Loanwords and Code Switches in Bashkir: A Case Study of the Karaidel Dialect

Introduction. In contact linguistics, the problem of differentiating between code switches and loanwords is relevant enough, which arises from that there are no unified research approaches thereto, and consequently nor there any precise definitions for the phenomena and classification criteria. The difficulties in distinguishing between the two linguistic processes result from that in intensive language contacts they tend to gain more similarities in terms of phonology, morphology and syntax — rather than differences. Some scholars argue that code-switching is the first stage in the development of a token in a matrix language, i.e. the lexemes had been code switches before they became ‘nuclear’ borrowings. The process of switching codes in speech is associated with the phenomenon of mass bilingualism. Goals. The problem of code-switching is understudied in Bashkir linguistics, and the paper attempts to distinguish the former from borrowings in the context of Bashkir-Russian bilingualism. Materials and methods. The study analyzes transcribed recordings of colloquial Bashkir (from speakers of Karaidel, a dialect of northwestern Bashkir) obtained during the author’s expeditions of 2022 and 2023. When it comes to describe code-switching, the workr employs Myers-Scotton’s Matrix Language Frame model. The article deals with intraphrasal switches in the form of inclusions and insular switches within one sentence. Results. The study identifies some difficulties of distinguishing between borrowings and code switches. According to G. Chirsheva, borrowings are divided into cultural and occasional (nuclear) ones. The latter are essentially and functionally close to code switches. K. Myers-Scotton presumes their main differences can be reduced to that code switches are used in individual cases (or no more than three times) and are not included in the mental lexicon of the matrix language. Therefore, barbarisms, such as еще / ищо, уже / ужы, вис, сәпсим, etc., which are often used in the speech of bilingual Bashkirs, must be referred to as occasional / nuclear borrowings (according to G. Chirsheva), while individual foreign-language inclusions be considered code switches

Some Notes on the Leipzig–Jakarta List of the Chulym Language

Based on the analysis of the most resistant words (Leipzig–Jakarta list) of Chulym Turkic in comparison with those of the Oghuz and Kipchak languages, authors come to a conclusion that Chulym Turkic is more similar to the Kipchak Turkic languages than the Ohguz ones. The Chulym Turkic material for the analysis is field dialectological data. The words of other languages under study were taken from dictionaries. The comparative method was used as the main research method. Previously, Chulym Turkic was considered as one of the Siberian Turkic languages also including Khakass, Shor and Saryg-Yughur, to which the authors disagree