Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:05:17.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verbs of motion in L1 Russian of Russian–English bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

ANETA PAVLENKO
ANETA PAVLENKO*
Affiliation:
Temple University
*
Address for correspondence: CITE Department, College of Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the motion lexicon in narratives elicited from Russian–English bilinguals. Lexical choices made by the participants are compared to those made by native speakers of Russian and English in narratives elicited by the same stimuli. The analysis of bilinguals’ narratives shows that lexicalization of motion is not subject to L2 influence in these bilinguals. A few instances of L2 influence on L1 uncovered in the data are used to discuss the forms L1 attrition might take in the Russian motion lexicon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 13 , Issue 1: New perspectives on L1 attrition , January 2010 , pp. 49 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The research reported here was partially funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A020010–03) to the Center of Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER). However, the contents of the paper do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, nor are they endorsed by the Federal Government. I thank Victoria Driagina and Nina Vyatkina for their invaluable assistance with data collection.

References

Andrews, D. (2001). Teaching the Russian heritage learner: Socio- and psycholinguistic perspectives. Slavic and Eastern European Journal, 45 (3), 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D. (2004). Теория прототипов в изучении русского языка в Америке [Prototype theory in the study of Russian in the United States]. In Mustaioki & Protassova (eds.), pp. 123–128.Google Scholar
Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (eds.) (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bermel, N. & Kagan, O. (2000). The maintenance of written Russian in heritage speakers. In Kagan, O. & Rifkin, B. (eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures, pp. 405–436. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Bondarko, A. (2003). Принципы функциональной грамматики и вопросы аспектологии [Principles of functional grammar and issues in aspectology]. Moscow: URSS.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (ed.) (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A study of cross-cultural effects. In Cook (ed.), pp. 120–141.Google Scholar
Driagina, V. (2007). Crossing and bridging spaces in a second language: A corpus-based investigation of motion talk by American learners of Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Glovinskaia, M. (2004). Общие типы изменений в языке первого поколения эмигрантов [General changes in the language of first generation emigres]. In Mustaioki & Protassova (eds.), pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
Mahota, W. (1996). Russian motion verbs for intermediate students. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial.Google Scholar
Muravyova, L. (1986). Verbs of motion in Russian. Moscow: Russky Yazyk Publishers.Google Scholar
Mustaioki, A. & Protassova, E. (eds.) (2004). Русскоязычный человек в иноязычном окружении [Russians in diaspora]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2002a). Emotions and the body in Russian and English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10 (1), 207–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2002b). Bilingualism and emotions. Multilingua, 21 (1), 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2003a). “I feel clumsy speaking Russian”: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In Cook (ed.), pp. 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2003b). Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7 (3), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2004). Second language influence and first language attrition in adult bilingualism. In Schmid, M. S., Köpke, B., Keijzer, M. & Weilemar, L. (eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues, pp. 47–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2006). Russian as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2008a). Narrative analysis in the study of bi- and multilingualism. In Wei, L. & Moyer, M. G. (eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism, pp. 311–325. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2008b). Structural and conceptual equivalence in acquisition and use of emotion words in a second language. Mental Lexicon, 3 (1), 91–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2008c). Russian in post-Soviet countries. Russian Linguistics, 32 (1), 59–80.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Driagina, V. (2007). Russian emotion vocabulary in American learners’ narratives. Modern Language Journal, 91 (2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (n.d.). American Russian: An endangered language? Ms., USC–UCSD.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2004). Русский язык в США [Russian language in the USA]. In Mustaioki & Protassova (eds.), pp. 28–46.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008a). Heritage language narratives. In Brinton, D., Kagan, O. & Bauckus, S. (eds.), Heritage languages: A new field emerging, pp. 149–164. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2008b). Without aspect. In Corbett, G. G. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, pp. 263–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ryazanova-Clarke, L. & Wade, T. (1999). The Russian language today. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, E. (2005). When boundaries are crossed: Evaluating language attrition data from two perspectives. Presented at 2nd International Conference on First Language Attrition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds.) (2004). Relating events in narrative (vol. 2): Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Paths to realization: A typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Zalizniak, A. & Shmelev, A. (2000). Введение в русскую аспектологию [Introduction to the study of Russian aspect]. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury.Google Scholar
Zemskaia, E. (2001). Язык русского зарубежья: Общие процессы и речевые портреты [Language of the Russian diaspora: General processes and language portraits]. Moscow & Vienna: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Zemskaia, E. (2002). Сорняк или роза? К вопросу о сохранности русского языка у эмигрантов четвертой волны [A weed or a rose? About Russian maintenance in immigrants of the fourth wave]. Известия Академии Наук. Серия литературы и языка [Academy of Science News. Literature and language series], 61 (4), 37–42.Google Scholar
Zemskaia, E. (2004). Специфика речи русской диаспоры на рубеже 20–21 века [Unique characteristics of Russian diaspora speech at the turn of the 21st century]. In Mustaioki & Protassova (eds.), pp. 21–27.Google Scholar