The Influence of Modern English Loanwords on the Verbal Code of Russian Culture

In research studies loanwords are discussed by many Russian (Krysin 2008, Khalevin 2010a, 2010b, Serebrennikova 2014, Rivlina 2015 etc.) and international scholars (Haugen 1950, Poplack, Sankof & Miller 1988, Veisbergs 2006, Jaworski 2014 etc.) who mainly focus on the problem of the formal and semantic adaptation of borrowings to the recipient language revealing changes of a loaned word's meaning as well as their structural assimilation. The issue of English loanwords and their influence on the modern Russian language has become topical within the last decade and is being discussed by Krysin (2008), Levontina, Shmelev & Zaliznjak (2012), Vorob'eva (2009), Klement'eva (2014) et al. One of the major problems in scope is the nature, rules and consequences of the interaction of new words with the cultural linguistic picture of the world (hereinafter -- LPW). Thus scholars' interest shifting from the study of purely “sign to sign interaction” to the study of “sign -- culture” domain.

According to Tolstoi (1995) language and culture have “certain features of structural similarity” with a language being a “verbal code of culture” (Lukin 2015: 65--66) which expresses the worldview of a language community through language units. The overall aim of the present study is to discuss the role of loanwords in their contribution to the change in a verbal code of culture and the ability of the language affected to preserve and exercise its objectives to express a culturally conditioned worldview, and to determine basic patterns of interaction between the loanwords and the recipient language, which are either determined by a linguistic picture of the world of the recipient Russian language or lead to its change.

Aligned with the statement above, the main objectives in this study are as follows: (1) to specify a verbal code of culture; (2) to specify the interaction patterns between a recipient language's linguistic picture of the world and loanwords; (3) to discuss the influence of modern English loanwords on the verbal code of the recipient language and culture.

Lexical examples included in the study are based on the authors' observations, retrieved from linguistic landscape, dictionaries of loanwords in Russian, Russian LiveJournal blog posts, RNC (hereinafter -- Russian National Corpus) or taken from secondary sources (see the References) and, thus, represent proof-checked lexical material existing in the Russian language. The number of analyzed LifeJour- nal texts to find loanwords is 280 (173 434 words). The number of retrieved loanwords is 304 words (4 951 entries). The rest of the loanwords were taken from secondary sources and linguistic landscape -- 183 words. RNC and dictionaries were used to allocate the found loanwords semantics and the contexts of usage. Based on the examples obtained through continuous sampling and observation and the results of their synchronic-diachronic study (lexical semantic analysis, comparative semantic analysis, morphological and quantitative analysis) the authors speculate on the role English loanwords play in the lexical structure of the modern Russian language as well as on the part they play in the construction of a cultural verbal code. ¹

School named after Lev Tolstoi, highlights three essential characteristics of a code: substantial homogeneity, systemacity and conventionality.

Substantial homogeneity is the characteristics of a code, which means that the code consists of qualitatively equal elements that serve to express the same idea by completing each other. For example, music consists of notes (hymn, alarm), a visual code consists of objects (traffic signs) or colors (state flag), a verbal code consists of meaningful linguistic elements of the same language (morphemes make words, words make phrases, phrases make sentences). Systematicity stands for the way the elements of a code organize themselves: colors make up a color spectrum, traffic light colors make up a traffic regulation system, letters make up an alphabet, and words make up a language's lexicon. Conventionality stands for the feature that each element of a code has a meaning which is subscribed to it. We use a code to convey (encode) information. A recipient is able to decode the information because he\she knows the meaning prescribed to the code elements: an embroidery scheme, pattern for knitting, flower language, sign language, any living language. Thus, a combination of signs can be called a code when it consists of equal elements, has a systemic organization and is recognized by an addressee.

According to Tolstoi (1995), every culture has a code for self-expression, which consists of several other codes (or subcodes): a corporal code, a musical code, acoustic, color, gesture codes etc. A verbal code is also a constituent of a cultural code, the most complicated one and the most important as each of the cultural code constituents can be expressed through the verbal code thanks to a nominative function of the language. Thus, following Tolstoi (1995), “language is a tool of a culture” (1995: 36), and a verbal code of a culture is “any form of a language (word, term, name, clichй, proverbs, folklore text, saying, curse, ritual words etc.)” (Tolstaya 2007) which can express cultural information of this language community by means of its structural elements.

Language is a type of a code that “represents culturally constructed conceptualizations encompassing the whole range of human experience” (Sharifian 2017:

2) . In other words, language features are embedded in cultural conceptualizations, and through the language we can express our worldview. Thus, the verbal code of a culture is the ability of a language with its structural elements to express the cultural specifics of a language speaking community.

Structural elements of a language (phonemes, morphemes, words) are responsible for this ability; “language can be viewed as a primary mechanism for “storing” and communicating cultural cognition, acting both as a memory bank and a fluid vehicle for the (re-)transmission of cultural cognition” (Sharifian 2017: 5). In other words, a language preserves and expresses cultural conceptualizations by means of language structural elements. To make up a complete picture of the world by means of a language all language elements are used, because each of them correlates with a part of the world or with a part of our attitude to the world.

On the phonetic level, the cultural conceptualizations by means of language structural elements can be demonstrated by onomatopoetic words, which copy the sounds around. In some languages they are alike, but in others they are very different:

• Sound of a kiss: Russ. чмок [chmoc]¹; Eng. smooch, smack; Fin. musik.

• Dog barking: Russ. гав-гав [gav gav], тяф-тяф [tyaf tyaf]; Fr. ouah ouah, Eng. bow wow.

• Sound of a frog: Russ. ква-ква [kva-kva]; Eng. croak; Danish kvwk kvwk.

The difference in onomatopoetic words depends on many factors, among

which is the way people hear the sounds and the way they can reproduce them, distinguishing the most precise and typical phonemes for this or that object of real^ity.

Concerning the morphemic level, according to (Nagel 2015: 227), word-formation models have the status of a “cultural code” that helps people to express their worldview via morphological units. Historically, in Slavic culture suffixes transmit the attitude of speakers to the abnormalities in human bodies and human behavior, including verbal. Slavic culture had a tradition to nickname people according to their origin, their roles in the community, their appearance or character, etc. In Slavic languages among the suffixes used for this purpose there were -ah ([zubaha] -- зубаха -- Eng. pejorative), -ok ([pochinok] -- починок -- Eng. firstborn), -un ([godun] -- годун -- Eng. sluggish), -an ([molchan] -- молчан -- Eng. silent) and others. These examples are no longer used in Russian, however the meaning of the suffixes is preserved and they are used to form other lexical units with the same socio-cultural semantics: [govorun] -- Russ. говорун -- Eng. babbler, [znatok] -- Russ. знаток -- Eng. expert, [golovan] -- Russ. голован -- Eng. know-all. Thus, word-formation models represent a “language objectification of the way a person perceives and structures information, pointing out the most important meanings for social interaction” (Nagel 2015: 227).

On lexical and syntactic levels, the cultural code of a language can be expressed through proverbs and sayings. These are culturally consolidated and closed units of a language: no word can be substituted by another one. Despite many Russian proverbs and sayings including words which are not used in the modern language, they correspond to modern life and express the cultural peculiarities and mentality of a Russian linguistic community: Russ. Баба с возу -- кобыле легче -- Eng. A good riddance to bad rubbish; Russ. -- В Тулу со своим самоваром не ездят; Eng. -- They don't bring coals to Newcastle. Only words which have a connection with the corresponding culture can be used to express the cultural code of a language in syntactical units of this kind. The influx of loanwords complicates the connection between the culture expressive syntactical units and the host LPW, because loanwords represent a foreign LPW.

Besides, in Russian, the cultural code of the language can be expressed purely syntactically by traditional syntactic constructions. Syntax is not just a formal organization of linguistic units, “it also encodes a certain type of conceptualization, Hereinafter we use the online transliteration service recommended by the Journal in section 2.5. of the guide for authors: https://translit.ru/ru/?account=bsi. [Last viewed: 20.07.2019]. and by learning this (of course, not only this), a person is familiarized with a cultural worldview” (Mel'nikova 2006: 34). Among syntactical constructions in Russian, there are fixed patterns that are called “syntactical concepts” (Popova 2004: 27), because by their syntactical forms they express the worldview and reflect the LPW. In this research, we follow the syntactical concepts discussed by Popova (2004). In Slavic languages, as well as in Russian, one of them is the concept of “the statement of the subject absence” (Popova 2004: 29) which is fashioned with the use of a noun or a pronoun in genitive form, the word no (Russ. [net]), an adverbial modifier of place and no explicit predicate: Russ. Этой книги нет в библиотеке -- Eng. This book is not in the library; Russ. Оценки нет в тетради -- Eng. There is no mark in the copybook; Russ. Её нет в комнате -- Eng. She is not in the room. According to Popova, in English and in German there is no such concept as “the statement of the subject absence”; that is why in these languages constructions of existence are used with a verb and the particle no: Eng. There is no...; Germ. Es gibt ... nicht.

Another example is a syntactic concept of “existence with the meaning of possessiveness” (Popova 2004: 29), which is expressed in Russian with the use of an object in the possessive in combination with the verb to have: Russ. У него есть красный автомобиль. -- Eng. He has a red car; Russ. У неё есть свободное время на этих выходных -- Eng. She has free time this weekend. The grammatical subject is not explicit in this syntactical construction. German and English sentences with the same meanings are constructed with the grammatical subjects and grammatical predicates with the latter expressed by the verb to have: Eng. He has a cat -- Germ. Er hat eine Katze. In Russian, the grammatical construction у него/неё/них есть (Eng. she/he has, they have) is frozen which means that the verb does not coordinate with the possessing object whether singular or plural, unlike in German or in English.

Thus, the language code of a culture can be traced on each language level: phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactic. We claim that loanwords also can be included in each of the language levels and become either the means of the verbal code expression or the means of its change.

By appearing in a recipient language, loanwords bring new linguistic fragments of cultural conceptualization, which undergo stages of assimilation (orthographic, grammatical, and semantic) before they enter the recipient language's lexical structure. Some loanwords adapt to a recipient language and lose their foreign appearance, but some of them make the recipient language adapt to them. These new language elements can change the verbal code of the recipient culture.

The ability of a language to serve as the verbal code of a culture is supplied by cumulative and world-image constructive functions (Vereshchagin 1980, Serebren- nikova 2014). Though it is assumed that all language levels are involved in the representation, fixation and preservation of information about reality, the vocabulary level is regarded as one of the most essential for the cumulative function. The cumulative function is responsible for the preservation (accumulation) of the cultural heritage in a language (Vereshchagin 1980), thereby turning a language into a sort of a memory bank (Sharifian 2017). Each unit of a language preserves a part of the culture where this language exists. Lexical units are the most cumulative in this sense, being the most visible units that preserve a verbal image of a concept or an object that belongs to a language community holistically, and are easily accessed by all members of this community.

The world-image constructive function is responsible for “conceptualizing the world by means of a language” (Serebrennikova 2014: 196). The world around, according to Serebryannikova (2014), is understood as “the interaction of a human and the environment, which the human is conceptualizing, learning and structuring” (Serebrennikova 2014: 196). Another way to explain the world-image constructive function is to describe it as the language function that makes us see the world in the way we are “verbalized” to see it. This statement can be exemplified by the following: in Russian, there is a word окно [okno] (Eng. window) which has its origin in the Ancient Russian око [oko] that stands for an eye (Shaposhnikov 2010: 64--65). In English, a window has its origin in the Middle English windowe or earlier in the Old Norse vindauge, where vindr is wind and auga stands for an eye (Merriam- Webster Dictionary). Thus, we can conclude, that for Russian speakers [okno] is something through which we can see and thus it performs the same function as human eyes (metonymic transfer), while for English speakers, window is something through which we can see (metonymic transfer) with an additional component to the meaning: to see the wind. This example represents the difference in our worldviews (in our world pictures) determined by the language we speak and the culture which stands behind it. On the one hand, the culture is imprinted in words by determining their meanings, and, on the other hand the culture is preserved by words which can tell about the culture in the past (archaisms, historicism).

With the rapid increase of loanwords, the implementation of cumulative and world-image constructive functions becomes more loaded due to the possible involvement of loanwords in this process. On the one hand, each language adjusts to the changes in the surrounding world to reflect events and phenomena occurring in the sociocultural space in each individual period of its development and the employment of new words is a natural process. On the other hand, if the language as the verbal code of a culture accepts foreign language elements, then both the recipient language and the culture have to transform in a number of ways. Since languages are different in "how they encode reality" (Nagel & Koshkarova 2015: 728--729) or create its linguistic picture, thus, when languages establish a close contact, one of the results of which are borrowings, there arises the problem of changes in the original image of a culture as a cultural LPW starts its interaction with the borrowed units.

This interaction might lead both to the change of the verbal code of a culture through the replacement of the usual language elements by the borrowed ones, and to the loanwords' conceptual adaptation to the recipient language.

Loanwords and recipient language interaction types

First Interaction Type

The first interaction type shows all types of a loanword assimilation: orthographic, grammatical, and semantic. The semantic assimilation during this type of interaction is the most distinct as the original meaning of a loaned lexical unit is partially or completely lost. Consequently, a loan word does not stand out as an alien word but looks and sounds common for the host-language speakers. Thus, this interaction type results in the loanwords changing or modifying their semantics under the influence of the LPW of the recipient language which accepted a loanword and transformed its meaning to its own requirement.

Semantic change is regarded as the semantic assimilation of a borrowing when in a recipient language it has a completely different meaning in comparison with its original one. Examples of such semantic assimilation are presented in Table 1.

Examples of semantic changes of foreign loanwords in Russian

Table 1

Modification of meaning is a semantic transformation of a lexical unit with the original semantics of a loaned word to be partially preserved. Examples are presented in Table 2.

Examples of semantic modifications of foreign loanwords in Russian

Table 2

To explain the usage of a word [beze] in Table 2 we need a historical context that led to the survival and active use of this word in Russian. This loanword originally was used in the meaning of a kiss (1--2), which was preserved due to N.V. Gogol's novel “Dead Souls” (1853):

(1) Russian: “Позволь, душа, я тебе влеплю один безе. Уж вы позвольте, ваше превосходительство, поцеловать мне его. Да, Чичиков, уж ты не противься, одну безешку позволь напечатлеть тебе в белоснежную щеку твою!” (Gogol' 2017)

(2) English: "Let me imprint upon your cheeks a baiser or two. You will excuse me if I kiss him, will you not, your Excellency? No, do not resist me, Chichikov, but allow me to imprint at least one baiser upon your lily-white cheek." (Gogol')

To sum up, the first type of interaction results in a formal (orthographic and grammatical) and semantic adaptation of a loaned lexical unit to the structure of the recipient language and to the LPW of the language's native speakers. The cultural LPW is not only retained but also lexically enriched by new units, which in their turn have acquired the rules of the recipient language and can fulfil the cumulative and world-image constructive functions of the Russian language.

Through the example of the Russian language the synchronic and diachronic study revealed the existence of different interaction types between the loanwords and the recipient language picture of the world. The first interaction type is the loanwords adaptation to the host language: the LPW dominance over the borrowed lexical units. The second interaction type is the loanwords' dominance over the LPW, which results in bringing new objects, concepts and ideas to the host language. The third interaction type showed that loanwords are able to influence the change of the recipient language's verbal code of culture by substituting the existing lexical equivalents. However, the third interaction type also represents the rejection of the loanwords to be adapted to the recipient language and the LPW, and the language forcing this adaptation through its derivative ability. This interaction type demonstrates the development of the hybrid language picture of the world in the Russian language caused by an active process of English loanword adaptation and, thus, requires further thorough study and examination.