Through a conversation analytic investigation of Finnish-Estonian bilingual (direct) reported speech (i.e., voicing) by Finns who live in Estonia, this study shows how code-switching is used as a double contextualization device. The code-switched voicings are shaped by the on-going interactional situation, serving its needs by opening up a context where the participants can engage in activities such as assessing the voice-persona, and renewing the current speech event by imposing a context of prior texts upon it. The study shows that code-switching can be used in an interactionally meaningful way even when a) the morphosyntactic and lexical border between the two languages is not strictly salient, and b) when the participants do not orient towards the two varieties as indexical of specific social groups or values associated with them. In light of these results, the conclusion is drawn that although the two languages are clearly interrelated for the speakers, Finns in Estonia still orient towards two relatively distinct sets of linguistic features and operate with this difference as a resource in interaction. These findings are discussed in light of recent sociolinguistic theories that find the opposition of two languages in conversation often to lack any meaning for the participants.

In this paper, we investigate the emergence of bilingual constructions in conversational data from two groups of first generation Finns living in Estonia: 1) students and migrant workers who had been living in Estonia 0–17 years at the time the data was collected between 2002 and 2011; and 2) Ingrian Finns, who migrated to Soviet Estonia around World War II and had been living in the country for more than 50 years at the time of recording in the 1990s. All the participants in the current study use resources from Finnish and Estonian, and in both sets of data, there is co-occurrence of elements from both, but the language mixing patterns are very different. While some language mixing such as in the students' and workers' speech is predictable in this kind of contact setting, the immigrants from the Soviet era show signs of severe language attrition that is not typically found among first generation speakers. Among the recent immigrants, Estonian influence on Finnish morphology and morphosyntax is occasional whereas in the case of the Ingrian Finns, language mixing often occurs throughout the conversation and involves blending of morphological and syntactic constructions from both languages. Recurrent blending of certain constructions from the two languages especially in the Ingrian Finnish data indicates a dynamic towards establishing a new bilingual grammar. Furthermore, the comparison of the two datasets shows the effect that social factors and the length of stay have on first generation immigrants' language.

This article examines the morphological and morphophonological mixing that occurs in a contact between two Finnic languages, Finnish (the Ingrian Finnish dialect) and Estonian. Morphology and morphophonology are generally considered resistant to cross-linguistic interference and especially bound morphemes are rarely transferred in language contacts. Th e contacts between cognate languages represent an exception in this respect and when the contacting languages are genetically closely related and morphologically rich, there are fewer constraints to morphological borrowing. Morphological mixing is defined here as a phenomenon where morphemes from two diff erent languages are combined within a single word form and in the Finnish-Estonian context, it results in hybrid forms where there is no clear switch from one code to another but the elements blend together. It appears that morphological mixing emerges spontaneously during speech processing by bilingual speakers. The morphological blends seem to result from two mechanisms, the use of productive inflectional processes and the analogical formation based on a large cross-linguistic network of Finnish and Estonian words and word forms

Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan kuuntelutestimenetelmää käyttäen ei-lingvistien havaintoja karjalan kielestä. Kohderyhmänä on 31 rajakarjalaistaustaista pohjoiskarjalaista, jotka edustavat karjalankielisiä siirtokarjalaisia tai heidän jälkeläisiään. He ovat syntyneet v. 1917–1969, ja heidän sukunsa ovat olleet kotoisin Ilomantsin itäkylistä, Suojärveltä, Suistamolta, Impilahdelta tai Salmista. Testissä he kuuntelivat lyhyen eteläkarjalaismurteen näytteen, josta heidän tehtävänään oli arvioida, miltä osin näytteen kieli vastasi heidän lähtöperheidensä karjalan kieltä ja miten se poikkesi Pohjois-Karjalan murteesta eli itäisistä savolaismurteista.                       Kuuntelutesti osoittautui monelle osallistujalle vaikeaksi: 31:stä kahdeksan ei eritellyt näytteestä yhtään kielenpiirrettä. Silti ero Pohjois-Karjalan nykymurteeseen yleensä tunnistettiin ja näytettä kuvailtiin yleisluonteisesti. Eniten huomiota kiinnitettiin fonologisiin piirteisiin, kaikkein yleisimmin affrikaattaan (iče ’itse’). Myös jälkitavujen h (järkieh ’heti’), astevaihtelusuhde st : ss (muišša ’muista’) ja ensi tavun aa:n tai ää:n diftongiutuminen (hoaššettih, piässä) kuuluivat piirteisiin, joita jäljiteltiin tai kuvailtiin yleisimmin. Morfologisiin, sanastollisiin ja syntaktisiin piirteisiin huomio kiintyi harvemmin, mutta eräillä oli tarkkoja havaintoja mm. suomesta poikkeavasta sanajärjestyksestä.                       Testiin osallistujat hahmottivat kuulemiaan karjalan piirteitä eri tavoin. Näytteessä esiintyviä muotoja saatettiin tuottaa Pohjois-Karjalan murteen mukaisina, hyperdialektaalisina tai yleiskielisinä, mikä kertoo siitä, että karjala ei enää ole äidinkieli tai aktiivisesti käytössä. Runsas puolet osallistujista toisti kuitenkin ainakin osan muodoista sellaisina, kuin karjalainen puhuja ne tuotti. Noin kolmasosa mainitsi muotoja, joita näyte ei sisältänyt.                       Nuorimmat, 1950–1960-luvuilla syntyneet, poimivat karjalaispiirteitä eniten, mutta vanhemmille näyte saattoi palauttaa mieleen karjalankielisiä ilmauksia ja fraaseja, ja heidän karjalan kielen taitonsa näytti aktivoituvan rajakarjalaismurteen kuulemisesta. Verrattaessa kuuntelutestin tuloksia saman testiryhmän karjala-imitaatioihin on nähtävissä, että ryhmän vanhimmat jäsenet eivät välttämättä eritelleet näytteen kielenpiirteitä mutta he tuottivat pitkiäkin imitaatioita. Testin perusteella voidaan varovasti olettaa, että karjalan kieli on jokseenkin tuttua vielä siirtolaisten lasten ja lastenlastenkin keskuudessa ja sen taitaminen olisi aktivoitavissa, mikäli tilaisuuksia kuulla ja puhua karjalaa olisi enemmän.  

Abstract.Th is article provides a review of loan translations as a language contact phenomenon from the perspectives of contact linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA) research and translation studies (TS). We discuss both similarities and diff erences in the ways in which loan translations are conceptualized across these three disciplines. Th e discussion highlights a common cognitive basis underlying bilingual language use, SLA and translation, while at the same time the prevailing attitudes to loan translations in these disciplines reveal diff ering underlying ideologies. Th is study is a contribution towards broadening the scope of language contact studies to cover related disciplines that examine similar phenomena.

This article approaches literary translation from a contact-linguistic perspective and views translation as a language contact situation in which the translator “moves” between the source and target language. The study touches upon the possible linguistic effects of the source text on the translated text and relates the translation-mediated cross-linguistic influence to other language-contact situations. The study investigates the use of Finnish passive in a corpus of literary texts consisting of Finnish translationsfrom Estonian and German and comparable non-translated Finnish literary texts. The translated texts are compared with non-translated ones by using corpus-linguistic tools, and the results are related to a previous contact-linguistic study on the use of the Finnish passive in spoken interviews of Finnish migrants in Estonia. The main objective is to test methodological tools that could be used for this kind of comparative purposes.In addition, the study approaches the question whether translation as a type of language contact affects the use of the Finnish passive in a similar way as an oral language contact situation. All in all, the study shows that there are some features that differentiate the investigated literary translations from non-translated Finnish texts but the evidence is not unambiguous. The article discusses the possible reasons for the mainly non-conclusive results of the analysis and points out factors that should be taken into account in future studies, such as the size of the sub-corpora and the possibly biased text or genre specific stylistic characteristics. The methodology clearly has to be adjusted and more in-depth methods developed in order to acquire a fuller picture of the Finnish passive in literary texts and to confirm what is author, translator, genre or source-language specific in the use of the Finnish passive.

No abstract

No abstract