Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, No.6, pp.250-262
UDC: 
811.112.2`282.4(571.14)

Ordinary metalinguistic reflection of the Germans in Siberia: based on field expeditions in the Novosibirsk Region

Bogoslovskaya Z. M. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Shuvalova M. A. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Alexandrov O. A. 1 (Tomsk, Russian Federation)
1 National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The study is devoted to the problem of studying endangered cultures and languages by referring to the facts of explication of “folk” metalinguistic reflection. The aim of the work is to generalize knowledge about the language of speakers of endangered archaic forms of German language, who are living in Siberia.
Materials and Methods. The work analyzes lexical means, which are, on the one hand, central elements of the structure of metalinguistic utterance, and, on the other hand, they are considered as representatives of dominant meanings of the system of everyday knowledge about the language. For the purpose of data-gathering, a dialectological survey has been conducted for the first time in the districts with the highest proportion of Germans (the Novosibirsk region of the Russian Federation). During the field work, a semi-structured narrative interview was used. It allowed to build up a corpus of metalinguistic utterances using German dialects. Data processing was carried out using statistical calculation, context analysis and cognitive modeling techniques.
Results. It was revealed that at the present time the secondary German dialects, considered by their speakers as native forms of the language and interpreted in comparison with the modern German literary language and other linguistic formations, are preserved within the Novosibirsk region. Metalinguistic reflection is carried out according to the following models: language as a means of communication of a certain group of people and language as a system of words and language as a system of sounds. Each model assumes that the central object of reflection is a particular aspect of a language and the verbalization of this reflection is carried out in German dialect speech with usage of a certain set of lexical means.
Conclusions. The conducted qualitative analysis of metalinguistic discourse in combination with quantitative analysis allows to draw a conclusion that the everyday knowledge of German dialect speakers reflects a significant range of linguistic phenomena, but it is meaningfully different from systematic scientific knowledge. The utilitarian understanding of language (language as a communication tool) is prevailing. The most frequently mentioned unit of language is a word. The material side of the language with its pronouncing features is also an object of comprehension. The phenomena of morphological and syntactic levels of linguistic system are interpreted indirectly by Germans of Siberia.

Keywords: 

Folk linguistics; Field linguistics; Dialectology; Ordinary metalinguistic reflection; Naive speaker; German dialects; German minority in Siberian; Metalinguistic statements; Lexical items

References: 
  1. Pourfeiz J. A Cross-sectional Study of Relationship between Attitudes toward Foreign Language Learning and Academic Motivation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, vol. 232, pp. 668–676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.091
  2. Baföz T. Pre-service EFL Teachers Attitudes towards Language Learning through Social Media. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, vol. 232, pp. 430–438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.059
  3. Chen H., Myhill D. Children talking about writing: Investigating metalinguistic understanding. Linguistics and Education, 2016, vol. 35, pp. 100–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.004
  4. Myhill D., Newman R. Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 2016, vol. 80, pp. 177–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.007
  5. Galloway E. P., Stude J., Uccelli P. Adolescents’ metalinguistic reflections on the academic register in speech and writing. Linguistics and Education, 2015, vol. 31, pp. 221–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.006
  6. Albury N. J. The power of folk linguistic knowledge in language policy. Language Policy, 2017, vol. 16, issue 2, pp. 209–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9404-4
  7. Putjata G. «New Language Education Policy» – Policy making and enhancement of migrant-related multilingualism in student’s own perception. A case study with Russian speaking Israelis. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 2017, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 259–278. (In German) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0742-6
  8. Santello M. Bilingual idiosyncratic dimensions of language attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2015, vol. 18, issue 1, pp. 1–25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.864253
  9. Yook C., Lindemann S. The role of speaker identification in Korean university students' attitudes towards five varieties of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2013, vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 279–296. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.734509
  10. McKenzie R. M., Kitikanan P., Boriboon P. The competence and warmth of Thai students’ attitudes towards varieties of English: the effect of gender and perceptions of L1 diversity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2016, vol. 37, issue 6, pp. 536–550. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1083573
  11. McKenzie R. M. The sociolinguistics of variety identification and categorisation: free classification of varieties of spoken English amongst non-linguist listeners. Language Awareness, 2015, vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 150–168. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2014.998232
  12. Dück K. „Als mein Kind geboren wurde, hatte ich wieder Lust, russisch zu sprechen.“ Zu Sprachkompetenzen, Spracheinstellungen und Spracherziehung der zweiten Generation der Deutschen aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion. Hier die Russen  – dort die Deutschen. Über die Integrationsprobleme russlanddeutscher Jugendlicher 250 Jahre nach dem Einladungsmanifest. Öhlschläger R., Hermann M. (Hrsg.). Nomos Publ., 2013, pp. 79–96. (In German) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783845248011-79
  13. Leach H., Watson K., Gnevsheva K. Perceptual dialectology in northern England: Accent recognition, geographical proximity and cultural prominence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2016, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 192–211. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josl.12178
  14. Lai M.L. Cultural identity and language attitudes – into the second decade of postcolonial Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2011, vol. 32, issue 3, pp. 249–264. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.539692
  15. Ender A., Kasberger G.,  Kaiser I. Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Dialekt und Standard durch Jugendliche mit Deutsch als Erst- und Zweitsprache. ÖDaF-Mitteilungen, 2017, vol. 33, pp. 97–110. (In German) DOI: https://doi.org/10.14220/odaf.2017.33.1.97
  16. Schaufuß A., Siebenhaar B. Spracheinstellungen und phonetische Variation als Ausdruck verschwommener Dialektabgrenzung. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 2012, vol. 42, issue 2, pp. 88–109. (In German) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379865
  17. Alexandrova A. A., Olitskaya D. A., Itcenko A. V., Alexandrov O. A. Ordinary Metalanguage Consciousness of Students from Germany Studying at the Russian University. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 215, pp. 306–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.638
  18. Tamminga M. Mathed guise effects can be robust to speech style. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017, vol. 142, EL18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4990399
  19. Levon E. Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society, 2014, vol. 43, issue 5, pp. 539–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000554
  20. Preston D. R. Methods in (applied) folk linguistics: Getting into the mind of the folk. AILA Review, 2011, vol. 24, issue 1, pp. 15–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aila.24.02pre
  21. Babcock R. D. Rhetorical argument, folk linguistics, and content-oriented discourse analysis: A follow-up study. Ampersand, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 61–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.04.001
  22. Rodgers E. Towards a typology of discourse-based approaches to language attitudes. Language and Communication, 2017, vol. 56, pp. 82–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.04.002
  23. Xu W., Wang Y., Case R. E. Chinese attitudes towards varieties of English: a pre-Olympic examination. Language Awareness, 2010, vol. 19, issue 4, pp. 249–260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.508528
Date of the publication 30.12.2017