Englishization of Russian: Metalinguistic Negotiation
Alexandra Rivlina
National Research University Higher School of Economics
(Moscow, Russia)
Abstract.
The paper deals with a current tendency towards an increase in Russian speakers’ verbalized reflection on
language and culture contact, caused by growing exposure to global English. Of crucial importance to
World Englishes research are metalinguistic commentaries, in which speakers, acting as “folk” linguists,
monitor, register and negotiate various aspects of English-Russian interaction. Negatively marked
metalinguistic interpretation of contact phenomena is seen as part of speakers’ “linguistic self-defense”
against unwarranted borrowings, especially, against the borrowing of culturally alien concepts. In
contrast, positively marked lay comments facilitate and encourage ongoing Englishization of Russian.
The impact of World Englishes, as Braj B. Kachru has put it, is “Janus-like,
with two faces”, including, on the one hand, Englishization, the process of change
that English has initiated in the other languages of the world and, on the other
hand, nativization of the English language itself [Kachru, p. 138]. Russia has
firmly established its place in the Expanding Circle of Englishes (as stated in
numerous publications of the last decade; for an overview see [Proshina 2007: p.
80-88; Proshina 2010; Rivlina 2005]) and both processes, i.e. Russianization of
English and Englishization of Russian, are developing at an increasing pace.
Russia English is still in the early stages of its development as a performance
variety and continues to cause heated debate; at the same time, few Russian
linguists doubt extensive Englishization of Russian which comprises such contactinduced linguistic phenomena as the influx of English borrowings and their
assimilation, English-Russian code-switching and code-mixing, specific EnglishRussian language play, some English-influenced changes in grammar, graphics and
punctuation, phonological and stylistic changes, and many other linguistic
innovations. Today I am going to speak about how speakers of Russian reflect on
and deal with these linguistic changes in their everyday communication and about
the significance of this sphere of World Englishes research.
One of the outcomes of Russia’s growing exposure to global English is the
tendency towards an increase in Russian speakers’ meta-lingual reflexivity, or
verbalized reflection on English-Russian language contact. Not only professional
linguists, but lay speakers of Russian, acting as “folk” linguists, monitor, register
and comment on various aspects of English-Russian interaction. These comments,
revealing basic knowledge, beliefs and attitudes non-linguists may share about
language contact, form a whole new linguistic area, which can be tentatively
defined as “folk contact linguistics”1 or, in other terms, “naïve meta-contact
linguistics” (“folk” and “naïve” here do not imply “false”, but simply mean “nonprofessional”). Here is just a brief example of a typical folk meta-linguistic
comment reflecting on the pressure of global English:
(a character in a novel speaking about sales assistants) Они теперь все говорят, как в
американских сериалах, «у меня проблемы» и «я сделал это!» / Today they all say “I’ve
1
On the analogy of “folk etymology”, “folk dialectology”, etc.
got problems” and “I did it!” like in American TV-series (Sergey Pol’iakov, Грибной царь
/ Gribnoi Tzar’ [Mushroom King]).
It should be noted that growing interest in meta-activities and meta-analysis
is evident in all spheres of modern social life and research (indicative of this is the
title of the book written by the Russian philosopher Yu. Gromyko – “Meta-age…”
[Gromyko]) and that includes growing lingual reflexivity of speakers and linguists’
interest in its study (see numerous publications on metalinguistics and folk
linguistics in the last decade [Ädel 2006; Jaworski et al. 2004; Kashkin 2007,
2009; Maschler 2009; Niedzielski and Preston 2000; Rivlina 2011; Troshina 2010;
Vepreva 2005).
It can be argued that globalization of English, which causes growing
English/vernacular bilingualism, contributes to this tendency, because bilinguals’
performance in general can be defined as metalinguistic activity, due to greater or
lesser degree of folk awareness of the units of different language systems being
juxtaposed. In their speech, bilinguals employ special metalingual tactics to specify
the meanings of the foreign lingual units they use: these tactics include translation,
paraphrase, use of synonyms, interpretation, comparison, analogies, etc.
(metalingual performance in these contexts can be described as unconscious/semiconscious and implicit). For example:
… райдер (список требований звезды – Ред.) у актрисы оказался в пределах
разумного; … профессиональные американские няни (ожидается от двух до четырех
беби-ситтеров) /… the raider (the list of a star’s requirements – Ed.) of the actress turned
out to be quite reasonable … professional American nannies (two to four bebi-sitterov are
expected) (the Komsomol’skaia Pravda daily, 2010).
Meta-contact consciousness/awareness is explicitly verbalized with the help
of special metalinguistic operators or markers, accompanying bilinguals’
metalinguistic techniques, e.g., derived from the English word…, translated as…,
Anglicism/ Americanism…, in other words…, so-called…, etc. For example:
Пикаперы (от английского pick-up – «клеить, знакомиться»), если кто не в курсе,
учат парней профессионально снимать девушек / Pikapery (derived from the English
word “pick-up” – “to make contact, to get acquainted”), in case you are out of the swim,
teach guys to pick-up girls professionally (the Komsomol’skaia Pravda daily, 2008).
In most cases, metalingual commentaries are of minimal length, consisting
of one or two words or a short subordinate clause, because they make a so-called
“metatext”, defined by Anna Wierzbicka as “meta-textual threads”, which only
“clarify ‘the semantic pattern’ of the basic text” [Wierzbicka 1978: p. 421], and so
should not distract from the main content of the text. On the other hand, a
metalinguistic commentary may become the topic of a separate utterance, e.g.:
Их тут называют «лузерами», неудачниками / They are called here “luzery”, or
failures (the Komsomol’skaia Pravda daily, 2008).
Some metalinguistic commentaries can even expand to make whole passages
or separate texts dealing with borrowed lingual units and the social and cultural
phenomena defined by those borrowings; for example, there has been a number of
published essays and magazine articles which discuss one of the latest English
borrowings glamur (glamour): Я планов наших люблю гламурье… / I like the
glamuring
of
our
plans…
by
Tat’iana
Tolstaia
(http://scripts.online.ru/misc/news/98/09/10_229.htm) or Гламур – новая
идеология или старые раны? / Glamur – new ideology or old wounds?
(http://www.drugaya.ru/content/doc592.html).
Despite its visibility, folk reflexivity on language contact is largely underresearched and under-theorized both in folk linguistics studies and in World
Englishes research, though both areas could probably benefit greatly from such
investigation.
Let me provide a brief outline of those aspects of English-Russian
interaction which feature most prominently in Russian speakers’ discourse. There
are a number of remarkable similarities as well as important differences between
contact linguistics as a professional sphere of research and folk contact linguistics.
First of all, as far as the nativization/Englishization model is concerned,
collected data shows that in everyday communication the Russianization of
English so far has remained largely unnoticed by lay speakers of Russian (unless it
is specifically targeted and deliberately teased out by field methods of research as
in [Proshina 2007: p. 83-84]), whereas Englishization of Russian has become a
topic of common interest.
The most frequent object of meta-contact reflection is the most typical
contact phenomenon, namely, borrowing of lexical units – words and expressions from English. It should be noted, that common speakers of a language tend to
ignore distinctions between various contact-induced lexical phenomena (e.g.,
distinctions between cases of code-switching and code mixing, borrowings,
calques, pseudo-borrowings, hybrids, etc., which usually attract the attention of
professional linguists) and tend to reflect predominantly on the feature which
unites all these phenomena, on their “foreignness”, or “Englishness”; so, all of
these units are typically treated as “borrowings” and “Anglicisms / Americanisms”.
The content analysis of meta-contact commentaries shows that their primary
purpose is similar to that of many other types of metalinguistic commentaries: they
serve, first and foremost, as a specific adaptation tool “releasing speech tension in
communication fraught with the danger of misunderstanding and requiring special
linguistic vigilance of speakers” [Vepreva: p. 102]. When “linguistic vigilance”
weakens, a communicative breakdown occurs and a metalinguistic commentary
produced post factum helps to make amends and to straighten out the
communicative failure. For example:
Нельзя золотовалютные резервы ЦБ называть резервами страны. Иначе они сразу
становятся touchable. – Что, простите? – Я говорю, на них может быть обращено
взыскание в случае принятия соответствующего судебного решения. Иногда одним
иностранным словом легче сказать. Это не от выпендрежа / The gold-exchange
reserves of the Central Bank cannot be called “national reserves”. Otherwise, they
immediately become touchable. – Sorry, what? – I am saying that they could be tapped into
as a result of legal action. Sometimes it is much easier to express an idea in one foreign
word. This is not just an ego trip (the former head of the Russian Central Bank V.
Geraschenko’s interview, the Argumenty i Fakty weekly, 2001).
The English word touchable imbedded into the Russian text causes a
communicative breakdown (Sorry, what?), that is why the interviewee uses the
basic meta-textual operator I am saying to introduce its definition (they could be
tapped into as a result of legal action), and then he proceeds to comment on the
reasons why he has used this Anglicism, claiming that there is no adequate
equivalent for this word in Russian (sometimes it is much easier to express an idea
in one foreign word) and trying to dissociate himself from possible wide-spread
accusations in using borrowings only because of their being prestigious or
fashionable (this is not just an ego trip). In most cases, though, a metalinguistic
comment represents an “anticipatory”, or “projective” reflexive reaction of a
speaker [Vepreva: p. 103-104].
The following semantic types of meta-contact commentaries can be
distinguished:
a) meta-contact comments of a dynamic type, reflecting temporal
characteristics of word use, the changes in the lexical system of the language,
linguistic fashion and preferences, rearrangement of passive and active vocabulary
stock, etc., e.g.:
Они теперь все говорят, как в американских сериалах: «у меня проблемы» и «я
сделал это!» / Today they all say “I’ve got problems” or “I did it!” like in American TVseries (S. Pol’iakov, Грибной царь / Gribnoi Tzar’ [Mushroom King]);
b) meta-contact comments of a stylistic type, which deal with the stylistic
appropriateness of the borrowing in a certain context, or with its stylistic
characteristics as being formal, colloquial, low-colloquial, used by representatives
of various social groups, etc., e.g.:
Этот чулан, в котором вечно царит хаос, в редакции принято называть модным и
гламурным словом «фэшнрум» / In our editorial office, this closet, reigned by eternal
chaos, is usually defined by a fashionable and glamorous word feshnrum (Yes! magazine,
2008);
c) meta-contact comments of a derivational type, which deal with the
clarification of the meanings of borrowings, with metalinguistic deliberation on
their semantic validity, formal and semantic derivational history, semantic
modification and transformation, etc., as in the aforementioned example:
Пикаперы (от английского pick-up – «клеить, знакомиться»)… / Pikapery (derived
from the English word “pick-up” – “to make contact, to get acquainted”)…;
d) meta-contact comments of a personal type, which present personal
preferences of the addresser or the prospected likes and dislikes of the addressee in
the use of borrowings, e.g.:
Чтобы в главе «дела сделанные» поубавилось, а в пункте «свободна», наоборот,
выросло, примерь на себя основные правила тайм-менеджмента, или разумного
управления временем, если тебе не милы англицизмы / In order to cut the number of
entries in the list “done” and, vice versa, to increase the number of points in the list “free”,
try some of the basic rules of taim-menedzhmenta, or rational management of time, if you do
not like Anglicisms (Yes! magazine, 2008).
Another important criterion for further classification of folk meta-contact
reflexive units is the communicative modus of speaker. Speakers can merely
provide some information on a certain foreign word or its use in a particular
context, or they can express their attitudes to borrowed words. Research indicates,
that modern Russian discourse in general is characterized by “enhanced modality
of communication” [Vepreva: p. 161]; in addition, the influence of English is a
highly emotional topic for many speakers. Therefore, the corpus of meta-contact
reflexive operators includes numerous evaluative utterances. The evaluation of
foreign words may be positive, e.g.:
Collaboration… Я очень люблю это буржуазное слово. Уж не знаю, чем оно мне
нравится, наверное, все-таки не фонетическими особенностями, а значением,
смыслом / Collaboration… I like this bourgeois word very much. I don’t know exactly what
I find attractive in this word, apparently it is not its phonetic peculiarities, but rather its
meaning, its sense (the Komsomol’skaia Pravda daily, 2000) (example borrowed from
[Vepreva: p. 303]).
However, in most cases the metalinguistic appraisal of foreign language
units is negative, which can be explained in a number of ways. From the point of
view of comparative linguacultural studies, as outlined in a number of our previous
publications [Rivlina 2010, 2011], unavoidable subconscious ethnocentrism,
coupled with the traditional reverent and loving attitude of Russian speakers to
their native tongue, generates the perception of a foreign word as being alien,
incorrect, and menacing Russian system of values. Consequently, the foreign word
is often rejected. For example:
А бойфренд у тебя есть? - Бойфренда нет. - Почему? - Потому что бойфренд – это
английское слово. Это что-то чужое. Оно мне не нравится. У меня есть любимый
человек / Do you have a boifrend? – No, I don’t. – Why so? – Because boifrend is an
English word. It is something alien. I don’t like it. I have a person I love (Narodnyi Artist
TV show, the RTR TV channel, 2006);
Невероятно трудно, но мне было очень важно сказать, как, знаете, у американцев,
абсолютно дебильная расхожая фраза: «Я сделал это!». Так я сделал это / It was
incredibly difficult, but, you know, there is an absolutely moronic vogue American cliché “I
did it!”; so, I did it (the Sovershenno sekretno weekly, 2001);
«Этот страшный американизм - «Это твои проблемы»!» / This horrible
Americanism – “These are your problems!” (Zhenskii Vzgl’iad TV show, the NTV TV
channel, 2006).
Comparative analysis of culture-related systems of beliefs and values
underpinning such evaluations makes a separate fascinating topic in cultural
linguistics. Folk linguists also make attempts at registering and accounting for
what can be described as a “linguacultural clash” [Rivlina 2011]: for example, the
newspaper article «Каждый за себя! Но разве можно так жить?!» / “Each
for himself! But is it really possible to live like that?!” by Inna Rudenko (the
Komsomol’skaia Pravda daily, 2005) discusses the socio-cultural reasons why the
aforementioned calqued English phrase “These are your problems!” is resented by
many Russian speakers.
Another point of interest is that special printed and electronic mass media
publications, Internet blogs and other discussion forums specifically devoted to the
topic of attitudes of Russian speakers to Englishization of Russian are, like many
other types of folk meta-linguistic discourse, largely dominated by a set of
cognitive metaphors and so-called “mythologemes”, or recurrent “motifs” (about
cognitive metaphors and “mythologemes” in folk linguistics see [Kashkin 2007,
2009]). The leading type of metaphor in Russian folk contact commentaries (like in
many other languages) is the metaphor of linguistic unchangeability as “purity”,
according to which all borrowings, including Anglicisms (especially, Anglicisms!)
“pollute” the language, cause its “corruption” and may even lead to its “death” and
should be substituted by native language units. This metaphoric conceptualization
is connected with the ethnocentric mythologeme of the native language superiority.
The idea of the Russian language as a symbol of Russian cultural identity, national
heritage, social independence, etc., is perpetuated and translates into overall
rejection of the process of Englishization.
Nevertheless, though often irrational, fragmental, emotional, mythological,
and preconceived, folk beliefs and assumptions about language contact in general
and Englishization of Russian in particular should be by no means disregarded by
linguistic research, because meta-contact discourse is the domain where actual
negotiation of linguistic change takes place. In some studies, a special term
“metalanguaging” is suggested in addition to the term “metalanguage” to
emphasize the activity approach to metadiscourse analysis [Mashler: p. 1]. It is
arguably in the process of “metalanguaging”, that the speakers negotiate which
borrowings are unwarranted and should be abandoned (this can be described with
the help of one more metaphor suggested by Anna Wirzbicka, “linguistic selfdefense” [Wirzbicka 1990]) and which borrowings can contribute to the
enrichment of the Russian language and worldview and should be adopted. Folk
meta-contact performance, conscious or unconscious, explicit or implicit, is the
mechanism which helps speakers of Russian shape the lexical stock of their native
language and their national identity in today’s increasingly globalized
environment. Besides, what is also extremely important, by specifying and
elucidating various English lingual units they facilitate and promote further
Englishization of Russian: many English insertions and borrowings are understood
and acquired by common Russian speakers not through formal instruction in
English, but through their discussion in bilinguals’ meta-discourse.
Finally, the role of professional linguists in metalanguaging the impact of
English on Russian should not be underestimated. The current linguistic situation
in Russia is unique in this respect, because extensive Englishization of Russian
coincided with a number of other drastic linguistic changes generated by a
complete overhaul of social, political and economic life of the country at the end of
the 20th – the beginning of the 21st century. Nowadays, both professional and folk
linguistic communities in Russia have to deal with a whole range of new linguistic
developments, many of which are perceived as threatening to the Russian
language. That is why many linguists in Russia engage in energetic linguistic
educational activities, giving talks, participating in various mass media
discussions, publishing popular books and articles on various aspects of
accelerated development of modern Russian, addressing the issue of its
Englishization as one of these aspects; e.g., Irina Levontina. Russkii so slovar’em
[Russian with a Dictionary], Maxim Krongauz. Russkii iazyk na grani nervnogo
sryva [The Russian Language on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown], Natal’ia
Yudina. Russkii iazyk v XXI veke: krizis? evol’utsiia? progress? [The Russian
language in the 21st century: Crisis? Evolution? Progress?] and others. Professional
linguists admit that their own vision of current linguistic changes in Russian,
including its Englishization, is influenced to a large extent by popular beliefs and
attitudes (cf.: the title of one of the chapters in Maxim Krongauz’s book is “Tired
of Being a Linguist”). It shows once again that folk accounts of language are not
primitive or false, but are often as complex, fascinating and influential as scholarly
conclusions, and sometimes, as the Russian linguist Apres’ian states, they turn out
to be even more insightful, because they reveal centuries-old collective experience
of a nation [Apres’ian: p. 39].
I would like to conclude by saying that the topic of Englishization of
Russian in folk metalinguistic negotiation cannot be exhausted in one presentation
and each of the issues mentioned today can merit further linguistic investigation.
REFERENCES
1. Ädel, Annelie. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
2. Apres’an, Yu. D. (1995) Obraz cheloveka po dannym iazyka [Image of a Person
Based on Linguistic Data: An Attempt at Systemic Description] // Voprosy
Iazykoznaniia [Linguistic Issues]. № 1. Pp. 37-47.
3. Gromyko, Yury. (2006) Vek meta: sovremennye deiatel’nostnye predstavleniia
o sotsial’noi praktike i obshchestvennom razvitii [Meta-Age: Modern Activity
Perceptions about Social Practice and Social Development]. Moscow: ARKTI
Press.
4. Jaworski Adam, Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasiński, eds. (2004).
Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
5. Kachru, Braj B. (1996) World Englishes: Agony and Ecstasy // Journal of
Aesthetic Education, Vol. 30, No 2, Special Issue: Distinguished Humanities
Lectures II. Pp. 135-155.
6. Kashkin, V. B. (2007). Metaliguistic activity and everyday philosophy // R.
Alanen & S. Poyhonen (Eds.), Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian
legacy today. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pp. 170-202.
7. Kashkin, V. B. (2009) What Do Language Learners Know about Language? //
The Fourth International Symposium on ESP and Its Teaching. Wuhan (China).
Pp.190-200
Available
at
http://kachkine.narod.ru/Articles2010/KashWuhan2009.html
8. Krongauz, Maxim. (2009) Russkii iazyk na grani nervnogo sryva [The Russian
Language on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown]. Moscow: Znak.
9. Levontina, Irina. (2010) Russkii so slovar’em [Russian with a Dictionary].
Moscow: Azbukovnik.
10. Maschler, Yael. (2009) Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse
Markers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
11. Niedzielski, Nancy & Preston, Dennis. 2000. Folk Linguistics. Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Proshina, Z. G. (2007) The ABC and controversies of World Englishes.
Khabarovsk:
ДВИИЯ.
Available
at
http://www.ffl.msu.ru/ru/personalpages/proshina_zg/2/
13. Proshina, Zoya. (2010) Slavic Englishes: education or culture? // Andy
Kirkpatrick (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Ed. by. London &
New York: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group, Pp. 299-315.
14. Rivlina, A.A. (2005) “Threats and challenges”: English–Russian interaction
today // World Englishes, 24 (4). Pp 477–86.
15. Rivlina, А. А. O iavlenii “glokalizatsii” v semanticheskom razvitii
angloiazychnykh zaimstvovanii [On “Glocalization” in the Semantic Development
of English Borrowings] // Rossiia i Zapad: dialog kul’tur. Sb. statei XIII
mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii [Russia and the West: Dialogue of Cultures.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference]. Issue 15. Part I. - Moscow:
Moscow State University Publishers, 2010. – Pp. 299–308.
16. Rivlina, А. А. “Lingvocul’turnyi konflikt” i ego “naivnaia” metaiazykovaia
interpretatsiia (na material’e vzaimodeistviia sovremennogo russkogo iazyka s
angliiskim) [“Linguacultural Conflict” and its “Naïve” Metalinguistic
Interpretation (on the Material of Modern Russian Interaction with English] //
Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo [Personality. Culture. Society]. – 2011. - № 4 (in
press).
17. Troshina, N. N. Kul’tura iazyka i iazykovaia refleksiia: analiticheskii obsor
[Language Standards and Linguistic Reflexivity: Analytical Review]. – Moscow:
RAN INION, 2010.
18. Vepreva, I. Т. Iazykovaia refleksiia v postsovetskuyu epokhu [Language
reflexivity in post-Soviet era]. - Moscow: OLMA-PRESS, 2005.
19. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1978) Metatekst v tekste [Meta-Text inside the Text] //
Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike [New in Foreign Linguistics]. Issue 8. Lingvistika
teksta [Text Linguistics]. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Pp. 402-424.
20. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1990) Antitotalitarian language in Poland: Some
mechanisms of self-defense // Language in Society. Volume 19. Issue 1.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Pp.
1-59.
Available
at
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4168104
21. Yudina, Natal’ia. (2010) Russkii iazyk v XXI veke: krizis? evol’utsiia?
progress? [The Russian language in the 21st century: Crisis? Evolution? Progress?].
Moscow: Gnozis.
Appendix
(excerpts from the Russian online discussion forum corpus; style, spelling and
punctuation of the authors preserved):
Засорение русского языка американскими фразами, жаргонами. Кому это выгодно?
Засилие чужой культуры и (не самой лучшей ее стороны) подражание западу. Что
движет людьми? Мода на новые иностранные слова, боязнь казаться "несовременными"
или "нецивилизованными"? Что же будет со следующими поколениями? А как же
наследие? / Pollution of the Russian language with American expressions, jargons. Who benefits
from it? Oppression by an alien culture and (by its least attractive aspect at that) imitation of the
West. What makes people do this? It is fashion for foreign words or fear of looking “outdated”
or “uncivilized”? What is in stock for the generations to come? What about our heritage?
(http://www.lovehate.ru/opinions/72850/1 );
Заимствование слов одного языка другим, это нормально, но в разумных пределах. Зачем
вымещать свои родные слова чужими. Вместо сообщение "месседж", идти, пошли "гоу".
Бредятина полная. Как так можно не любить свой родной РУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК. Ведь это не
язык, а песня. Столько тонов и оттенков. Одна и та же фраза может звучать, как
утверждение и как вопрос, все дело в интонации. Куда английскому с его
прямолинейностью до РУССКОГО. Английский чисто информативный язык, прямой
даже в какой-то степени бесцветный, а РУССКИЙ, это же песня души. К тому же
многие английские термины вполне неплохо выражаются своими родными аналогами.
Например, город, град и английское "town, city" (Москва - Сити, Стрелка – Сити). Не
сравнить же, полный отстой и бред / Borrowing from other languages is normal, but within
reasonable boundaries. Why substitute native words with foreign ones. … This is absolute
nonsense. How can one not love one’s own RUSSIAN language? It is not just a language, it is
pure joy. There are so many shades and nuances. One utterance can sound like a statement and
like a question, depending on intonation. English is much inferior to Russian, it is too
straightforward. English is a purely informative type of language, it is colourless, and Russian is
the singing of a soul. Besides, many English terms have adequate Russian equivalents…
(http://www.allhotnews.ru/pro/000457.html);
Люди! А вы не боитесь совсем русский-то язык забыть?! Не боитесь потерять свою
культуру, своё достояние?! Нет? У нас что своих слов в русском языке не хватает?!
Таки-нет! Пожалуйста, сколько угодно: "разработчик" вместо "developer", "старший
разработчик" вместо "senior developer", "руководитель группы" вместо "team lead" /
"лидер команды", "руководитель проекта" вместо "project manager" / "менеджер
проекта" и т.д. Скажите же мне, зачем мы используем английские слова? Разве
благозвучнее они звучат? Разве красивее? Привлекательнее? Или это можно теперь
так?/ Они понятнее и в них вкладывается вполне конкретный смысл. Когда говоришь это
же по русски приходиться часто повторят это же по английски чтобы не исказить
смысл, так что чтобы не говорить дважды лучше сразу так чтобы точно понятно
было. IMHO, за чистоту языка бороться не нужно язык должен развиваться сам.
Современный русский (как и любой другой) столько заимствовал из других языков что
уже не понятно, что именно защищать – старославянский???/ Ну и просто интересно...
какое слово вы чаще употребляете "компьютер" или "ЭВМ"? Наличие англицизмов не
делает язык менее русским / People, aren’t you afraid to lose your native tongue?! Aren’t you
afraid to lose your culture, your heritage? Are you not? Are we short of words in Russian? We
aren’t! Here you go, just for starters … Tell me, why do we use English words? Do they sound
nicer? Are they more beautiful? Or more attractive? Or is it just the way things are done today?
/ They are easily understood and they have very specific meaning. Sometimes when you say
something in Russian you need to repeat it in English in order not to distort the meaning. IMHO,
there is no need to fight for language purity; language should develop on its own. Modern
Russian (as well as other languages) has borrowed so many foreign words, that it is not clear
what kind of language we are to guard – may be old Slavic???!/ Besides, just out of curiosity,
what word do you use more often - “computer” or “EVM” (electronic calculation device)? The
presence of Anglicisms does not make the
(http://www.rsdn.ru/forum/flame/2642483.flat.4.aspx).
Russian
language
less
Russian