KALBŲ KONTAKTAI LIETUVOS TSR

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXIII (1983)

REGINA VĖNSAITĖ

SOME CASES OF LITHUANIAN-LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE IN THE RUSSIAN SPEECH OF LITHUANIANS

As is well known, Russian speech in every national community, especially in a national-language environment, has specific features, which makes it possible to speak of deviations in the functioning of the Russian language in various regions of the Soviet Union. One encounters deviations from the norm in the Russian speech of non-Russians as a result of insufficient knowledge of the grammar of the language being studied or the incorrect acquisition of certain linguistic phenomena of Russian. Most often, however, facts of the native language are used unconsciously in Russian speech (interference from the primary system—the native language). This process of superimposing the native-language system on the language being acquired produces an accent in the bilingual’s speech, which is a kind of “mirror” reflecting features of the native language.

In the Russian speech of Lithuanians, a certain distortion of the pronunciation norms of standard Russian is particularly striking. Representatives of another nationality (in this case, Lithuanians) “perceive the sound of a foreign speech through the prism of the phonetic system of their native language. Possessing stable habits of hearing and pronouncing the sounds of their native language, they fit their perception and reproduction of unfamiliar sounds of foreign speech to these patterns” (Bernstein S. I., 1937, p. 13). For example, the Russian hard consonants ж, ш, ц are unfamiliar to Lithuanians. In their speech these often sound “softer” than the normative [ж], [ш], [ц] (ж'изнь, выра ж'ение, у'иклон, у'ивилизац'ия, и'грокий, etc.).

The most widespread and quite noticeable manifestation of accent in the Russian speech of Lithuanians is the realization of unstressed vowels, since the Russian vowel system differs substantially from the Lithuanian one. Russian vowels are characterized by lax, non-tense, gliding articulation compared with the more tense articulation of vowels in Lithuanian (Jovaišas V. P., 1979, p. 30). In this case, the relevant factor is that vowel sounds in standard Lithuanian retain their qualitative and quantitative parameters when unstressed, whereas Russian unstressed vowels in pre-tonic and post-tonic syllables are reduced.

Incorrect pronunciation occurs in words such as автомобиль, автобус, европейский, невроз, Евгений, лавры, ревматизм, etc. The causes of these mis-

154

pronunciations can be explained by the presence of the diphthongs au, eu in Lithuanian loanwords—automobilis, autobusas, europinis, neurozė, Eugenijus, laurai, reumatizmas. Also noteworthy is the transfer of the sound form of words in the native language to such Russian words as мифология — mitologija, арифметика — aritmetika, Афины — Ačėnai, кафедра — katedra, апофеоз — apoteozė, символ — simbolis, гелий — helis, гармония — harmonija, герб — herbas, гибрид — hibridas, нигилизм — nihilizmas, гекзаметр — hegzametras, герметичный — hermetiškas, галлюцинация — haliucinacija, where t is pronounced instead of f, b instead of в, and h instead of г. The causes of the incorrect pronunciation of these and other foreign words, and the presence of similar interference, point to the persistent influence of native-language pronunciation habits. Accent and deviations from pronunciation norms considerably diminish the quality of Lithuanians’ Russian speech and sometimes even make it difficult to understand.

Linguists should pay more attention to processes of interaction between languages in the domains of vocabulary and phraseology, since these are precisely the least stable levels of language and the most open to the penetration of foreign-language elements. These are the principal domains of language interaction. Numerous instances of violations of pronunciation norms show that the interfering influence of Lithuanian on the Russian speech of non-Russians in practice represents an erroneous transfer of native-language norms to the language being learned. V. Yu. Mikhalchenko, who studies the functioning and interaction of Lithuanian and Russian, notes that “the most favorable conditions for lexico-semantic interference are observed when the divisions in the native language are less fine-grained than in the second language” (Mikhalchenko V. Yu., 1976, p. 156). For example, Lithuanian laikyti corresponds in Russian to держать, сдавать, aplankyti to посетить, навестить, debesīs to облако, туча, draugas to товарищ, друг, smulkus to подробный, мелкий, and rudas to рыжий, бурый. Or, conversely, where the meaning of the Lithuanian word is narrower than those of its Russian lexical counterparts: giedoti, dainuoti—петь; sėdėti, tupėti—сидеть. Such discrepancies between the semantic structures of Russian and Lithuanian words, and the unequal sizes of semantic fields in the languages, complicate acquisition of the other language and create the preconditions for numerous errors. If a Lithuanian semantic unit is characterized by a broader or, conversely, narrower sphere of use, and has richer or poorer content, a Lithuanian speaker, drawing on experience of the native language, will say: выдержать (instead of сдать—Lith. išlaikyti) экзамен; пить жаркий (instead of горячий—Lith. karštas) чай; лето я пропустила (instead of пробел—Lith. praleisti) in the village. A speaker or writer usually unconsciously compares the lexical units of the native and acquired languages, establishing relations of absolute identity between them; as a result, the norms of word usage are grossly violated and combinations of words alien to Russian appear.

We may regard the direct transfer of a Lithuanian word into Russian speech as the upper limit of native-language influence. Such influence is encountered at the initial stages of Lithuanian-Russian bilingualism. For example: В магазине продаются

155

citrines (instead of lemons); A salted cucumber in brine (instead of in brine); Father brought back cracks from Crimea (instead of cherries); Criminal (instead of criminal-investigation) detective inspector; A recital by organist Survilaite will soon take place; Today I bought a good shampoo; The kids ate rolls with cinnamon, etc. The erroneous words cited are formed according to all the rules of the Russian language. Such use of words from one’s native language in speech in the language being studied clearly testifies to the active influence of the native language. The most difficult thing is that errors of this kind cannot be predicted at all—they are random and deeply individual.

The problem of mastering the norms of standard Russian is closely linked to the question of using cognate words with similar outward forms that denote different concepts. Since “similarity between words in general, and especially structural similarity, creates conditions for their confusion in speech practice and leads to violations of rules of word use and norms of collocation, as well as to various stylistic errors” (Marchenko E., 1980, p. 31), distinguishing such words and using them correctly requires taking into account differences in meaning, collocability, and word-formation features (the presence of suffixes and prefixes). In oral and written speech, the following adjectives are most often confused: искусный – искусственный, употребительский – потребительский, длинный – длительный, знаменитый – знаменательный, зубатый – зубастый, рогатый – рогастый; nouns: донос – донесение, достоинность – достоинство, наследие – наследство, известь – известие; verbs: усложнить – осложнить, усвоить – освоить, укрыть – покрыть, упростить – опростить, охватить – обхватить, and so on. Each of the words cited has specific semantic and phraseological associations that must be taken into account to avoid choosing the wrong word; each has different collocability and is used in different contexts. The difficulty of eradicating errors in choosing the appropriate word (paronym), linked to the need to neutralize the interfering influence of the native language, is compounded by specific difficulties arising from the way semantic distinctions between paronyms are acquired; these words are often confused even by native speakers of Russian (Chepelite D., 1976, p. 47). The semantics of words and expressions, and the collocability of particular words depending on their meanings, constitute such a specific system that mastering it fully through a different linguistic mindset presents exceptional difficulties.

Interference errors are highly persistent and difficult to eradicate. As learners progress to higher stages of Russian-language instruction, such errors become less frequent, but they do not disappear even in the final stages of instruction; as a result, they adversely affect the communicative effectiveness of speech and lower the overall level of Russian speech culture.

It should be expected that, as the teaching of Russian in national schools and higher education institutions improves, proficiency in the language of interethnic communication will increase considerably, and the literary norms of Russian will be assimilated—

156

more effectively. Today, merely knowing Russian for the purposes of elementary communication is not enough—it is necessary to master its literary norms and the full wealth of its expressive resources. Studying the most typical deviations from the literary norm in the Russian speech of the non-Russian population of the USSR will make it possible to describe Russian more fully as a means of interethnic communication and to develop practical recommendations for improving the culture of Russian speech in the republics of the Soviet Union.

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

Бернштейн С. И. Вопросы обучения произношению: Применительно к преподаванию русского языка иностранцам. — М., 1937.

Йовайшас В. П. Об орфографическом минимуме для школ с литовским языком обучения. — В кн.: Вопросы обучения русскому языку в средней школе. Каунас, 1979.

Марченко Е. Смысловой и стилистический отбор слов. — В кн.: Вопросы преподавания русского языка в школе с литовским языком обучения. Каунас, 1980.

Михальченко В. Ю. Типологические особенности литовского и русского языков. — В кн.: Развитие национально-русского двуязычия. М., 1976.

Чепелите Д. Основные типы нарушения лексических норм в русской речи литовцев. — Моск kalba, 1976, Nr. 2.

Яцкявичюс А. Опыт психологического исследования становления устной речи на втором — русском языке. — В кн.: В поисках новых путей развития русской речи / Сост. В. Шярнас. Каунас, 1968.

R. VENSAITĖ

KAI KURIE LIETUVIŲ KALBOS INTERFERENCIJOS ATVEJAI RUSŲ KALBOJE

Reziumė

Dabartinei rusų kalbotyrai labai svarbu aprašyti visus procesus, kurie vyksta rusų kalboje, jai sąveikaujant su kitomis TSRS tautų kalbomis.

Kaip žinoma, rusų kalba kiekvienoje nacionalinėje aplinkoje turi savo specifinių bruožų, kurie pasireiškia nukrypimais nuo jos literatūrinės normos. Rusų literatūrinės kalbos pažeidimai būna įvairios prigimties: vieni jų atsiranda dėl nepakankamo rusų kalbos gramatikos mokėjimo, kiti — klaidingai suvokiant atskirus kalbos faktus. Tačiau dažniausiai nukrypimai esti dėl gimtosios kalbos įtakos (pirminės sistemos, t. y. gimtosios kalbos interferencija).

Lietuvių vartojamoje rusų kalboje pirmiausia krinta į akis tarties iškraipymas. Pavyzdžiui, labai dažnai minkštai tariami visada kieti rusų kalbos priebalsiai [ж], [ш], [ц] (жизнь, широкий, цивилизация). Su ryškiu lietuvių kalbos akcentu yra tariami nekirčiuoti rusų kalbos balsiai, nes rusų kalbos vokalizmas iš esmės skiriasi nuo lietuvių. Lietuvių kalbos balsiai nekirčiuotoje pozicijoje išlaiko savo kokybinius ir kiekybinius parametrus, tuo tarpu rusų kalbos nekirčiuoti balsiai prieš kirčiuotą ir po kirčiuoto skiemens yra redukuojami.

Pagrindinėmis kalbų sąveikos sferomis laikomos leksika ir frazeologija. Palankios sąlygos leksinei-semantinei interferencijai plėtotis susidaro tada, kai vienas lietuvių kalbos žodis turi kelis atitikmenis rusų kalboje, pavyzdžiui, laikyti — держать, считать, smulkus — подробный, мелкий. Arba, atvirkščiai, kada lietuvių kalbos žodžio reikšmė yra siauresnė už rusų kalbos korespond uojančių leksinių vienetų reikšmes: giedoti, dainuoti — петь, tupėti, sėdėti — сидеть.

Daug sunkumų, mokantis rusų kalbos, sudaro ir paronimų vartojimas, pavyzdžiui: искусный — искусственный, длинный — длительный, известь — известие ir t. t.

157

R. VENSAITĖ

MANCHE FÄLLE DER INTERFERENTION DER LITAUISCHEN SPRACHE IM RUSSISCHEN

Zusammenfassung

Bekanntermaßen, hat die russische Sprache in jeder Nationalumgebung seine spezifische Eigenschaften, was uns über manche Abweichungen von der literarischen Norm zu sprechen erlaubt. Die Abweichungen von der literarischen Norm in der russischen Sprache sind verschiedener Natur, die wegen des ungenügenden Wissens der Grammatik oder beim fehlerhaften Studieren mancher Sprachfakten entstehen.

Am häufigsten treffen wir aber die Abweichungen in der russischen Sprache wegen des Einflusses der Muttersprache (des primären Systems, d. h. der Interferention der Muttersprache).

In der russischen Sprache, die Litauer gebrauchen, fallen erstens die Abweichungen von der Aussprache auf, weil die Litauer den Klang der anderen Sprache durch die Fertigkeit seiner Aussprache, nehmen, so z. B., sehr schwer spricht man immer harte Konsonanten der russischen Sprache [ж], [ш], [ц] aus. Die Litauer realisieren sie wie weiche Konsonanten (жизнь, широкий, цивилизация). Am stärksten bemerken wir den Akzent bei der Realisation der unbetonten Vokale, weil die Vokale der russischen Sprache sich wesentlich von der in der litauischen Sprache unterscheiden. Die Vokale in der litauischen Sprache erhalten in der unbetonten Position qualitative und quantitative Parametre, inzwischen die unbetonten Vokale in der russischen Sprache sich vor der betonten und nach der betonten Silbe reduzieren.

Die Hauptsphären der Wechselwirkung der Sprachen sind Lexik und Phraseologie. Alle Bedingungen für die Entwicklung der lexisch-semantischen Interferention sehen wir in den Fällen, wo das litauische Wort einige Entsprechungen in der russischen Sprache hat, z. B., laikyti – держать, сдавать, smulkus – подробный, мелкий, oder umgekehrt, wo die Bedeutung des Wortes in der litauischen Sprache schmaler ist: giedoti, dainuoti – петь; tupėti, sėdėti – сидеть.

Viele Schwierigkeiten gibt es beim Gebrauch der Paronimen, z. B., иску́сный – искусственный, длинный – длительный, известь – известие, усвоить – освоить usw.