Інтерференція в мовленні держслужбовців на тлі їхньої мовної свідомості

Abstract

Розглянуто ставлення державних службовців Києва та Полтавщини до своїх мовних помилок за умов українсько-російського білінгвізму у зв'язку з визначенням рівня їхньої мовної свідомості. Проаналізовано кількісні показники вживання інтерферентних слів в інтерв ’ю держслужбовців загалом та окремих фрагментів зокрема. Визначено особливості інтерференції цієї професійної групи.

A civil servant is the key figure in the formation of quality communication between the state and the citizen. His/her spoken language in official communication should be impeccable. However, civil servants’ spoken language is far from ideal due to forced Ukrainian- Russian bilingualism. It affects the state of the culture of the Ukrainian language in society, because people emulate their speech, replicating errors made during official business communication, repeating linguistic neoplasms, etc. Under such conditions, it is important to take into consideration not only the language of communication of civil servants, when appointing them, but also their competence in each of the languages, especially in Ukrainian. The Purpose is to analyze the attitude of the civil servant of the city of Kyiv and Poltava region to language errors under forced Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism at different levels of linguistic consciousness. Methods. When conducting polls and interviewing civil servants, quantitative analysis and a descriptive method were used. Results. Interference in the spoken language of civil servants is manifested at the phonetic, lexical and grammatical levels of the language. At times, it shifts to surzhyk as a manifestation of hyperinterference. Civil servants often adapt Russian words to the Ukrainian language using Ukrainian affixes and vice versa. Interference predominantly lends itself not to professional vocabulary, but to auxiliary general words. Discussion. We can state that the level of language consciousness either helps assimilate the language or hinders this process in practice. Some officials are inclined to self-correction, while others do not seek Ukrainian language self-improvement, even in formal areas. Readiness for selfcorrection and the level of linguistic consciousness are interrelated. However, the ability to selfcorrection is not enough to categorically determine the level of linguistic consciousness.