism continues to be combined, then the bilingual’s access to the means of the 1st language when speaking the 2nd language expands. Both trends lead to the fact that in the individual consciousness of a bilingual, his 2nd language is “built up” to the communicative power of the 1st language; For him, both languages come closer and to some extent begin to be identified, and in the 2nd language he is already able to speak as (or almost as) freely as in the 1st. Even in speech in the 1st language, such a bilingual can turn to the means of the 2nd language - for various reasons (for example, some word of the 2nd language seems more expressive to him, or more understandable to the interlocutor, or simply due to the inertia of speech in 2nd language, or, finally, because in his mind both languages have more or less merged into one).
When similar processes of greater or lesser convergence of languages occur in the linguistic consciousness and speech activity of many speakers, this means that the process ceases to be individual speech, but embraces the language. There is a confusion of languages. Thus, partial identification and mixing of different languages in the speech of bilinguals acts as a synchronous basis for the mixing of languages in diachrony.
Errors in speech in a 2nd language caused by the use of means of the 1st language are a manifestation of interference. The general premise of interference is that a person, speaking a 2nd language, always, to one degree or another, uses speech skills in his native language ( or basic) language, for example, the skill of distinguishing between voiced and voiceless consonants, or the skill of using a noun as a predicate, or even the phonetic and semantic similarity of the Russian word theater and the English theater. In some cases, speaking skills in your native language helps in speaking in a foreign language, but in other cases they lead to errors.
So, despite the similarities between Russian sounds [t], [d] and English [t], [d], each language has its own peculiarities of their pronunciation (in Russian these are dental sounds, in English - alveolar), and if these peculiarities not learned, then the pronunciation will be with an “accent”.
In vocabulary, similar phenomena, i.e. words that are similar in appearance, but different in meaning, are called “false friends of the translator” or, more strictly, “interlingual homonyms”. Compare: English, genial means “cheerful, kind, warm-hearted; sociable”, and Russian. genius - “exceptionally gifted” in English, decade - “10 years”, and Russian. decade - "10 days". However, a translator does not have “false friends”: any similar two words from different languages, upon closer examination, turn out to be non-identical both in terms of meaning and place in their lexical subsystem.
Interference in syntax is the most difficult to overcome, and especially in those cases when it is reflected not in gross errors (such as the sentence * Nobody has come, built on the English model Nobody has come), but in the “inorganicity”, artificiality of the phrase. At a certain stage of learning a foreign language, the “learners” themselves feel this. Indicative in this regard are the mocking, supposedly English, dialogues (which originated in school folklore), parodying the primitive tracing from Russian: Which time? - Six watch. - So much? etc.
It is clear that the closer the two languages are, the more the bilingual individual relies on his 1st language in speech activity in the 2nd language. Therefore, related languages are generally easier to learn than distant ones, but there is also interference with this kind of bilingualism
Every people lives among other peoples. Usually he maintains diverse ties with them: trade, industrial, economic, cultural. The consequence of these connections is the influence of peoples and their languages on each other. The languages of contacting peoples also experience mutual influence, because they are the main means of interstate and interpersonal communication. The main form of linguistic influence of one people on another is the borrowing of foreign words.
The fact that Russia is located in vast areas of Europe and Asia, at the crossroads of routes from west to east and from north to south, determined its political, trade and cultural ties with neighboring peoples and, consequently, the constant borrowing of foreign words in the lexical system of the language. This process either slowed down or intensified, but never stopped.
Borrowings from one language or another are very different in quantity. There are a large number of words from English, French, German, Greek, and Latin. There are only a few words in the Russian vocabulary from Chinese (tea, chesucha, exotic), Japanese (judo, karate, iwashi, kimono), and Hungarian (goulash).
The most commonly borrowed words are nouns and adjectives.
The reasons for foreign language borrowing may be:
- external(extralinguistic or extralinguistic) and
- internal(intralingual)
External reasons.
· close political, trade, economic, industrial and cultural ties between peoples (this is a natural process; borrowed words reveal the life of things, concepts; they can talk about the geographical place of origin of objects, about their creators).
From history:
- in the 10th century in connection with the adoption of Christianity by Kievan Rus from the Greeks in the 10th century. the lexical system was replenished with a large number of words from church texts ( idea, story, Peter, Elena), Scientific terms, names of objects of Greek culture, names of plants, months, etc. were also borrowed, for example: magnet, alphabet, syntax, grammar, planet, climate, museum, doll, scene, cherry, mint, cucumber, beet, January, cedar etc. ;
- From the XIII – XV centuries, During the Mongol-Tatar invasion, about 250 Turkisms were included:
yurt, chest, shoe, cart, trestle bed, cap, sheepskin coat, noodles, heel and td ;
About 3500 words borrowed in the Petrine era (XVIII century) from the languages of Western European countries in connection with the development of science and technology. Many nautical, musical terms, terms of visual and theatrical art, names of new household items, clothing appeared:
camp, kitchen, soldier, sandwich, march, coat, furniture, tour, uniform, cap, chandelier, harbor, flute, actor, bass, opera, etc.;
- in the 30s of the 19th century. The spread in Russian literature of a vast number of borrowings, originally associated with a range of philosophical concepts, is declining, which was an indicator of the nature of the spiritual interests of society:
doctrine, ideal, individual...
