The Russian language in the Tatar-Russian contact zone: cognitive processing of case forms | Rusin. 2022. № 68. DOI: 10.17223/18572685/68/17

The Russian language in the Tatar-Russian contact zone: cognitive processing of case forms

Slavic linguistics, as other branches of linguistics, is becoming more and more actively involved in interdisciplinary research, expanding the subject area and methodology. These new subject areas include the identification of the cognitive foundations of speech practices using not only traditional, but also experimental linguistic methods. The authors also consider it important to employ new linguistic material in the analysis, including the results of the contact of Slavic languages with languages of other morphological types. The article presents experimental evidence of the influence of the native Tatar language, belonging to the Turkic language group, on the processing of grammatical forms of the second Russian language. The study is based on the data from a corpus study of the speech practices of Tatar-Russian bilinguals under Linguistic and Cultural Diversity of Southern Siberia: Interaction of Languages and Cultures Project. The patterns revealed in the analysis of corpus data allowed formulating hypotheses about the specificity of cognitive processing of units in the zones of greatest variation and testing them in a psycholinguistic behavioral experiment using oculographic equipment with eye movement fixation. It was found that deviations from the speech standard of the Russian language manifest themselves both in the production and processing of speech. The most significant result has been obtained in the analysis of cognitive processing of locative constructions. The corpus research has revealed that bilinguals tend to skip a preposition or use a dependent noun in the nominative case. The statistical analysis has shown that the use of a noun in the nominative case with a preposition is processed slightly faster than when the preposition is omitted, so the use of the locative in the nominative case is dictated mainly by the structural features of the Turkic languages than by the omitted preposition.

Download file
Counter downloads: 69

Keywords

oculographic study, experiment, bilingual interference, Tatar language, Russian language, grammatical interference, case

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Vladimirova Valeriia E.Tomsk State Universitypicture_perfect@mail.ru
Rezanova Zoya I.Tomsk State Universityrezanovazi@mail.ru
Всего: 2

References

Байрамова Л.К., Сафиуллина Ф.С. Сопоставительный синтаксис русского и татарского языков. Казань: Изд-во Казан. ун-та, 1989. С. 26-29.
Замалетдинов Р.Р., Саттарова М.Р., Сафонова С.С., Чупрякова О.А., Юсупова З.Ф. Сопоставительная грамматика русского и татарского языков. Морфология / под ред. проф. Р.Р. Замалетдинова. Казань: Изд-во Казан. ун-та, 2017. 180 с.
Ляшевская О.Н., Шаров С.А. Новый частотный словарь русской лексики. М.: Азбуковник, 2009. URL: http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php (дата обращения: 15.04.2022).
Резанова З.И., Дыбо А.В. Языковое взаимодействие в речевых практиках шорско-русских билингвов Южной Сибири // Известия Уральского федерального университета. Сер. 2: Гуманитар. науки. 2019. Т. 21, № 2 (187). С. 205-206.
Резанова З.И., Некрасова Е.Д. Влияние грамматической категории рода на бимодальное восприятие имен существительных болгарского языка // Русин. 2015. № 3. С. 241-255.
Резанова З.И., Некрасова Е.Д. Категория абстрактности имен существительных в русском и болгарском языках: когнитивные рефлексы формализации // Русин. 2016. № 3 (45). С. 17-32. DOI: 10.17223/18572685/45/3
Bertram R., Hyönä J., Laine M. The role of context in morphological processing: Evidence from Finnish // Language and Cognitive Processes. 2000. Vol. 15, № 4/5. P. 379-382.
Gor K., Chrabaszcz A., Cook S. Processing of native and nonnative inflected words: Beyond affix stripping // Journal of Memory and Language. 2017. № 93. P. 323-327.
Hoshin N., Kroll J.F. Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? // Cognition. 2008. № 106. P. 501-511.
Hyönä J., Vainio S., Laine M. A morphological effect obtains for isolated words but not for words in sentence context // European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2002. № 14 (4). P. 428-429.
Love T. et al. The influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing // Experimental Psychology. 2003. № 50. P. 204-216.
Lukatela G., Carello C., Turvey M. Lexical representation of regular and irregular inflected nouns // Language and Cognitive Processes. 1987. № 2. P. 12-14.
Rezanova Z.I., Temnikova I.G., Artemenko E.D., Stepanenko A.A., Dat sy uk V.V., Dybo A.V. The Bimodal corpus of Russian-turkic bilinguals’ speech (RuTuBiC) // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. По материалам ежегодной международной конференции «Диалог». 2019. Вып. 18. Дополнительный том. C. 200-210.
Vasilyeva M. Demasking Russian case inflection // Когнитивная наука в Москве: новые исследования: материалы конф. 15 июня 2017 г. / под ред. Е.В. Печенковой, М.В. Фаликман. М.: Буки Веди, ИППиП, 2017. С. 469-470.
 The Russian language in the Tatar-Russian contact zone: cognitive processing of case forms | Rusin. 2022. № 68. DOI: 10.17223/18572685/68/17

The Russian language in the Tatar-Russian contact zone: cognitive processing of case forms | Rusin. 2022. № 68. DOI: 10.17223/18572685/68/17

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 640