.png)
UDC 81`27
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-21.161
Temirgazina Zifa K.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor,
Professor of the Graduate School of Humanities
Pavlodar Pedagogical University
e-mail: zifakakbaevna@mail.ru
Agmanova Atirkul Ye.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor,
Рrofessor of the Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Department
Gumilyov Eurasian National University
e-mail: agmanova@mail.ru
The article examines the impact of the state language policy related to languages functioning and development on the psycho-emotional state of happiness of student youth representatives. An important parameter for measuring the correlation between language policy and the category of happiness is mono- and bilingualism. The majority of respondents feel a psycho-emotional feeling of happiness; they are completely happy or rather happy than unhappy. Dissatisfaction with the language policy is expressed insignificantly among monolingual (5.6%) and bilingual (3.18%) respondents. The study also determines the monolinguals and bilinguals’ awareness of the mutual influence between the categories of language policy and happiness. A significant part of students find it difficult to answer this question. Thus, a low degree of awareness by the respondents (50.8% of bilinguals, 33.3% of monolinguals) of the correlation between language policy and the category of happiness is established, due to the different nature of the compared objects, as well as the indirect nature of this relationship.
Keywords: language policy, category of happiness, monolingual, bilingual, student youth, correlation, sociolinguistic survey.
References
1. Argail M. Psikhologiia schast’ia. St. Petersburg: AST, 2008. S. 15–24.
2. Maslow A.H. Ekzistentsial’naia psikhologiia. Moscow: Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovanii, 2005. 160 s.
3. Kartseva L.V. Schast’e kak sotsiologicheskaia kategoriia // Vestnik Kazanskogo tekhnologicheskogo universiteta. 2012. No. 15 (1). S. 208–210.
4. Slovar’ po etike / pod red. I.S. Kona. Moscow: Politizdat, 1975. 322 s.
5. Simmel G. Izbrannoe: v 2 t. Moscow: Iurist, 1996.
6. Lagodenko D.V. Iazykovaia politika i iazykovoe planirovanie v Novoi Zelandii // Filologicheskie issledovaniia: mezhdunar. sb. nauch. tr. / otv. red. V.F. Prokhorov. Belgorod; Zaporizhzhia, 2003. Vyp. 2. S. 118–123.
7. Levin Z.I. Mentalitet diaspory (sistemnyi i sotsiokul’turnyi analiz). Moscow: IV RAN “KRAFT+”, 2001. 175 s.
8. Temirgazina Z., Khamitova G., Orazalinova K. Didactic features of a learner’s English-Russian dictionary of biology development // Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences. 2016. No. 7(2) P. 317–326.
9. Samner W.G. Folkvays. Boston, 1907.
10. Swartz M.J. Negative ethnocentrism // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1961. No. 5(1). P. 75–81. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/173022
11. Brewer M.B., Campbell D.T. Ethnocentrism and intergroup attitudes: East Africa evidence. New York, 1976.
12. Voronin A.N., Rafikova A.S. Fenomenologiia iskusstvennogo bilingvizma: psikhologicheskie aspekty problem // Psikhologiia. Istoriko-kriticheskie obzory i sovremennye issledovaniia. 2017. T. 6. No. 2A. S. 96–107.
13. Gosudarstvennaia programma funktsionirovaniia i razvitiia iazykov na 2011–2020 gody. Astana, 2011.
14. Suleimenova E.D. Iazykovye protsessy i politika. Almaty: Қazaқ universitetі, 2011. 117 s.
15. Sultan D.S., Bochina T.G., Agmanova A.Ye., Zhuravleva Ye.A. Tatar language: tendencies of conservation and development in polyethnic society (case study of Russia and Kazakhstan) // Revista Genero and Direito. Univ Federal Paraiba. 2019. No. 8. P. 81–92.
16. Borgoiakova T.G., Guseinova A.V. Otsenochnye aspekty iazykovoi politiki v mediinom diskurse respublik Iuzhnoi Sibiri // Filologicheskie nauki. Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly. 2021. No. 1. S. 21–27. DOI: 10.20339/PhS.1-21.021