(Heritage) Russian Case Marking: Variation and Paths of Change

IF 0.9 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Languages Pub Date : 2024-03-18 DOI:10.3390/languages9030100
Naomi Nagy, Julia Petrosov
{"title":"(Heritage) Russian Case Marking: Variation and Paths of Change","authors":"Naomi Nagy, Julia Petrosov","doi":"10.3390/languages9030100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Russian’s six cases and multiple noun classes make case marking potentially challenging ground for heritage speakers. Indeed, morphological levelling, “probably the best-described feature of language loss”, has been substantiated. One study from 2006 showed that Heritage Russian speakers in the USA produced canonical or prescribed markers for only 13% of preposition+nominal sequences. Conversely, another study from 2020 found that Heritage Russian speakers in Toronto produce a 94% canonical case marker rate in conversational speech. To explore the effects of methodological differences across several studies, the current paper circumscribes the context to preposition+nominal sequences in Heritage Russian speech from the same Toronto corpus as used by the 2020 study but mirroring the domain investigated by Polinsky and including a Homeland comparison to consider changes in both the rates of use of canonical case marking and distributional patterns of non-canonical use. Regression models show more canonical case marking in more frequent words, an independent effect of slightly more mismatch by later generations, but less morphological levelling than reported by Polinsky. Lexicon size does not predict case marking rates as strongly as language usage patterns do, but generation, since immigration, is the best-fitting social predictor. We confirm (small) rate changes in Heritage (vs. Homeland) Russian canonical case marking but not in patterns of levelling.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Russian’s six cases and multiple noun classes make case marking potentially challenging ground for heritage speakers. Indeed, morphological levelling, “probably the best-described feature of language loss”, has been substantiated. One study from 2006 showed that Heritage Russian speakers in the USA produced canonical or prescribed markers for only 13% of preposition+nominal sequences. Conversely, another study from 2020 found that Heritage Russian speakers in Toronto produce a 94% canonical case marker rate in conversational speech. To explore the effects of methodological differences across several studies, the current paper circumscribes the context to preposition+nominal sequences in Heritage Russian speech from the same Toronto corpus as used by the 2020 study but mirroring the domain investigated by Polinsky and including a Homeland comparison to consider changes in both the rates of use of canonical case marking and distributional patterns of non-canonical use. Regression models show more canonical case marking in more frequent words, an independent effect of slightly more mismatch by later generations, but less morphological levelling than reported by Polinsky. Lexicon size does not predict case marking rates as strongly as language usage patterns do, but generation, since immigration, is the best-fitting social predictor. We confirm (small) rate changes in Heritage (vs. Homeland) Russian canonical case marking but not in patterns of levelling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Heritage) Russian Case Marking:变化与变革之路
俄语有六种情况和多个名词类别,这使俄语遗产使用者在进行情况标记时面临潜在的挑战。事实上,"可能是描述得最好的语言损失特征"--形态分级已经得到证实。2006 年的一项研究表明,在美国讲传统俄语的人只为 13% 的介词+名词序列做出了规范或规定的标记。相反,另一项 2020 年的研究发现,多伦多讲传统俄语的人在会话中使用规范大小写标记的比例高达 94%。为了探索几项研究在方法上的差异所产生的影响,本文将语境限定为多伦多传统俄语语音中的介词+名词序列,该语料库与 2020 年的研究使用的语料库相同,但与 Polinsky 调查的领域相仿,并进行了家园比较,以考虑规范大小写标记使用率和非规范使用分布模式的变化。回归模型显示,在使用频率较高的词语中,规范大小写标记更多,这与后代的不匹配现象略有增加有关,但与 Polinsky 的报告相比,形态平移现象较少。词典规模对大小写标记率的预测不如语言使用模式那样强烈,但自移民以来的世代是最合适的社会预测因素。我们证实了传统(与故乡)俄语规范性大小写标记的(微小)比率变化,但没有证实平假名模式的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Languages
Languages Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
282
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Empirical Mobile-Assisted Pronunciation Studies through a Perception–Production Lens Amplifying Parental Views about Language Choice When Raising Multilingual Children: Towards a Family-Centered Approach in Professional Contexts Causal Relations and Cohesive Strategies in the Narratives of Heritage Speakers of Russian in Their Two Languages Mind the Gap! Null Modals (and Other Functional Verbs) in Finite Complementation in Italo-Greek Chilean Spanish Intonational Plateaus and Their Pragmatic Functions: A Case of Contact with Mapudungun
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1