Features of the expression of instrumental meaning in the speech of Russian children and Chinese students studying Russian as a foreign language.

Van Lina ORCID: 0009-0006-2790-0676 graduate student 199058, Russia, Leningrad region, Saint Petersburg, Morskaya nab., 39, sq. 48 linawang511@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction:

Recently, linguists have been actively discussing the specifics of language acquisition in natural and artificial situations ^{[8, 20, 22]}. The methodology develops various ways of teaching case grammar ^{[11, 17, 18, etc.]}. However, there are not enough works devoted to the analysis of errors of foreign speakers in the field of choosing prepositional and case constructions against the background of the natural order of language acquisition.

We set the task to investigate which speech strategies Russian-speaking children and adult Chinese speakers who study Russian as a foreign language choose to express instrumental meaning.

We adhere to the constructivist theory of language acquisition ^{[15, 19]} and believe that at each stage of grammar acquisition, a person independently develops his own system of choosing case forms, and errors common to children and non-native speakers are due to the complexity of the Russian grammar structure.

On the other hand, Russian children learn their native language in a natural situation, gradually becoming familiar with the procedural language rules, while not formulating linguistic patterns for themselves, but intuitively feeling them ^{[19, p. 8]}. Language acquisition in childhood is a communicatively oriented process. D. Slobin argues that "the emergence of new means to recognize the expression of these intentions in speech" is associated with the complication of communicative intentions ^{[15, p. 159]}. In turn, the complication of communicative intentions is caused by changes in the child's cognitive development. Thus, the formation of cognitive structures and native language structures proceeds simultaneously and in parallel.

An adult who learns a language in an artificial situation learns a language, according to A. A. Leontieva, "from top to bottom" ^{[13, pp. 7-8]}: first he gets acquainted with the rules, and then he learns to apply them in speech. At the same time, he is faced with the task of expressing complex communicative intentions with a lack of linguistic means, as a result of which the grammatical system of the studied language is reduced, language interference occurs, which can be especially noticeable in the speech of native Chinese speakers. In Chinese, case values are expressed not by inflections, but by word order and official words, while one word can act as a preposition, noun or verb depending on its position in the sentence ^{[23, p. 28]}. A comparative description of the nature of grammatical errors in children and non-native speakers can help to understand the mechanisms of expressing case meanings and become the foundation for the development of methods of grammatical work.

Research materials

To identify the specifics of the expression of instrumental meaning in the course of mastering the language as the first and as the second, we conducted an experiment. The subjects had to describe 18 pictures using the given words: A girl draws (pencil); a mother feeds a child (spoon). The experiment involved 25 students of philology and journalists from St. Petersburg University with native Chinese and 25 Russian-speaking children aged 4-8 years (Quadrivium private school, Chudo-Grad kindergarten, gymnasium No. 171, the Center for Extracurricular Activities of the Central District of St. Petersburg).

The expression of instrumental meaning in Russian and Chinese

Since the occurrence of errors is related to the specifics of the structure of a fragment of the language system being mastered, we will analyze the constructions expressing instrumental meaning in Russian and Chinese.

The ways of expressing instrumental meaning in Russian are described in ^{[3, pp. 78-83; 10, pp. 352-374]}. Thus, V. A. Beloshapkova and E. V. Muravenko argue that the choice of shape depends on the mobility of the instrument and its spatial orientation ^{[3, pp. 79-80]}. In the monograph of M. V. Vsevolodova and E. Y. Vladimir considers complicated locative meanings, including ways to indicate a vehicle, a tool-a highway, a tool-a place, etc. ^[7]. There are studies describing the mistakes of international students when expressing an instrumental ^{[5, 9, 17]}.

Based on the analysis of scientific research, we have identified the following types of instrumental structures:

• tvor. without a preposition– it is the central way of indicating the instrument and means of action (writing with a pen, opening with a key, giving milk, etc.);
• c +tvor. – an indication of an additional tool (wash with soap);
• from +rod. – an indication of the instrument, additionally – to the starting point of movement from the inner space of the instrument (eating from a plate, drinking from a cup);
• c +rod. – an indication of the tool, additionally – to the starting point of movement from the outside of the tool (to eat from a frying pan, to feed from a spoon);
• through +vin. – 1) an indication of an intermediary (to talk through an interpreter), 2) an indication of a means, a mode of action as a tool-a route (to tell through a wall newspaper, to look through a microscope);
• through +vin. – an indication of the tool-route (look through glasses, look through glass);
• in +vin. – 1) an indication of the end point of movement inside the instrument (to catch in a net); 2) an indication of the instrument route: the direction to the inner space of the instrument (singing into the microphone, looking through the telescope);
• on +vin. – an indication of the end point of movement on the surface of the tool (lock it, catch it with a fishing rod);
• ob (o) + vin. – an indication of a stationary tool (smash it on the table, wipe it on the tablecloth);
• by+date – an indication of a method or means of transmitting information in combination with a transitive meaning (talking on the phone; reading from a book);
• on + prev. – 1) an indication of the course of action on the surface of the instrument (playing the guitar, typing, cutting on the board); 2) an indication of the means of transportation (taking the bus, taking the elevator);
• in + prev. – 1) an indication of the subject as the location of the instrument (reading with glasses, swimming in flippers); 2) an indication of the means of transportation (riding in a bus, riding in a carriage).

The instrumental meaning can also be expressed by constructions with derived prepositions using +gender., using +gender., using +wine., using+gender., using+gender. According to I. V. Azarova, V. P. Zakharov and A. D. Moskvina, the preposition with is used to denote abstract concepts (games, techniques, techniques, etc.), with is used to indicate real objects-tools or devices (mirror, microscope, etc.), to denote mediatively active people-assistants ^{[1, p. 13]}.

In Chinese, the instrumental meaning is most often expressed with the help of 用 (yun). In this case, there are two situations: in two-component constructions, the word (yun) is used as a verb, translated as ‘use’ (Yun Dian Hua: ‘use the phone’, Yong Shao Tzu: ‘use a spoon’); in three-component constructions with a verb that takes over the functions of the center of the construction, , (yun) is used in the meaning of a service morpheme (preposition), introduces an instrumental complement denoting a tool, a means, a material (, (Yun Dian Hua Jiao Liu: ‘communicate using a phone’), , (Yun Shao zi Wei: ‘feed using a spoon') ’24, c. 907]. In constructions with a verb, the preposition can be omitted ^{[25, p. 24]}.

Results and discussion

There is a lot of creativity in the Russian language. The case without a preposition is a central way of expressing instrumental meaning, indicating an instrument or means of action ^{[10, p. 352-374]}. This method can be considered prototypical.

for Russian-speaking monolinguals. Children use it by constructing a syntaxeme (examining stars with a telescope (32% – percentages of the total number of responses in this group are given in parentheses), examining the virus with a microscope (24%), or choosing one of the possible ones (watering with a watering can (68%), feeding with a spoon (76%)). Chinese students also often preferred this construction, including when its use is possible along with others (feeding with a spoon (25%), watering with a watering can (40%)), and when its use is abnormal (parachuting (8%), viewing with a telescope (28%), singing with a microphone (24%)).

At the same time, Chinese students also made specific mistakes when choosing c+creations: they draw with a pencil (12%), conduct with a stick (28%), work with a hammer (28%), and parachute (36%). It is interesting to note that similar errors occur in the Russian speech of native speakers of different languages: English – writing with a pen, cut a cake with a knife ^{[2, p. 122]}, German – writing with a pencil, making a gift with your hands ^{[6, p. 42]}, Italian – I will wash off with this watering can, write with with a pen ^{[14, p. 163]}, Turkish – wiped a plate with a towel ^{[9, p. 189]}, Farsi –rides with a bus, they teach you to write with ballpoint pens ^{[5, p. 144]}, Lezgian – write with a pencil, cover with a handkerchief ^{[16, p. 95]}; Chechen – write with a pen ^{[14, p. 164]}. There is a lot of creativity in the Russian language.+c indicates an additional item required to perform the action. In the speech of international students, there are no differences between prepositional and prepositional constructions. Methodologists explain such errors by the influence of students' native languages, but the universal nature of the error suggests that the reason may be a simplification of the Russian grammatical system. At the same time, Russian-speaking children quickly understand the difference between constructions indicating a mandatory and an additional tool, and do not make mistakes.

With +tvor. Students from China also choose when preference should be given to constructions complicated by the expression of locative relations. The analysis undertaken by Vsevolodova and Vladimirsky ^{[7, pp. 74-84 and pp. 238-246]} shows that when pointing to the starting point of movement from the inner space of the instrument, from+rod is used, while from+rod. indicates the starting point of movement from the outside of the tool. Foreign speakers did not feel these semantic nuances, preferring creativity. without an excuse or a twist.+c: waters with a watering can (12%), watering can (40%); feeds with a spoon (20%), feeds with a spoon (52%). 4% of the subjects chose the design with a spoon, the answer from the spoon was not provided. Children were also more likely to choose cottage cheese. without an excuse: feeds with a spoon (76%), with a spoon (12%), with a spoon (8%), with a spoon (4%); waters with a watering can (68%), with a watering can (28%), with a watering can (4%).

In some cases, it is possible to choose between TVOR. without preposition and in +wine, on+wine.: in+wine. additionally, it indicates the end point of the action inside the instrument (to catch with a bag in a net; with a fishing rod, on a fishing rod). Most of the children resorted to the tvor construction. without an excuse (using a net (96%), using a net (4%)). Chinese students chose the creation. without an excuse, much less often (with a net (44%), with nets (12%)), c+tvor was also used. (with a net (12%)), wine. without an excuse: net (12%), nets (4%). Thus, when faced with the probably unknown lexeme net, Chinese students resorted to a strategy of grammatical simplification, This strategy, according to S. N. Zeitlin and T. A. It is used when learning a language as a second or foreign language and consists in ignoring certain grammatical categories: in this case, in denoting the widest range of object relations by the forms of wines. without a preposition ^{[20, p. 142]}.

This strategy is also typical for young children. At the initial stage, the child uses the initial forms, then moves from the frozen nominative to the frozen accusative: the basic forms mark the subject, the ending is the object (she cut out paper, helped her mother) ^{[20, p. 144]}. However, in the speech of a monolingual child, such a strategy is quickly replaced by a more detailed differentiation of actants ^{[12, p. 275]}.

In the speech of Chinese wine students. without a preposition, as a way of generally indicating a direct object, it is used in an instrumental sense: writing with a pencil (8%), flying a parachute (24%), reading glasses (8%). In the speech of Russian children aged 4-8, such constructions were rare: a person flies a parachute (4%), feeds porridge with a spoon (8%). (In the last example, errors can be explained by the desire for a uniform design of the syntaxeme.)

For additional indication of the route in Russian, constructions with vin are used. cases that can convey different shades of transitive meaning: v+vin. (looking through the telescope) – the direction of gaze into the inner space of the instrument, the speaker's attention is focused on the instrument; through +vin., through +vin. (looking through a telescope) – the direction of looking through the interior of the instrument at an object. Constructions with vin. the case competes with other types of pointing to an instrument: in a microscope – under a microscope (under+ tvor. indicates the downward direction of the action, the location of the object from below relative to the instrument), into the microphone – with the microphone (with + tvor. emphasizes the additional nature of using the tool).

Russian children and Chinese students preferred creative work. without an excuse with a "pure" instrumental meaning and with a+creation: Chinese students – examines with a telescope (28%), with a telescope (12%), studies with a microscope (32%), with a microscope (8%), Russian children – examines with a telescope (32%), with a telescope (8%), examines the virus with a microscope (8%), a microscope (28%).

Choosing a design can be difficult if the value of the tool is combined with an indication of its location. If the instrument is located on the subject of the action, it is required in +prev.: read with glasses (if possible through, through glasses – an indication of the route). 24% of children completed the task to continue the sentence "A woman reads a newspaper (glasses)" (wearing glasses (12%), through glasses (4%), conditionally correct with the help of glasses (8%)), 68% of students (wearing glasses 48%, through glasses 12%, with with help, with the help of 8% points). Probably, the very nature of the experimental tasks pushed the subjects to choose a TVR. Cases: children – with glasses (24%); Chinese students – with glasses (8%), glasses (8%). The higher number of correct answers among students probably indicates a greater proportion of remembering well-known constructions than following patterns in the process of using a foreign language.

Construction on+prev. indicates the tool-the place on the outer surface of which the action is performed: cutting on the board. A fifth of the foreign speakers used the tvor forms. cases: the board was considered as a necessary tool for slicing bread, and not as a place where bread lies when it is cut: cut bread with a board (12%), boards (8%). The children did not consider the board as a tool and focused on the general nature of the task, pointing to a knife – a tool that a person holds in his hands: cutting bread with a knife (4%), a knife (4%), a knife (32%), with a knife (4%). Only 40% of children used the word board in instrumental-locative and instrumental-transitive constructions: on the board (20%), using the board (4%); on the board (16%).

Construction on+prev. It is used in Russian to refer to musical instruments in combination with the verb to play ‘to perform musical works'. The subjects were offered pictures of a guitarist playing music, a toddler pulling the strings of a guitar, and a man waving a guitar over his head. Russian–speaking children chose the construction of playing the guitar in the meaning of ‘performing a piece of music: 96% – about the guitarist, 72% - about the baby. Only 32% chose this construction to describe the last picture. In the meaning of "playing with a toy", the variants with a guitar (28%) were used – about a baby, with a guitar (52%), and a guitar (8%) – about a man. Only 8% of children used wine. without a preposition in the general objective meaning, describing a man. Chinese students were somewhat less confident in using play+on+prev. in the meaning of ‘performing a piece of music’: 80% – about a guitarist, 16% – about a child, 4% – about a man. At the same time, to describe the first picture, inophones, unlike children, used constructions that are not usually used in this sense. Various means were widely used to describe all the pictures: playing guitar in a general objective sense (8% – about a guitarist, 16% – about a child, 24% – about a man), playing guitar (cf. playing ball; 12% – about a guitarist, 16% – about a child, 4% – about a man,), with a guitar (cf. playing with a ball; 48% – about a man, 40% – about a child), a guitar (cf. playing with a ball; 12% – about a child).

Construction on+prev. It is also possible in other cases where the subject's hands are located on the surface of the instrument: typing on a typewriter, typing on a computer. The subjects had to describe pictures in which a computer acts as a tool, and the subjects of the action are a girl and an adult woman (expected constructions: working on a computer, at a computer (the instrumental meaning is combined with an indication of the location of the subject behind the instrument), playing a computer (by analogy with other phrases with the verb play ball, play with dolls). Chinese students chose c+tvor designs. and the creation. without an excuse: mom works with computers, a computer (20%), a girl plays with a computer (12%) or in +wine. as a general indication of the object: the girl is playing a computer (16%), the mother is working on a computer (12%). Children paid more attention to the content of the activity itself and chose the forms of working at a computer (12%), on a computer (64%), playing a computer (28%) with a computer (16%).

According to the classification of Beloshapkova and Muravenko, the design is o+vin. indicates a stationary instrument, which is usually fixed relative to the subject, and the object's contact with the instrument occurs as a result of the object's movement ^{[3, p. 80]}. Foreign speakers did not choose to wipe their hands on a towel, preferring to create. case: wipe with a towel (48%), with a towel (4%), with a towel (12%). A picture of a boy wiping his hands with a towel hanging on a hook can be described in Chinese by a construction with the service morpheme Yoon: Yoon(yun Mao jin ca: 'using a towel, wipe‘). To emphasize the immobility of the instrument, you can use the frame construction of (tsai)...... (shang) (on the surface of something): (tsai Mao Jin shang ca). Choosing a design with+tvor. It can be explained by interference, the influence of a more frequent Chinese design. However, to the design with a twist. Russian children also used the case more often: a boy wipes his hands with a towel (80%), a towel (4%). Perhaps there is a gradual displacement of the corresponding forms in the language.

Children and Chinese students also often used constructions with derived prepositions: children – using a telescope (4%), microscope (4%), watering can (4%), sticks (4%), hammer (8%), glasses (4%), blackboard (4%), using sticks (4%), using glasses (4%); foreigners – using a microscope (12%), watering cans (4%), sticks (8%), sticks (4%), sticks (4%), glasses (4%), spoons (4%), towels (4%), with a telescope (4%), with glasses (4%).

Constructions with derived prepositions were expected to appear in the speech of Chinese students: this may be due to interference with the Chinese construction with the preposition O, or simplification of the grammatical system being mastered – the choice of a universal preposition with transparent semantics, or a high level of mastery of the written form of the language. Russian children also used derived prepositions, realizing that they were required to name the instrument, but finding it difficult to choose the appropriate form. It is also interesting to note that the preposition with was used much more often than with; its choice was not related to the differentiation of meanings – abstract (with) / concrete device or object (with) ^{[1, p. 13]}, but was probably due to the idea of the design of the tvor.+c as typical for expressing instrumental meaning.

Conclusion

Summarizing, we can draw the following conclusions.

1. Children and foreign students independently construct their own language system, therefore, there are many similarities in the process of mastering the case grammar of their native and foreign languages. At the initial stages of learning case grammar, both children and adult foreigners resort to a strategy of simplification, for example, using the accusative case without a preposition to denote various object cases or the creative case without a preposition to denote common instrumental meanings. Then there is a gradual development of more subtle semantic shades.

2. The ways of expressing instrumental meanings turn out to be difficult for native Chinese speakers. Children make significantly fewer mistakes, although when pointing to certain instruments (glasses), describing the action of which it is customary to use locative constructions with additional instrumental meaning, there are more mistakes.

3. If foreign students who are learning a language in an educational situation often choose the c+tvor form. As one of the central ways of expressing instrumental meanings, the prototypical form of expressing instrumental meanings in children's speech is creation. the case is without a preposition, as in modern language. The opposition "main/ additional tool" turns out to be reliably mastered when mastering Russian as the first language.

4. The difficulties of foreign students are related to their desire to describe complex logical relationships that they are able to describe in their native language. The repertoire of foreign-language constructions is much wider than in children's speech, which entails a greater number of errors. In constructions that combine instrumental and locative meanings, foreign students prefer to focus on the expression of instrumental meanings.

5. Some errors can be explained by interlanguage interference, however, the commonality of errors of speakers of different languages suggests that interference occurs if the learned part of the grammatical system is difficult to arrange and is aimed at its simplification.

Thus, the strategies used by children and foreigners have a lot in common, but there are also big differences. When choosing a method of teaching Russian as a foreign language, it is necessary to take into account the communicative needs of students and strategies for mastering grammatical meanings in a foreign language.