The topic of the current article is convergence in Estonia’s Russian (copying of Estonian directional/static/separative verbal government) and its perception by two different sets of Russian speakers. The convergent forms in question are viewed in the terms of code-copying framework. There are clear rules of verbal government defining which Estonian verb requires which case (separative, static or directional). The verbs like jätma ’to leave’, jääma ’to stay, to remain’ are directional, whilst lugema ’to read’, leidma ’to find’ are separative, the verb käima ’to go, to walk’ is static. Spatial relations in Russian are expressed by prepositional phrases that exhibit more syncretism (the same prepositions for directional and static cases, the same cases for interior and exterior spatial relations). Russian verbs require mostly prepositional phrases with static cases (prepositional or genitive) that correspond to Estonian directional or separative cases: kupit' v magazin-e ’to buy in a store’ (prepositional), cf. Estonian ostma poe-st ’to buy in a store’ (elative). Thirty-seven Russian-speaking informants from Tallinn and thirty-seven informants from Kohtla-Järve have been asked to assess the grammaticality of nine real and nine constructed utterances with the convergent forms in question by giving points from 0 to 5 to each utterance. All utterances deviate from monolingual Russian. No difference in the treatment of real vs. constructed utterances was found. The informants from Tallinn tend to grant more points, since Estonian is more available there. However, individual preferences and awareness of Standard Russian may overweigh macro-sociolinguistic factors (high proficiency in and frequent use of Estonian). Difference in assessment cannot be explained by structural properties, because habitualization and subsequent conventionalisation of certain collocations (for instance, in advertisements) increases the probability of acceptance.
Backus, A. 1999, Mixed Native Languages. A Challenge to the Monolithic View of Language. - Topics in Language Disorders 19 (4), 11-22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-199908000-00005
Backus, A. 2004, Convergence as a Mechanism of Language Change. - Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 7 (2), 179-181.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001567
Clyne, M. 1987, Constraints on Code Switching: How Universal are They? - Linguistics 25, 739-764.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.4.739
Clyne, M. 2003, Dynamics of Language Contact, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606526
Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., Tael, K., Vare, S. 1995, Eesti keele grammatika I. Morfoloogia. Sõnamoodustus, Tallinn (= EKG I).
Johanson, L. 1993, Code-Copying in Immigrant Turkish. - Immigrant Languages in Europe, Clevedon-Philadelphia-Adelaide, 197-221.
Johanson, L. 1999, The Dynamics of Code-Copying in Language Encounters. - Language Encounters across Time and Space, Oslo, 37-62.
Johanson, L. 2002, Contact-Induced Change in a Code-Copying Framework. - Language Change. The Intreplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors, Berlin-New York, 285-313.
Kostandi, J. 2004, Keele vastastikuse mõju süntaktiline aspekt. - (Emakeel ja teised keeled IV, Tartu, 76—83.
Külmoja, I. 1999, Vene keel Eestis. - Eesti rahvaste raamat, Tallinn, 516—524.
McSwain, J. 2005, Codeswitching and Generative Grammar: A Critique of the MLF Model and Some Remarks on ”Modified Minimalism”. - Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 8 (1), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904002068
Muysken, P. 2000, Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-Mixing, Cambridge.
Sánchez, L. 2004, Functional Convergence in the Tense, Evidentiality and Aspectual Systems of Quechua Spanish Bilinguals. - Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 7 (2), 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672890400149X
Toribio, A. J. 2001, On the Emergence of Bilingual Code-Switching Competence. - Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 4 (3), 202-231.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000414
Thomason, S. G. 1997, On Mechanisms of Interference. - Language and its Ecology. Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen, Berlin-New York, 181-207.
Thomason, S. G. 2001, Language Contact. An Introduction, Washington.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03032-1
Verschik, A. 2004, Estonian Compound Nouns and Their Equivalents in the Local Variety of Russian. - Scando-Slavica 50, 89-105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00806760410011132
Vihalemm, T. 2002, Theoretical Perspectives on the Formation of New Civic Identity in Estonia. - The Challenge of the Russian Minority. Emerging Multicultural Democracy in Estonia, Tartu, 165-173.
Viitso, T.-R. 2003, Phonology, Morphology and Word Formation. - Estonian Language, Tallinn (Linguistica Uralica. Suplementary Series / Volume 1), 9-92.
Weinreich, U. 1953, Languages in contact, The Hague.
Kjul'moja I. 2000, Spetsifičeskie čerty jazyka russkoj diaspory Estonii. - Jazyk diaspory: problemy i perspektivy, Tartu (Trudy po russkoj i slavjanskoj filologii. Lingvistika. Novaja serija III), 84-93.
Mečkovskaja N. 2005, Postsovetskij russkij jazyk: novye čerty v sotsiolingvističeskom statuse. - Russian Linguistics 29 (1), 49-70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-004-5222-y
Pjall' E., Totsel' E. J., Tukumtsev G. R. 1962, Sopostavitel'naja grammatika estonskogo i russkogo jazyka, Tallinn.
Hejter H. 1977, Kal'kirovanie kak vid projavlenija leksičeskoj interferentsii. - Trudy po russkoj i slavjanskoj filologii XXVII. Serija lingvističeskaja, Tartu (TRÜT 398), 200—206.
Eslon P. 2004, O grammatikalizatsii analitičeskih glagolov estonskogo jazyka. - LU XL, 95-108.
