Linguocultural Meanings Of Several Images In Chiniese Russian-Learners’ Interlanguage

Abstract

The article, on the one hand, aims to figure out the linguocultural meanings of several images in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage, which is regarded as a constantly developing, consistent internal language system in the process of acquiring second language. On the other hand, the article is devoted to discuss actual communicative problems, which can be identified and explained as misunderstandings of certain linguocultural images, in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage. The alternative definitions of the term “interlanguage” in Russian and foreign linguisitics are concerned as well. At the same time, theoretical studies of linguoculture in Russian researchese are demonstrated to provide a theoretical framework for the article. The main commons and differences of the following images: “smile”, “greeting”, “dragon” and “bear” in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage and Russian are compared and investigated by analyzing language materials from the linguocultural point of view, the main idea of which is that culture and language is inseperable. Until now, most researches, specializing in interlanguage studies, are focused on phonetic, lexical and grammatical aspects, while less attentions are drowning to the linguocultural aspect of interlanguage. Therefore, the study of linguocultural meanings of several images in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage has its practical significance.

Keywords: Linguocultural meaningsimagesinterlanguageChinese Russian-learners

Introduction

As it is known, in the process of acquiring a foreign language, learners often make common or similar mistakes, which is caused by transfer – interference from their native language. For example, Spanish students in the process of learning Chinese make a certain type of error, and Korean students in turn – others. A similar situation is observed in the process of Chinese students learning Russian. Is this an accident or inevitability? The study of scientific and methodological literature on this issue suggests that these similar errors can be represented as interlanguage in the process of mastering a foreign language.

It is generally accepted that the study of a foreign language ​​is a creative process, but not just mechanical memorization of those or other language constructs. In this process, learners, as a rule, try to build their language system, which is to some extent close to the foreign language being studied. This system is described by some relevant terms. We use one of them, namely “interlanguage”, since its definition, in our opinion, most reflects the property of this linguistic phenomenon, and is also most often used in scientific researches.

The term “interlanguage” was originally proposed and used by american linguisit Selinker ( 1969) in the article “Language Transfer”. In his work “Interlanguage”, he gave the defination of the term “interlanguage” – “interlanguage refers to the language between the native language and the target language” ( Selinker, 1972, p. 210), in other words, according to Shaklein and Zheng ( 2017), interlanguage is a language system, which is regarded as a mediation between the first (native) and second (foreign) languages.

Corder notes that the mistakes made by students are of great importance for the acquisition of knowledge in foreign languages on the following points: “firstly, teachers can find what still needs to be learned; secondly, researchers obtain evidence in the ways in which students learn a language; thirdly, mistakes are of great importance for the student himself, since the formation of errors can be considered as a strategy for better learning” ( Corder, 1967, p. 167).

Ellis offers four stages of studying the characteristics of the external structure of a language based on the methods of research by Lado ( 1957): “1. Description – official description of the mother tongue and the language being studied; 2. Selection – the choice of special language units or phenomena to compare their differences; 3. Comparison of selected language units or phenomena; 4. Prediction – to suggest in what situations students will make mistakes” ( Ellis, 1994, p. 307).

Wagner, was one of the first Russian researchers, who pointed out the phenomenon of interlanguage and compiled its definition. Wagner ( 1997) noted that “interlanguage (or intermediate language) is a transitional language system, that allows students to communicate even when the level of their second language is still far from perfect” (p. 15).

Pilipchuk ( 2003), based on his analysis of L. Selinker and many other researchers' works, concluded, that interlanguage or “intermediate language” is a permissible stage of mastering a foreign language, which allows students to solve some current problems of cognition and communication. According to Rogoznaya ( 2009), interlanguage can be understood as a special language system, which arises in the process of learning a second language and is in an intermediate state of competence, developing in a state of dynamics to the perfect level of proficiency of a foreign language. Thus, interlanguage can be considered as an intermediate self-developing dynamic substance in an individual speech.

Polonskij and Klimova (2005) noted that the linguocultural approach to the vocabulary of a language directs teachers to work with a word filled with life, meaning and emotions, which ensures the achievement of the main goal of language learning – the formation of a linguistic personality as a carrier of a certain linguistic consciousness and picture of the world. Consequently, the task of forming not only linguistic, but also linguocultural competence is highlighted. According to them, the culturological look at the word allows us to interpret it not only as a combat unit of the language, which possesses characteristic semantic and grammatical features, but also as a unit of the people's cultural memory, as an objectification of its key concepts – concepts enriched by cultural meanings.

Problem Statement

The language of an individual is a regular system. It can be said that learning a foreign language is not just gaining knowledge about another language, another culture, it is also a necessary activity in human history and society, since language communication is one of the main methods of communication among people. Different language systems have their own rules and constructions that differ from each other. Most of those who study a foreign language, one way or another, are influenced by their native language in the learning process. Thus, the study of a foreign language contributes to the formation of a new language system or even a new secondary language personality, as some researchers believe.

According to Ignatova and Andreeva ( 2005), the goal of teaching Russian to foreign learners is the formation of a learner’s communicative culture, that is, preparing it for the perception of a different sociocultural community. From their points of view, the new conditions of the social, economic and political life of Russia require significant changes in the educational system and, in particular, in the system of training national personnel for foreign learners and the outside world.

From Polonskij and Qi’s ( 2005) point of view of, the vocabulary of the Chinese language reflects the basic cultural concepts of the people that differ from Russians. China and Russia distinguish from each other in historical background and the way of thinking in aspects of religion, culture, customs and other factors. Since ancient times, with the help of language, cultural features of peoples have been expressed. Thus, to learn Russian language well, Chinese learners must have a detailed knowledge of Russian culture, as well as the meanings of an amount of linguoultural symbols in the Russian language.

In recent years, the Amur Russian University researched the relationship between the Chinese and Russian people, the goal of which was to elicit the peoples' opinions about each other. The study involved Chinese and Russian residents of the Far Eastern region of Russia. In response to the question “What hinders communication between Chinese and Russians, except for the language barrier?”, Russian residents answered as follows: “1. psychological characteristics of Chinese people; 2. habits; 3. psychological characteristics of Russians” ( Lee, 2009, p. 82). Chinese residents answered this question as follows: 1. lifestyle; 2. the difference between the two political ideologies; 3. differences in labor skills. To the question “What are the differences between nations besides external and linguistic features?”, the Russians noted that their “1. lifestyle and cultural traditions (food, culture, etc.); 2. behaviors in daily life” are different from Chinese people. From these answers, we can see that the Chinese and Russian people are aware of the differences in language, daily habits, customs and other communicative activities.

Nowadays there are several obstacles to understanding the Russian language as an interlanguage. On the one hand, the task of developing the Russian language as a means of disseminating Russian culture is too explicitly and straightforwardly posed. From this point of view, it is difficult to perceive it as a means of spreading some other culture, especially very unlike the Russian one. On the other hand, national movements in Russia are not at all ready to accept the Russian language as a means of preserving and disseminating the cultural heritage of their peoples.

Research Questions

What are the differences between the linguocultural meanings of the image “smile” and the expression of “greeting” in Chinese Russian-learners’ interlanguage and Russian language?

What are the common and different linguocultural meanings of “dragon” and “bear” in Chinese and Russian language and culture? And what are the reasons for their commonness and differences?

Purpose of the Study

Research Methods

This study is based on benchmarking methods. In accordance with the purpose and objectives of this study, the following methods are used:

• descriptive, defining and expressing terms such as “interlanguage” in this study;

• analytical, analyzing scientific literature on the topic of this study;

• comparative-typological, through which the linguocultural features of several words in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage and their causes are shown and analyzed.

Findings

Under the relation between language and culture Shaklein ( 2010) understood that “people of each subsequent generation begin their lives in the world of objects, phenomena and concepts created and accumulated by previous generations. Participating in production and social activities, they assimilate the riches of this world and in this way develop those human abilities without which the world around them is alien and incomprehensible” (p. 6). From his point of view, people's linguistic speech is formed in the process of their assimilation of a historically formed language. And, “the process of mastering a language by a person is close to the process of mastering a culture, but not equal. Language, if mastered by humans, is a more social phenomenon, culture is more biological” ( Shaklein, 2010, p. 7). Linguoculturology is regarded as a scientific study the relationship of linguistic as well as cultural phenomena.

Interlanguage is built not only because of the phonetic, lexical and grammatical interference, but also under the influence of cultural interference. The linguocultural differences between several symbols in the Russian language and in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage are considered as the following.

Conclusion

In this article linguocultural meanings of such images as “smile”, “greeting”, “dragon” and “bear” in Chinese Russian-learners’ interlanguage are discussed; meanwhile, the reasons for their differences in Russian linguoculture are analyzed. This study is a description of specific language materials, based on theoretical principles, relating to linguoculture and communication. So, the author’s analysis of linguocultural meanings of several images in Chinese Russian-learners' interlanguage in this article leads to the following conclusions.

References

• Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learner’s Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4(5), 160-170.
• Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frank, V. V. (2005). Rol' kul'turnogo komponenta v obuchenii inostrannym yazykam [The role of the cultural component in teaching foreign languages]. Belgorad State University Press. Theory and Practice of Contemporary Russian Studies in a Global Context: International Collection of Scientific Articles, 2, 215-218. [in Rus.].
• Ignatova, I. B., & Andreeva, S. M. (2005). Formirovanie kommunikativnoj kul'tury inostrannyh studentov [The formation of a communicative culture of foreign students]. Theory and practice of modern Russian studies in a global context: International collection of scientific articles, 3, 73-76. [in Rus.].
• Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Culture: applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbri: University of Michigan Press.
• Lee, Y. N. (2009). Zhong'e wen'hua cha'i yu syanhu zhjechzhi [Sino-Russian cultural differences and mutual recognition]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Chinese Russian teaching research theory and practice. [in Ch.]
• Pilipchuk, S. V. (2003). Promezhutochnyj yazyk kak nekotoryj dopustimyj etap na puti ovladeniya vtorym yazykom [Intermediate language as some acceptable stage on the way to mastering a second language.] Tver State University. Word and text, psycholinguistic approach, 122-126. [in Rus.].
• Polonskij, A. V., & Qi, W. (2005). Dva yazyka – dva obraza: osobennosti vospriyatiya russkogo yazyka kitajcami [Two languages – two images: features of the perception of the Russian language by Chinese]. Belgorad State University Press. Theory and practice of modern Russian studies in a global context: International collection of scientific articles, 2, 183-187. [in Rus.].
• Polonskij, A. V., & Klimova, Yu. A. (2005). Lingvokul'turologicheskij pohod k obucheniyu russkoj leksike [Linguoculturological approach to learning Russian vocabulary]. Belgorad State University Press. Theory and Practice of Contemporary Russian Studies in a Global Context: International Collection of Scientific Articles, 2, 180-183. [in Rus.].
• Rogoznaya, N. N. (2009). Novoe v lingvistike: k teorii interyazyka [New in linguistics: towards the theory of interlanguage]. Bulletin of the Buryat State University, 10, 78-82. [in Rus.].
• Shaklein, V. M. (2010). Linguocultural situation in modern Russia: monograph. Moscow: Flint: Science.
• Shaklein, V. M., & Zheng, Q. (2017). Interyazyk: v poiskah utochneniya termina [Interlanguage: in search of clarification of the term]. Yekaterinburg. International Research Journal, 5(59), 170-175. [in Rus.].
• Selinker, L. (1969). Language Transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67-92.
• Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
• Wagner, V. N. (1997). Metodika prepodavaniya russkogo yazyka anglogovoryashchim i frankogovoryashchim (fonetika, grafika, chasti rechi) [Methods of teaching the Russian language English-speaking and French-speaking (phonetics, graphics, parts of speech)]: monograph. Moscow. [in Rus.].