Linguo-Didactical Typology Of International Vocabulary Of Russian As A Second Language

Abstract

The article analyzes the existing linguistic and methodical typologies of international vocabulary to establish its significance and relevance in the modern communication space of the Russian-speaking world, as well as understanding the linguistic and didactic potential of this group of Russian vocabulary in the process of mastering the Russian language by foreigners. The analysis of various concepts of identification of signs of the interlexem and their classification, on the basis of which generalized linguistic and methodical typology is made taking into account the degree of difficulty of the interlexem for identification and study. The main and additional features of the interlexem are considered from the point of view of the analysis of the external and internal form. Some classification of interlexemes from the point of view of the difficulty of mastering the vocabulary in the system of teaching the Russian language to foreigners and the formation of communicative competence on the basis of the development of speech and Russian language skills as a second language is proposed. The authors come to the conclusion that the interlexemes, traditionally classified according to formal structural and semantic features, for methodological purposes of foreign language teaching require classification or systematization from the point of view of functional and stylistic and communicative-synthactic approaches to typologization and interlexem in the comparative aspect. In this regard, on the basis of several concepts of typologization, the authors of the article propose a synthetic fractional classification, focused on the successful development of the designated group of vocabulary by foreigners.

Keywords: Interlexemestypologylinguodidacticssemantical modificates

Introduction

At the beginning of the 20th century, the problems of language globalization, which essentially means the internationalization of vocabulary as a consequence of the intensification of the processes of interpenetration and mutual influence of languages, drew the attention not only of linguists and philologists, but also of psychologists, philosophers, historians, and social scientists ( Milenovich & Tsetkovich, 2015). Modern communication space requires mastery not only of one's native language as an effective tool for successful personal development. In this regard, it is important to consider the international vocabulary of the Russian language (as one of the most complex languages in the development of a foreigner) and the potential communicative capabilities of this layer of vocabulary.

It is well known that international vocabulary occupies an important place in the structure of the potential vocabulary of schoolchildren and students studying foreign languages. For this reason, the question of methodological typology of interlexics has been repeatedly raised in (Russian) linguodidactic literature at different times ( Kolesnik, 1965; Bezdenezhnykh, 1969; Mokreeva, 1970). However, in the method of teaching RKI as such, he has not yet received permission.

Problem Statement

The methodical one is understood as such a typology of international words, which takes into account the degree of difficulty of interlexes for its identification in the studied language, which, in turn, helps to solve the problem of organization of interlexical material during the educational process and to choose adequate forms of work with each type of words.

"Words in some meanings can be recognized as international if they are semantically relevant to each other..., if they help to understand the text in another language, or if they are able to act as translation equivalents for each other to some extent" ( Akulenko, 1972, p. 21). Among the key signs of interlexem is linguist Akulenko ( 1972) singles out the identity of semantics when the external (oral/written) form is similar in two or more languages. An additional attribute is the identity of the internal form of the word (motivation). A distinction is made between phonetic motivation (direct connection of sounding with meaning (sound-imitating roots)), morphological (i.e. relative in different languages synchronous word-formation structure of complex and derivative words) and semantic (synchronous transferability of meanings) ( Akulenko, 1969). However, the identity of the internal form of the interlexes being compared cannot always help in learning the vocabulary of a foreign language, since word motivations are perceived differently by an average native speaker, a well-educated person and a qualified specialist (cf. "telegraph" ("writing from a distance") and "aborigine" ("from the beginning")).

Of course, the methodological typology of internationalisms should be based largely on linguistic typology. On the basis of the formal-structural criterion and taking into account the mandatory similarity of semantics Akulenko ( 1980) proposed seven types of internationality of the language sign (in V.V. Dubichinskii's terminology: 1) complete; 2) phonographic; 3) motivational-phonic; 4) motivational-graphic; 5) phonical; 6) graphic interlexemes and 7) motivational correspondence ( as cited in Dubichinskii & Royter, 2015). Of these, only types 1, 2, 3, and 5 are most suitable for intensive replenishment of the student's vocabulary, since type 4 and 6 are possible only between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (in South Korea) hieroglyphs, while type 7 is qualified as a semi-hidden, non-obvious type of internationality, which is inherent mainly in structural calculus, i.e.i.e., word-formative calculus among some derivatives and complex words (e.g., "inspiration", "impression" or "oxygen", "hydrogen", etc.), as well as phraseological calculus (e.g., biblical, ancient and some other stable expressions). The remaining types differ in the degree of difficulty/ease of identification: the 1st and 2nd types have less difficulty (due to a certain interlingual correspondence of graphs), the 3rd and 5th types have more difficulty (due to differences in the graphical appearance of the word).

Classifying the interlexemes in the dictionary "Russian" vocabulary in English" by the degree of recognition, L. Akimov rightfully singles out accentuation as an additional differential feature, distinguishing the identity of the entire phonographic appearance of the interlexeme, or only pronunciation and accentuation, or only graphics ( as cited in Dragunkin & Akimov, 2008). However, this is not always appropriate, because, for example, when comparing the interlexemes in Russian and French, Polish or Hungarian languages, the stress will differ more often than coincide, due to its fixation in the last three.

As applied to Tsitkina's ( 1988) terminological borrowings, he typologizes the interlexis in the word-formation aspect, highlighting:

• Pure internationalisms consisting of complete and partial (root) ones. Complete transcripts are considered to be transcripts (in case of phonetic borrowing of a word), transliterateants (in case of letter-by-letter translation of a word), semi-transcripts (in case of incomplete reproduction of a word because of phonetic differences in languages), and, finally, semi-transliterants (in case of inaccurate letter-by-letter translation);

• Hybrid internationalisms (quasi-corner), i.e. terms significantly assimilated in the acceptor language, formed with the help of international and native roots ( Tsitkina, 1988).

There are also semantic typologies. Following the criterion of translatable equivalence and eqivalence, Sternin ( 2007) distinguishes between linear (with a single word equivalent in both languages) and vector type (when several units of another language correspond to a unit of one language), as well as lacunas (with no equivalent in one of the languages). Proceeding from the criterion of the ratio of the semantics volume of the interlexemes of different languages, Dubichinskii distinguishes between complete (fully equivalent) and partial lexical parallels (i.e., only equivalent at the level of individual values – intersems) ( as cited in Dubichinskii & Royter, 2015).

As regards the teaching of reading in a foreign language, Soviet methodologists developed a receptive methodological typology of "words of common root", which is based on the peculiarities of the graphic and acoustic form and structure of international words in two languages. Here, the interlexis is traditionally subdivided into two (Moneyless) or three (Mokreeva) types, respectively, of gradation of difficulties in understanding such words. Let's use more detailed typology: Level I (the most understandable); Level II (intermediate cases; the most extensive and heterogeneous group of words); Level III (the least understandable).

Within the framework of type II, it is expedient to separate several groups and subgroups by interlexem:

• 1) words with deviations in form that do not go beyond the most stable graphic interlingual correspondences;

• 2) interlexemes not only with a difference in graphics (within the framework of regular matches), but also with phonetic differences;

• 3)

  • 3.1. derivative words with differences not only in graphics and phonetics, but also in the design of suffixes that do not go beyond the limits of stable interlingual correspondence;

  • 3.2. derivative international words with the addition of suffixes in the Russian language;

• 4) derivatives and complex words in which international roots are combined with native affixes or roots.

Many variants of the typology of interlexics presented here need to be streamlined in order to develop the method of formation of lexical competence of the Russian language of foreigners.

Research Questions

New linguodidactic approaches, methods and techniques are conditioned by the dynamic character of the development of the society, in particular, the community using the Russian language for a wide range of communicative purposes. This is influenced by a number of objective factors: the change in the current geopolitical conditions of the status of the Russian language, the expansion of the ethnic origin of the student population, the formation of new axiological dominants in the society and ways of communicative interaction ( Bozhenkova et al., 2019).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the article is to summarize the experience of studying the typology of international words for its integration in the teaching of Russian to foreigners. In particular, to generalize the criteria of differentiation of the interlexeme for linguistic and pedagogical purposes and on the basis of several classifications to develop a generalized methodological typology of Russian interlexemes.

Research Methods

In connection with this task we have subjected the typological analysis to 4000 interlexes from "Dictionary of International Lexicon: 6 Foreign Languages" by Lamzyn ( 2007). The method of continuous sampling was used to select interlexemes in the Russian language only. Typological similarities and differences of these interlexes were revealed by the comparative analysis method. Distributive method formed educational and methodical groups and subgroups of such words. The generalization method made it possible to compile a consolidated typology of the Russian language interlexics.

Findings

On the basis of the concepts given here, and also taking into account own observations, it is possible to develop a generalized linguomethodical typology of the interlexeme.

I GROUP – LOW DIFFICULTY:

We propose to call the interlexemes included in the first methodical group "lexical identities". Among them are complete identities, graphic identities (taking into account the conditional identity of graphics (i.e., the equivalence of graphs within the limits of stable inter-linguistic correspondences)) and phonetic identities (regardless of the emphasis in the interlexemes). Structural identity can be implicitly present here.

II GROUP – MEDIUM DIFFICULTY:

The words of the second group are proposed to be called "derivative modifications". These are root internationalisms (within the limits of regular interlingual correspondences ("situation" – "situation", etc.) or specific derivative transformations ("championship" – "musician", etc.) and hybrid forms (complex words with international and native roots).

III GROUP – HIGH DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY:

This group includes subtypes.

• Semantic modifications (all cases of development of new or additional values in the interlexeme in the recipient language).

• Structural lexical tracing (semi-transparent internationalisms, i.e. motivational matches ("inspiration", "impression").

Of course, the specific lexical content of each type will vary depending on the lexemes of which two languages to compare. One and the same interlexeme for two closely related languages can be an identity, and when compared to a dialechesis of a non-native language it can be a derivative or semantic modification.

Thus, the methodology of teaching the understanding of international words will be differentiated depending on the linguistic peculiarities of different classes of the interlexeme represented in the generalized linguistic-methodical typology.

Conclusion

Traditionally, as we can see, interlexemes are classified according to formal structural and semantic features, but for the methodology of foreign language teaching the functional-stylistic and communicative-synthactic approaches to typologization and interlexeme in the comparative aspect are no less important. From these aspects, interlexic has not yet been thoroughly analyzed, and therefore requires detailed consideration for didactic purposes.

The categorical grammatical classification of the lexicon proposed by Zolotova et al. ( 2004), which divides lexemes on the basis of their combined capabilities and real function in the sentence on isosemic and non-isosemic (from the point of view of conformity of the categorial meaning of a particular word to the main categorial meaning of the part of speech to which it belongs), is very valuable for the method of teaching RKI. Also, despite the fact that among international lexicon verbs, as a rule, make up only 5 %, nevertheless, the semantic-synthactic classification of Russian verbs developed by the same author seems to be another productive means of differentiation by their syntactic functions ( Zolotova et al., 2004).

Identification of differences in the syntagmatic value of the interlexemes of the contacting languages will allow to add one more type of lexemes to the III group of words of methodological typology of interest, causing difficulties in their development – syntactic modifications.

References

• Akulenko, V. V. (1969). Questions of the study of lexical internationalisms and the processes of their formation. Questions of social linguistics. Leningrad.
• Akulenko, V. V. (1972). Issues of internationalization of the vocabulary of the language. Kharkov.
• Akulenko, V. V. (1980). International elements in vocabulary and terminology. Kharkov.
• Bezdenezhnykh, M. L. (1969). Formation and expansion of the potential vocabulary of high school students in teaching the German language. (Cand. dissertation). Kiev.
• Bozhenkova, N.A., Bozhenkova, R.K, & Shulgina, N.P. (2019). Psychological and pedagogical course of teaching Russian as a foreign language: the stage of speech adaptation. Russ. Language Studies. 17(3), 326–365. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10/22363/618-8163-2019-17-3-326-365.
• Dragunkin, A.N., & Akimov, L. (2008). English “times” and “constructions”. “Russian” vocabularyin English. Мoscow: UmnayaPlaneta, ANDRA Publ.
• Dubichinskii, V.V., & Royter, T. (2015). Theory and lexicographic description of lexical parallels. Kharkov: Pidruchnik NTU “ХПІ” Publ.
• Kolesnik, I.I. (1965). Some methods of teaching reading without a dictionary of English popular science and political literature (in connection with the understanding of words that have common roots in Russian and English). (Cand. Dissertation). Moscow.
• Lamzyn, S.A. (2007). Dictionary of international vocabulary: 6 foreign languages. Ryazan’: Uzoroch’je Publ.
• Milenovich, Zh., & Tsetkovich, R. (2015). Russian in the era of globalization. Education through life: lifelong education in the interests of sustainable development. 13. Retrieved from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/russkiy-yazyk-v-epohu-globalizatsii.
• Mokreeva, N.G. (1970). Learning to understand unstudied words when reading in French (in high school). (Cand. dissertation). Moscow.
• Sternin, I.A. (2007). Contrastive linguistics. Moscow.
• Tsitkina, F.A. (1988). Terminology and translation. L’vov.
• Zolotova, G.A., Onipenko, N.K., & Sidorova, M.Yu. (2004). Communicative grammar of the Russian language. Moscow