Acceso usuarios
This paper describes multiple Estonian–Russian language contacts in Estonia. For synchronic microsociolinguistic research it is usual to concentrate on the impact of a sociolinguistically dominant language A on an immigrant/minority language B. In the Soviet setting, the dominant language was usually Russian (despite Russians being a minority). The situation in Estonia differs from both the above-mentioned cases. In bilingual Tallinn, speakers of Russian as L2 (R2) are still present, while more and more Russians are acquiring Estonian as L2 (E2), which has an impact on the local varieties of Russian. Due to sociohistorical and attitudinal reasons, the impact of Russian on Estonian was negligible in the Soviet era. On the whole, the situation is that of unidirectional convergence toward Estonian. The central claim of the paper is that copying E2>/R1 and E1>/R2 are both relevant for the spread of innovations in the local Russian. Certain convergent forms characteristic of both E2>/R1 and E1>/R2 are analysed. The ‘pool of non-monolingual utterances’ is therefore bigger than in a situation where only one community is bilingual. Multilingual communication, both written and oral, is crucial for the further spread and habitualisation of innovations.
