All
 
|
 
 


Interlingual interference as a linguistic and cultural characteristic of the current online communication
 
PIIS271291870019182-6-1
DOI
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Emil Sarkisov 
Occupation: Junior Research Fellow, Department of English Philology
Affiliation: South Federal University
Address: Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation, 344022, Rostov-on-Don, st. Bolshaya Sadovaya, 105/42
Journal nameRussian Journal of Bilingualism Studies
EditionLanguage conceptualization of the world and bilingualism: problems of interference, linguodidactic and literary discussions
Pages16-21
Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of the interrelated phenomena of language and culture within the context of bilingual online communication. The study aims to analyze the interferencial influence which languages may share in such a favorable environment not just on the system language level (phonological, lexical-semantic and grammar sublevels), but, through the latter, on the cultural level too, since interlingual interference results in changing the way one reflects reality in the individual mind. The major research methods are contrastive analysis and conceptual analysis, yet other methods are also used to obtain data. Practical applications of the research results may be related to various social-communicative spheres, such as education (courses in intercultural communication, cultural linguistics), or commercial (marketing) communication, as different discursive practices are analyzed in order to show how effective/ineffective linguacultural interference can be when communicative goals are being achieved. The important conclusion is that the bilingual online communication environment plays a significant role in terms of creating a new communicative code with its unique spiritual values specific to different human cultures.

Keywordslinguacultural interference, online communication, bilingualism, lingua franca, language contacts
Received23.03.2022
Publication date23.03.2022
Number of characters22191
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
1 Introduction
2 In most works on contact linguistics available today, one can find a great number of definitions of the concept of interlingual interference that are quite similar in content, and all tend to laconism at the same time. Being one of the basic ones for the theory of language contacts, this concept is mainly considered as a deviation from a standard variety. Caused by the dominant position of one of the languages in contact ​​in the individual mind, this deviation can be observed both in speech and in language (in the latter case, as a result of interference in speech) (see, for example: [5, p. 12; 21, p. 22, and other authors]. The problem of interference has been of concern to researchers for many decades. However, in recent years, it has been experiencing an obvious update [13, p. 88]. The main objective reason for this has been the intensification of language contacts, a process based on the emergence and development of global bilingualism as a consequence of other numerous and heterogeneous processes of globalization.
3 One of the significant factors characterizing the current state of bilingualism should be evidently considered the born of a qualitatively new form of international, interethnic and intercultural communication, named online communication. The three features used (international, interethnic, intercultural) to describe this type of communication that combines today almost all virtual communication [12], allow us to use the terminological qualifier “global” to describe it here as well. This type of communication is associated with a wide territorial coverage as a consequence of the widespread, universal technologization and digitalization, which naturally leads to interlingual interference.
4 Online communication is defined as perceptual-verbal interaction connected with acts of cognition and creation of meaning-forming systems, manifested in a whole set of principles, among which there are:
5 1) dialogueness and communicability;
6 2) visual-perceptual experience;
7 3) interpersonal communication;
8 4) a tool for cross-cultural dialogue;
9 5) a linguistic component [1].
10 Assuming as a reason for language contacts and, consequently, interlingual interference, at least three of the above principles (3rd, 4th, 5th) radically distinguish online communication from other types of information transmission in the virtual space.
11 Among the basic features that make communication in the virtual space so favorable for language contacts, we also include such a property as interactivity, which, however, is quite close to the one proposed by V.I. Arshinov, called by the author dialogueness and communicability (1st principle). Taking into account the connection of the real space with online communication, it can be argued that interactivity allows you to enter into a direct dialogue both online and offline. Thus, online communication should be considered a new multilingual cognitive environment in which there is a clash of cultures naturally reflected in various national languages.
12 In this regard, O.N. Morozova notes that today the Internet is a special cognitive environment for self-organization and accumulation of new knowledge as a reflection of reality and, therefore, a product of limitless social and cultural traditions, establishing and building relationships between communicants. Thus, the Internet is a unique social phenomenon that forms a different cognitive system, a system of value-oriented attitudes [9]. Researchers of the past, who laid the foundation for constructing the structure of the paradigm of the theory of language contacts, mostly focused their attention exclusively on the purely linguistic side of the phenomenon of interlingual interference. Despite this, being a process that takes place in language and a result reflected in it, interlingual interference should not be considered isolated from culture. Such an approach that takes into account the cultural factor will not only correspond to the general trend of modern linguistics –the transition from internal linguistics to external linguistics – but will also help shed light on practical issues that in this case include effective international, interethnic and intercultural communication on those linguistic formations of global bilingualism, commonly referred to as a lingua franca.
13 The specificity of lingua franca languages is a special interference pattern, which allows us to talk about the continuous and permanent transformation of languages, and therefore the ways of conceptualizing the reality of the speakers of these languages. The "classic" lingua franca example today is English as a lingua franca. It is this idiom that is most susceptible to the penetration of the norms of other “components” of its languages in the process of their interference influence on each other [14].
14 Considering the case of modern Russia (as the most “territorially close” case), where Russian-English bilingualism is the most common form of artificial bilingualism, O.R. Bondarenko emphasizes the role and importance of the second language in the communicative space of the state. In Russia, the number of Internet users, according to Global Digital, reached 85% in 2021 (see: [18]). According to Bondarenko, being a powerful tool for implementing the policy of globalization, the anglicization of the Russian-speaking cultural environment is a source of development of bilingualism [3]. As with any lingua franca [10], linguacultural interference, in fact, arises in a bilingual situation and gives rise to it.

views: 255

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Arshinov V.I., Danilov Ju.A., Tarasenko V.V. Metodologiya setevogo myshleniya: fenomen samoorganizacii. Moskva: IFRAN, 1997. S. 101-119.
2. Belugina N.B., Ryazanova L.V. Tekhnologiya konstruirovaniya virtual'noj politicheskoj real'nosti: diskursivnye praktiki protivoborstva na primere SMI Rossii i SshA // Proceedings of Tula State University. Humanitites, no. 4. Tula: Tula State University Press, 2020. S. 15-28.
3. Bondarenko O.R. Sovremennaya dilemma: ovladenie anglijskim yazykom i sohranenie russkoyazychnoj identichnosti? // Bulleting of Voronezh State University. Linguistics and international communication, no. 3. Voronezh: Voronezh State University Press, 2020. S. 6-14.
4. Bussmann H. Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 1996. 560 p.
5. Haugen E. The Norwegian language in America: A study of bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953. 384 p.
6. Labov W. Principles of Linguistic Change. V. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2010. 419 p.
7. Lakoff G. & Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 242 p.
8. Meyer-Olimpieva I. Russian youth and corruption. IERES Occasional Papers, no. 1. Washington: The George Washington University Press, 2020. 28 p.
9. Morozova O.N. Osobennosti Internet-kommunikacii: opredelenie i svojstva // Bulletin of Pushkin Leningrad State University, vol. 1, No. 5. Saint Petersburg: Pushkin Leningrad University Press, 2010. S. 150-158.
10. Nikolaev S.G. Russkij kak lingva franka: utverzhdenie statusnyh harakteristik // Proceedings of 1st International scientific and practical conference on Slavic philology and culture in the intellectual context of time. Rostov on Don: Southern Federal University Press, 2019. S. 72–82.
11. Rybakov M.A. Razvitie predstavlenij o tipologicheskom skhodstve yazykov: ot mnogomernoj klassifikacii E. Sepira do sistemnoj tipologii G.P. Mel'nikova. // Systemic view as the basis of philological thought (ed. by Rybakov M.A.). Moscow: Publishing House YaSK Press, 2016. S. 17-130.
12. Sarkisov E. , Nikolaev S. (2021). Role and significance of global bilingualism in the convergence of real and virtual spaces (within their communicative segment) // E3S Web of Conferences. 311. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202131106005. 
13. Sarkisov E.E. Ponyatie mezh"yazykovoj interferencii v paradigme teorii yazykovyh kontaktov: sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosu // Nauchnaja mysl' Kavkaza, no. 1 (97). Rostov on Don: Southern Federal University Press, 2019.  S. 83-89.
14. Sarkisov E.E. Multilevel interference within a «classic» lingua franca (by the example of the English-Spanish version of the idiom) // Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State University, no 1. Pyatigorsk: Pyatigorsk State University Press, 2021.  S. 109-115.
15. Sarkisov, E.E. Mezh"yazykovaya interferenciya v paradigme teorii yazykovyh kontaktov: konceptologicheskij analiz // Proceedings of Southern Federal University. Philology, no 3. Rostov on Don: Southern Federal University Press, 2020.  S. 58-66.
16. Shcherba, L.V.. Yazykovaya sistema i rechevaya deyatel'nost' (2-e izdanie). Moskva: Editorial URS, 2004. 432 s.
17. Sverdlova, N.A. Lingvokul'turnaya interferenciya v kommunikativnom povedenii bilingva // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, no 3 (32). Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University Press, 2014. S. 89-94.
18. TASS News. https://tass.ru/obschestvo/12698757/. 
19. Vesti FM. https://radiovesti.ru/air/audio/. 
20. Volodenkov S.V. Informacionnoe vmeshatel'stvo kak fenomen deyatel'nosti sub"ektov sovremennoj mezhdunarodnoj politiki // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. History, Regional Studies, International Relations, vol. 25, no. 3. Volgograd: Volgograd State University Press, 2020. S. 148-160.
21. Weinreich U. Languages in contact. Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979. 148 p.
22. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82/. 
23. Zverev A.L., Bashkov A.V. Rol' internet-kommunikacij v vyrabotke politicheskih predstavlenij rossijskih grazhdan // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Politology, no. 3 (23). Tomsk: Tomsk State University Press, 2013. S. 87-99.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up