Russian ‘vot’ as an interactional practice in bilingual Kazakh conversations

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study investigates the use of the Russian discourse particle vot in bilingual Kazakh conversations, focusing on its interactional affordances in the organization and management of talk.

Methodology:

The study adopts a conversation-analytic (CA) approach, which seeks to explicate the orderly practices that speakers demonstrably employ in the organization of their mutual interactions through moment-by-moment construction of talk.

Data:

The data come from the Multimedia Corpus of Spoken Kazakh Language, which represents a diverse collection of naturally occurring social interactions in Kazakh-speaking communities, recorded in audio and video formats.

Findings:

The study demonstrates that vot-prefacing emerges as a sequential practice used by Kazakh speakers to reinitiate previously disrupted courses of action and to advance ongoing actions by leveraging prior talk by other speakers. In this way, vot works towards re-establishing or heightening the progressivity of talk.

Originality:

Most studies on contact-induced borrowing overlook the precise mechanisms by which specific discourse/communicative situations or broader socio-cultural factors facilitate borrowing and its subsequent adaptation/use. This paper aims to characterize such social-communicative mechanisms by which speakers deploy and adapt borrowed discourse markers in ways that are interactionally meaningful and relevant to their real-time talk. As such, the emergence of loan discourse markers can be understood as an outcome of both contact-induced change and recurrent interactional demands faced by speakers, not as a byproduct of language contact alone.

Significance/implications:

This article suggests that the emergence and diffusion of discourse markers in contact settings cannot be fully understood without considering the interactional contingencies speakers recurrently face when deploying these items in real-time use. By showing that such contingencies can be empirically observed through synchronic, interactional data, the study argues that synchronic analyses of naturally occurring interaction are essential for understanding the processes through which linguistic items emerge, conventionalize, diffuse, and adapt across languages.

Keywords

Kazakh–Russian code-mixing pragmatic borrowing Russian discourse particle ‘vot’bilingual interaction interactional progressivity cooptation discourse marker evolution conversation analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersen

(2014). Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.005

Andersen

Furiassi

C. G.

Mišić Ilić

(2017). The pragmatic turn in studies of linguistic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.010

Apresyan

(2014). Aktivnyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka: Tom 2 [The active vocabulary of the Russian language: Volume 2]. Yazyki Slovyanskoi Kul’tury.

Auer

(1995). The pragmatics of code-switching: A sequential approach. In Milroy

Muysken

(Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching (pp. 115–135). Cambridge University Press.

Baskakov

N. A.

(1960). The Turkic languages of Central Asia: Problems of planned culture contact. The Turkic peoples of the USSR: The development of their languages and writing. Central Asian Research Centre.

Boeschoten

(1998). Codeswitching, codemixing, and code alternation: What a difference. In Jacobson

(Ed.), Codeswitching worldwide (pp. 15–24). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110812190.15

Bolden

(2016). The discourse marker nu in Russian conversation. In Auer

Maschler

(Eds.), The family of NU and NÅ across the languages of Europe and beyondStructure, function, and history (pp. 48–80). De Gruyter.

Bolden

(2018). Nu-prefaced responses in Russian conversation. In Heritage

Sorjonen

(Eds.), Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 25–58). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.02bol

Bolden

(2024). Analyzing particles. In Robinson

J. D.

Clift

Kendrick

K. H.

Raymond

C. W.

(Eds.), Methods in Conversation Analysis (pp. 626–655). Cambridge University Press.

10.

Bureau of National Statistics. (2021). National census 2021. https://stat.gov.kz/en/national/2021/

11.

Christopher

(2016, October 7–9). Kazakh modal particle ğoj [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics, Bloomington, IN, United States.

12.

Degand

Vandenbergen

A.-M. S.

(2011). Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2011.008

13.

Drew

(1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25(1), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219

14.

Drew

(2012). Turn design. In Sidnell

Stivers

(Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch7

15.

Du Bois

J. W.

(1983). Outline of discourse transcription. In Edwards

J. A.

Lampert

M. D.

(Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Routledge.

16.

Du Bois

J. W.

Troiani

(2022, February 25). Cast the net wide: Corpus as a slice of life [Conference presentation]. Naturally Occurring Data in and beyond Linguistic Typology Conference, Bologna, Italy.

17.

Filchenko

Troiani

Du Bois

W. J.

Sarseke

Akanov

Bizhanova

Mikhailov

Temirbekova

Seitak

Turaliyeva

(2023). Multimedia Corpus of Modern Spoken Kazakh Language [unpublished corpus]. Nazarbayev University.

18.

Fiorentini

(2017). Italian discourse markers and modal particles in contact. In Fedriani

Sansò

(Eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles (Studies in Language Companion Series, 186; pp. 417–37). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

19.

Garfinkel

(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

20.

Heine

(2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51, 61205–61247.

21.

Heine

(2019). Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica, 52(2), 411–442.

22.

Heine

Kaltenböck

Kuteva

Long

(2021). The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.

23.

Heine

Kuteva

Long

(2020). Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse: A comparison. In Haselow

Kaltenböck

(Eds.), Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing (pp. 59–89). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

24.

Heritage

(1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

25.

Heritage

(2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Emphatic moments in interaction. In Stivers

Mondada

Steensig

(Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge University Press.

26.

Heritage

Raymond

(2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.

27.

Jefferson

(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner

(Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

28.

Kirchner

(1998). Kazakh and Karakalpak. In Johanson

Csató-Johanson

É.

(Eds.), The Turkic languages (pp. 318–332). Routledge.

29.

Kuosmanen

Multisilta

(1999). Nu and vot in spoken Russian: On discourse functions and prosodic features. Scando-Slavica, 45(1), 49–64.

30.

Landmann

(2012). Kasachisch: Kurzgrammatik [Kazakh: A Brief Grammar]. Harrassowitz.

31.

Mırzabekov

(2002). Buwın [Syllable]. In Janpeyisov

Xusayın

Jüsinbek

Ä.

Iysaev

Ayğabılulı

Serğaliyev

Ämir

Wälïev

(Eds.), Qazaq grammatïkası: Fonetïka, sözjasam, morfologïya, sïntaksïs [Kazakh grammar: phonetics, word formation, morphology, syntax] (pp. 93–96). Astana Poligraphy.

32.

Maschler

(1994). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325–366.

33.

Matras

(2009). Language contact. Cambridge University Press.

34.

Mondada

(2007). Bilingualism and the analysis of talk at work: Code-switching as a resource for the organization of action and interaction. In Heller

(Ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach (pp. 297–318). Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Moyer

G. M.

(1998). Bilingual conversation strategies in Gibraltar. In Auer

(Ed.), Code-switching in conversation (pp. 215–234). Routledge.

36.

Moyer

G. M.

(2000). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Spanish-English bilingual conversations with no. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 485–504.

37.

Muhamedowa

(2009). The use of Russian conjunctions in the speech of bilingual Kazakhs. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(3), 331–356.

38.

Muhamedowa

(2016). Kazakh: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.

39.

Noora

Amouzadeh

(2015). Grammaticalization of Yæ’ni in Persian. International Journal of Language Studies, 9(1), 91–122.

40.

Oralbayeva

(2002). Jurnaqtı zat esimder [Nominal derivations]. In Janpeyisov

Xusayın

Jüsinbek

Ä.

Iysaev

Ayğabılulı

Serğaliyev

Ämir

Wälïev

(Eds.), Qazaq grammatïkası: Fonetïka, sözjasam, morfologïya, sïntaksïs [Kazakh grammar: phonetics, word formation, morphology, syntax] (pp. 287–320). Astana Poligraphy.

41.

Pomerantz

(1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0014812

42.

Pomerantz

Heritage

(2012). Preference. In Sidnell

Stivers

(Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210–228). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

43.

Prince

E. F.

(1988). On pragmatic change: The borrowing of discourse functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5–6), 505–518.

44.

Ross

(2001). Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West Melanesia. In Aikhenvald

A. Y.

Dixon

R. M. W.

(Eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics (pp. 134–166). Oxford University Press.

45.

Sacks

(1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson

J. M.

Heritage

(Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge University Press.

46.

Sacks

(1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences of conversation. In Button

Lee

J. R. E.

(Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters.

47.

Sacks

Schegloff

E. A.

Jefferson

(1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

48.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge University Press.

49.

Schegloff

E. A.

Jefferson

Sacks

(1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.

50.

Schiffrin

(1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.

51.

Stivers

Robinson

J. D.

(2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392.

52.

Stolz

Levkovych

(2022). On loan conjunctions: A comparative study with special focus on the languages of the former Soviet Union. In Levkovych

(Ed.), Susceptibility vs. resistance: Case studies on different structural categories in language-contact situations (pp. 259–392). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110785517-006

53.

Suleimenova

E. D.

Şaimerdenova

M. J.

Akanova

D. X.

(2007). Yazıkï narodov Kazaxstana. Socïolïngvïstïçeskïy spravoçnïk [Languages of the peoples of Kazakhstan: a sociolinguistic reference]. Arman-PV.

54.

Troiani

(2023). Representing a language in use: Corpus construction, prosody, and grammar in Kazakh (Publication No. 30566573) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa-Barbara]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/openview/920b2491736ba15b1619bba196e58217/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar

55.

Troiani

Du Bois

J. W.

Filchenko

(2024). Corpus as a slice of life: Representing naturally occurring language and its speakers. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 174–202. https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.12.02.08

56.

Wei

(2002). ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the conversation analytic approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society, 31, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0047404501020140

57.

Xasanov

(1976). Yazıkï narodov Kazaxstana ï ïx vzaïmodeystvïe [Languages of the peoples of Kazakhstan and their interaction].

58.

Zemskaya

E. A.

(1987). Russkaya razgovornaya reç’: lïngvïstïçeskïy analïz ï problemı obwçenïya [Spoken Russian: linguistic analysis and problems in teaching the language].

59.

Zhiltsova

N. V.

(2021). The functions of the discourse word «vot» and their actualization in the corpus of Turkiс-Russian bilinguals. Proceedings of the VIII (XXII) International Scientific and Practical Conference of Young Scientists, 22, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.17223/978-5-907442-02-3-2021-38