Abstract:
The article deals with the description of language interference as the main process in creating the regional identity of the Russian language in Donbass. The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that it is the first attempt to identify the role and forms of language interference in the formation of a regiolect, moreover, the object of research of the processes of language systems interaction is the Donetsk diffuse regiolect, which arose on the South Russian language base as a result of interference of closely related languages and regiolects. The stated subject involves the identification of types, zones, models and participants of interference interaction. The purpose of the article is to determine the sources and results of language interference that occurred during the formation of the Donetsk diffuse regiolect. The author uses general scientific and linguistic methods and techniques for analyzing regionalisms, in particular, comparative, descriptive methods, methods of collecting and processing sociolinguistic data, specialized methods for determining regionalisms. The use of basic methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as the observation method when considering Donetsk language phenomena, allowed the author to determine the Russian basis of the Donetsk regiolect, its diffuse nature, to justify the implementation in regional modifying the “interference absorption” model of external (different language and different regiolect) and internal (idiom) language phenomena, to establish the language zones of interference interaction, the main language systems that participated in the formation of the Donetsk regiolect, and the degree of their participation in this process. The obtained theoretical conclusions can be used in the study of the regiolects of the territories of late settlement, formed on the basis of closely related languages and regiolects, for example, Russian and Ukrainian, Russian and Belorussian, etc.
Keywords: regiolect, regionalism, language contact, idiom, interference, interference zones, vernacular, dialect, slang
For citation: Terkulov V.I. Interference Phenomena in the Donetsk Regiolect. Current issues in philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2021, no 3, pp. 209–223 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Viacheslav I. Terkulov
Donetsk National University,
24 Universition Str., Donetsk, DPR, 283001;
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0418-4260;
Researcher ID: K-3087-2018
References:
1. Weinreich U. Language contacts: state and research problems. Kiev: Vyshcha shkola, 1979:263 p. Available at: https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/vainraih/. Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).
2. Polyakova EV., Anipkina LN., Shchennikova NV. Formation of a bilingual personality (experience of early ontogenesis). Philological sciences. High school scientific reports. 2020;4:11–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.4-20.011. (In Russ.).
3. Nefedova LA., Krasnopeeva ES. Anglo-Russian hybrid formations in the translation text: on interlingual interference in the context of translation norms. Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2. Linguistics. 2020;19;4:86–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.4.8. (In Russ.).
4. Milrud RP., Maksimova IR. Educational bilingualism: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language and culture. 2017;2;37:185–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.5-19.003. (In Russ.).
5. Vinogradov VA. Interference. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Chief Editor V.I. Yartseva. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990:197. http://lingvisticheskiy-slovar.ru/description/interferentsiia/221. (In Russ.).
6. Rakhmankulova SE. Usual syntactic interference: manifestations and ways of overcoming (based on the material of English and Russian languages). Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. 2020;450:40–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/450/5. (In Russ.).
7. Kuzmina SE. On the concept of linguistic interference. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. Chief Editor T.Yu. Tameryan. 2008;X:36–38. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-ponyatii-yazykovoy-interferentsii. Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).
8. Erofeeva EV. The linguistic situation of the modern city and methods of its research. Perm University Bulletin. 2009;5:16–23. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12909471. (In Russ.).
9. Oglezneva EA. Far Eastern region of the Russian language: features of formation. Russian language in scientific coverage. 2008;2(16):119–136. http://rjano.ruslang.ru/ru/archive/2008-2/119-136. (In Russ.).
10. Fomin EV. Erina TN. Cheboksary region of the Russian language: new vernacular. Ethnic culture. 2021;3;1:26–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31483/r-97793. (In Russ.).
11. Kharanutova DSh. Regionalisms of the Trans-Baikal region as a result of linguistic contacts. Kalmyk University Bulletin. 2018;4(40):113–118. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36688935. (In Russ.).
12. Kultepina OA. Sociolinguistic study of the urban vocabulary of Tver // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. 2018;435:29–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/435/4. (In Russ.).
13. Bokhieva MV., Stepanova IZh. Regional variation of the Russian language in Transbaikalia: issues of stratification. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin. Series: History, Philology. 2012;11;9:137–143. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18437560. (In Russ.).
14. Borodina MA. Dialects or regional languages? Questions of linguistics. 1982;5:29–38. Available at: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics3/borodina-82.htm. Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).
15. Klimkova LA. Regional word in artistic speech. Regional aspects of lexicology. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Tyumen: Tyumen State un-t, 1994:52–73.
16. Zvarykina IS. On the issue of the ratio of dialectal and regional in the Russian language (on the example of the vocabulary of the Astrakhan region). Humanities research. 2013;2(46):30–36. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19436101. (In Russ.).
17. Donetsk Regiolect: monograph. Chief Editor V.I. Terkulov. Donetsk: Foliant, 2018:265. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42649097. (In Russ.).
18. Gerd AS. Introduction to ethnolinguistics: a course of lectures and a reader. SPb.: Publishing house of St. Petersburg University, 2001:488. (In Russ.).
19. Zherebilo TV. Dictionary of linguistic terms and concepts. Nazran: Pilgrim, 2010:486. https://gufo.me/dict/linguistics_zherebilo. (In Russ.).
20. Kosharnaya SA. Regiolect of the Belgorod region as a linguocultural education. Scientific bulletin of Belgorod State University. Humanities Philology. Journalism. Pedagogy. Psychology. 2017;14:14-25. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29674712. (In Russ.).
21. Gruzberg LA. Regiolect. Philologist. 2010;11. Available at: http://philolog.pspu.ru/module/magazine/do/mpub_11_208. Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).
22. Novikova TF. Problems of creating a dictionary of the language of the region. Language and culture. 2011;14;IV(150):126–132. (In Russ.).
23. Tuaillon G. Les régionalismes du français parlé à Vourey, village dauphinois (Matériaux pour l’étude des régionalismes du français). P.: Klincksieck, 1983;I:383. (In French).
24. Novikova TF. Linguoregionology. Part 1: Program and programmatic materials. Belgorod: BelGU, 2010:76.
25. Terkulov VI. Basic concepts of the Donetsk school of linguistic regional studies. Regional variant of the Russian language in the context of bilingualism. Materials of the All-Russian scientific online conference with international participation. Edited by T.V. Zherebilo. Grozny, 2021:18–28. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=45771659. (In Russ.).
26. Filin FP. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language. Questions of linguistics. 1973;2:3–12. Available at: http://philology.ru/linguistics2/filin-73.htm. Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).
27. Krysin LP. Literary norm and variability of linguistic units. Russian studies. 2007;7:3–7. Available at: http://uapryal.com.ua/scientific-section/l-p-kryisin-moskva-literaturnaya-norma-i-variativnost-yazyi.... Accessed August 15, 2021. (In Russ.).