UDC

316.454.52-053.6:[811.161.1:39](470.46)

Authors

Shcheglova Inna Vladimirovna
Faculty of Pre-Entrance Courses for Foreign Citizens, Astrakhan State Technical University
16 Tatishcheva St., Astrakhan, 414056, Russian Federation;
e-mail: isheglova@yahoo.com

Abstract

Preservation and development of national languages of ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation is an important task not only for the state but also for linguists. The object of this study is natural Tatar-Russian and Kazakh-Russian bilinguals living in Astrakhan and the Astrakhan Region. The status of bilinguals’ native language in their linguistic consciousness is the subject of the analysis. This article dwells on the results of the analysis of a free association experiment. We compared the responses of the bilinguals to the stimulus word combinations Tatar language/Kazakh language and Russian language. The paper suggests a classification of the revealed responses (sentimental, passport, consumer, and communicative responses proper). One of the key concepts of the research is language vitality as a real communicative need of a language community, for which the given language is not only necessary but also valuable. The study showed that the Kazakh language in the Astrakhan Region has a higher vitality than the Tatar language. In previous studies we had established that the level of communicative power of the Tatar language in the Astrakhan Region is lower than that of the Kazakh language. On the whole, the results allow us to determine some fragments of linguistic consciousness and partly reveal the nature of communicative behaviour of the respondents. This research can be used for further investigation into the communicative behaviour of natural bilinguals living in the Astrakhan Region.

Keywords

natural bilinguals, national Russian bilingualism, associative experiment, language vitality

References

1. Shcheglova I.V. Pochemu deti – potentsial’nye bilingvy – ne govoryat na rodnom yazyke? [Why Don’t Children – Potential Bilinguals Speak Native Language?]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2014, no. 8-2(38), pp. 205–208.
   
2. Shcheglova I.V. Kommunikativnaya moshchnost’ yazykov nerusskikh grazhdan Rossii: sopostavitel’nyy aspekt [Communicative Power of the Languages of Non-Russian Citizens of Russia: Competitive Aspect]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, vol. 1, no. 4(60), pp. 187–194.
   
3. Gallyamov R.R. Mnogonatsional’nyy gorod: etnosotsiol. ocherki [A Multinational City: Ethno-Sociological Essays]. Ufa, 1996. 200 p.
   
4. Lazurenko E.Yu., Salomatina M.S., Sternin I.A. Professional'naya kommunikativnaya lichnost' [Professional Communicative Personality]. Voronezh, 2007. 194 p.
   
5. Sternin I.A. Ponyatie kommunikativnogo povedeniya i problemy ego issledovaniya [The Concept of Communicative Behaviour and Problems of Studying It]. Available at: http://commbehavior.narod.ru/RusFin/RusFin2000/Sternin1.htm (accessed 28 February 2016).