Pub Date : 1998-08-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_031
Hanna Toby
tween the lower Vistula and the lower Elbe. The Kashubian speech area (Kashubia) suffered linguistic losses in the course of the centuries, resulting in language death of the western Kashubian periphery.1 Although the German colonisation of Kashubia began as early as in the 12th century, the Kashubian-speaking territory contracted most rapidly in favour of German after its incorporation into West Prussia in 1772. The testimonies of, for example, Hilferding (Gil'ferding 1862) and Parczewski (1896) confirm the progressive language shift within the Kashubian population from their Slavonic vernacular to the local German dialect. The language contact with German involved the three German varieties: Low German, Central German and High German. The majority of German inhabitants of Kashubia were speakers of the Low German colonial dialects: "Ostpommersch" (East Pomeranian) and "Niederpreussisch" (Low Prussian), the latter being spoken in the peripheral areas in the east. The period of the most intensive Kashubian-German language contact (1772-1945) was characterised by polyglossia and multilingualism. The different languages occupied different positions within the hierarchy of prestige, and were used in different linguistic situations in accordance with their function in society. Kashubian was mainly spoken at home and between local Kashubians, Polish in church, the local dialect of Low German 1 According to toponymie evidence (Rzetelska-Feleszko 1973), Kashubian was once spoken as far west as the Parscta River. The last Kashubian variety, Slovincian, became extinct at the beginning of the 20th century. It should be noted that there are discrepancies involving the designations "Kashubian", "Slovincian" and "Pomeranian". The latter is used in most scholarly literature (this view is also shared in the present paper) as being synonymous with Kashubian, and comprises Kashubian and Slovincian collectively. Slovincian is generally treated as a dialect of Kashubian, in accordance with the opinion held by Lorentz after 1903. For a typological classification of Slovincian as a separate Slavonic language, see earlier publications by Lorentz (1902: 44-45, 1903: 810).
{"title":"On the Low German Influence on Kashubian Dialects","authors":"Hanna Toby","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_031","url":null,"abstract":"tween the lower Vistula and the lower Elbe. The Kashubian speech area (Kashubia) suffered linguistic losses in the course of the centuries, resulting in language death of the western Kashubian periphery.1 Although the German colonisation of Kashubia began as early as in the 12th century, the Kashubian-speaking territory contracted most rapidly in favour of German after its incorporation into West Prussia in 1772. The testimonies of, for example, Hilferding (Gil'ferding 1862) and Parczewski (1896) confirm the progressive language shift within the Kashubian population from their Slavonic vernacular to the local German dialect. The language contact with German involved the three German varieties: Low German, Central German and High German. The majority of German inhabitants of Kashubia were speakers of the Low German colonial dialects: \"Ostpommersch\" (East Pomeranian) and \"Niederpreussisch\" (Low Prussian), the latter being spoken in the peripheral areas in the east. The period of the most intensive Kashubian-German language contact (1772-1945) was characterised by polyglossia and multilingualism. The different languages occupied different positions within the hierarchy of prestige, and were used in different linguistic situations in accordance with their function in society. Kashubian was mainly spoken at home and between local Kashubians, Polish in church, the local dialect of Low German 1 According to toponymie evidence (Rzetelska-Feleszko 1973), Kashubian was once spoken as far west as the Parscta River. The last Kashubian variety, Slovincian, became extinct at the beginning of the 20th century. It should be noted that there are discrepancies involving the designations \"Kashubian\", \"Slovincian\" and \"Pomeranian\". The latter is used in most scholarly literature (this view is also shared in the present paper) as being synonymous with Kashubian, and comprises Kashubian and Slovincian collectively. Slovincian is generally treated as a dialect of Kashubian, in accordance with the opinion held by Lorentz after 1903. For a typological classification of Slovincian as a separate Slavonic language, see earlier publications by Lorentz (1902: 44-45, 1903: 810).","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124705581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_006
L. V. Bondarko
Language contact is one of the main factors causing dramatic impact on a language system. Linguistic analysis of ancient extant manuscripts of comparable content such as early translations of the Bible into various languages gives distinct possibilities to reveal the changes that languages show in the process of interaction. The impact of such contacts on the sound systems can be inferred on the basis of comparison of the traditional methods of representing native linguistic units and the methods of representing in written form the so-called borrowed grammatical or lexical linguistic units. Unfortunately, this sort of evidence is utterly rare and should be regarded as an exception presenting only scanty information. In fact, the research into phonetic consequences of language contact became possible only with the appearance of reliable methods of speech sound registration.
{"title":"Language Contacts: Phonetic Aspects","authors":"L. V. Bondarko","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_006","url":null,"abstract":"Language contact is one of the main factors causing dramatic impact on a language system. Linguistic analysis of ancient extant manuscripts of comparable content such as early translations of the Bible into various languages gives distinct possibilities to reveal the changes that languages show in the process of interaction. The impact of such contacts on the sound systems can be inferred on the basis of comparison of the traditional methods of representing native linguistic units and the methods of representing in written form the so-called borrowed grammatical or lexical linguistic units. Unfortunately, this sort of evidence is utterly rare and should be regarded as an exception presenting only scanty information. In fact, the research into phonetic consequences of language contact became possible only with the appearance of reliable methods of speech sound registration.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115807585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_015
P. Houtzagers
In the Austrian province of Burgenland and adjoining areas in Austria, Hungary and Slovakia there are approximately 80 villages where varieties of Croatian are spoken. The ancestors of this Croatian-speaking population for the most part settled there in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Their original dwelling-places were those parts of Croatia and Slavonia that at that period suffered from Ottoman attacks.
{"title":"Effects of Language Contact as a Source of (Non)Information: The Historical Reconstruction of Burgenland Kajkavian","authors":"P. Houtzagers","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_015","url":null,"abstract":"In the Austrian province of Burgenland and adjoining areas in Austria, Hungary and Slovakia there are approximately 80 villages where varieties of Croatian are spoken. The ancestors of this Croatian-speaking population for the most part settled there in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Their original dwelling-places were those parts of Croatia and Slavonia that at that period suffered from Ottoman attacks.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126524205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_010
L. Furbee
Narrative in Tojolab'al Maya, an indigenous language of Southern Mexico, incorporates Spanish as both loan words and code switches. Some loans are longstanding and well integrated grammatically, e.g. borrowed conjunctions (/ 'and', kwando 'when') (Brody 1989), but others are less firmly embedded in the vocabulary and grammar. The latter often signal a speaker's attitude toward the participants or the information being conveyed in a discourse. I here examine the loan vocabulary and longer code switches in terms of their placement and poetic function in a narrative genre (lo 'il). It finds that the differing degrees of usage of this vocabulary suggest differing levels of vulnerability of the indigenous Tojolab'al to shift toward Spanish, as well as greater acceptance of Mexican national goals. It supports earlier findings (Garcia-Martinez 1997, Furbee 1997) that increased use of such vocabulary suggests early stages of language shift. Examples derive from a corpus of 26 accounts in Tojolab'al of a miracle experienced in 1994 by a woman in the Tojolab'al community of Lomantan. These narratives come from the woman herself and from persons in other Tojolab'al villages, so they represent different degrees of closeness to and certainty about the miracle. Some communities are known to be progovernment, and some are less supportive of federal policies and more favorable to the goals of the revolt embodied by the Zapatista movement (Ross 1995). Speakers' attitudes toward the Lomantan miracle, which is itself a religious reflection of the revolt (Furbee 1998), can be interpreted as also reflecting the speakers' political stances with respect to Mexican federal government.
{"title":"Prestige, Power, and Potential for Language Shift: The Intrusion of Spanish into Tojolab’al Maya","authors":"L. Furbee","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_010","url":null,"abstract":"Narrative in Tojolab'al Maya, an indigenous language of Southern Mexico, incorporates Spanish as both loan words and code switches. Some loans are longstanding and well integrated grammatically, e.g. borrowed conjunctions (/ 'and', kwando 'when') (Brody 1989), but others are less firmly embedded in the vocabulary and grammar. The latter often signal a speaker's attitude toward the participants or the information being conveyed in a discourse. I here examine the loan vocabulary and longer code switches in terms of their placement and poetic function in a narrative genre (lo 'il). It finds that the differing degrees of usage of this vocabulary suggest differing levels of vulnerability of the indigenous Tojolab'al to shift toward Spanish, as well as greater acceptance of Mexican national goals. It supports earlier findings (Garcia-Martinez 1997, Furbee 1997) that increased use of such vocabulary suggests early stages of language shift. Examples derive from a corpus of 26 accounts in Tojolab'al of a miracle experienced in 1994 by a woman in the Tojolab'al community of Lomantan. These narratives come from the woman herself and from persons in other Tojolab'al villages, so they represent different degrees of closeness to and certainty about the miracle. Some communities are known to be progovernment, and some are less supportive of federal policies and more favorable to the goals of the revolt embodied by the Zapatista movement (Ross 1995). Speakers' attitudes toward the Lomantan miracle, which is itself a religious reflection of the revolt (Furbee 1998), can be interpreted as also reflecting the speakers' political stances with respect to Mexican federal government.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122157852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_017
M. Khasanova
The Russian Far East is a large territory that stretches from the Arctic up to the Japan Sea. The Amur River basin is one of the most interesting places in the Far East. The area is rich in animals, fish, minerals, and timber. Besides, the Amur is the largest river of the Russian Far East. Its source is in the Amurskaya Oblast' and it flows to the Okhotsk Sea opposite Northern Sakhalin. This vast territory attracted different tribes over an enormous period of time, from the Neolithic to the present. In the Middle Ages (1413) several ethnic groups were registered on the Amur banks by Chinese travellers: Ku-i (Ainu), Ji-le-mi (Jurchen gilemi Nivkh), and Ye-ren (Jurchen udigen nyarma, lit. 'wild people'). In the 19th century eight small nationalities lived in the Lower Amur basin and on the Okhotsk Sea shore: Nanay, Ulcha, Oroch, Udege, Negidal, Evenki, Even, and Nivkh. Nowadays, this territory is still inhabited by the same nationalities. Russian scholars call them aborigines as opposed to Russians who began to inhabit the Far East in the middle of the 19th century. The Lower Amur basin usually refers to the territory between Khabarovsk and Nikolayevsk-naAmure, which is situated near the Amur Liman, where the Amur mouth is. In this area the following minorities live: Nanays (ca. 12,000), Ulchas (ca. 3,500), Oroch (ca. 500), Negidals (ca. 400), Evenkis (ca. 4,000 the total number of Evenkis is about 30,000) and Nivkh (the total number is ca. 4,500: in the Lower Amur there are ca. 2,500 people and on Sakhalin island ca. 2,000). The Lower Amur region is inhabited by different aborigines whose languages belong to two linguistic groups: Manchu-Tungusic languages and so-called PaleoSiberian languages. The first group is represented by Nanay, Ulcha, Oroch, Negidal, and Evenki, whereas the second one is represented by the Nivkh. The Lower Amur basin has always been the arena of various ethnic and cultural contacts. Manchurian, Mongolian, and Korean influences can be traced in the aboriginal cultures. The annexation of the Far Eastern region by the Russian Empire played a very important role in the destiny of the Amur basin natives. The earliest contacts between aborigines and Russians date back to the 17th century when the Cossack Khabarov and his detachment came to conquer the Amur region. A number of stories about Khabarov' s cruel voyage are still told among the Nanay people. However, there is also a Nanay story about general N.
{"title":"The Lower Amur Languages in Contact with Russian","authors":"M. Khasanova","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_017","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian Far East is a large territory that stretches from the Arctic up to the Japan Sea. The Amur River basin is one of the most interesting places in the Far East. The area is rich in animals, fish, minerals, and timber. Besides, the Amur is the largest river of the Russian Far East. Its source is in the Amurskaya Oblast' and it flows to the Okhotsk Sea opposite Northern Sakhalin. This vast territory attracted different tribes over an enormous period of time, from the Neolithic to the present. In the Middle Ages (1413) several ethnic groups were registered on the Amur banks by Chinese travellers: Ku-i (Ainu), Ji-le-mi (Jurchen gilemi Nivkh), and Ye-ren (Jurchen udigen nyarma, lit. 'wild people'). In the 19th century eight small nationalities lived in the Lower Amur basin and on the Okhotsk Sea shore: Nanay, Ulcha, Oroch, Udege, Negidal, Evenki, Even, and Nivkh. Nowadays, this territory is still inhabited by the same nationalities. Russian scholars call them aborigines as opposed to Russians who began to inhabit the Far East in the middle of the 19th century. The Lower Amur basin usually refers to the territory between Khabarovsk and Nikolayevsk-naAmure, which is situated near the Amur Liman, where the Amur mouth is. In this area the following minorities live: Nanays (ca. 12,000), Ulchas (ca. 3,500), Oroch (ca. 500), Negidals (ca. 400), Evenkis (ca. 4,000 the total number of Evenkis is about 30,000) and Nivkh (the total number is ca. 4,500: in the Lower Amur there are ca. 2,500 people and on Sakhalin island ca. 2,000). The Lower Amur region is inhabited by different aborigines whose languages belong to two linguistic groups: Manchu-Tungusic languages and so-called PaleoSiberian languages. The first group is represented by Nanay, Ulcha, Oroch, Negidal, and Evenki, whereas the second one is represented by the Nivkh. The Lower Amur basin has always been the arena of various ethnic and cultural contacts. Manchurian, Mongolian, and Korean influences can be traced in the aboriginal cultures. The annexation of the Far Eastern region by the Russian Empire played a very important role in the destiny of the Amur basin natives. The earliest contacts between aborigines and Russians date back to the 17th century when the Cossack Khabarov and his detachment came to conquer the Amur region. A number of stories about Khabarov' s cruel voyage are still told among the Nanay people. However, there is also a Nanay story about general N.","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129525265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_020
Aleksandr Krasovicky, C. Sappok
The language varieties we are presenting here have their historical origin in a migration process taking place in the early 17th century. From that time on these language communities have been isolated from the Russian homeland, but in intense contact with several non-Russian languages, mainly Even. Before the linguistic facts (mostly phonemic) are presented indicating far-reaching contact between Russian and Tungus languages, a short overview of the present situation shall be given, restricted to the following information:
{"title":"The Isolated Russian Dialectal System in Contact with Tungus Languages in Siberia and the Far East","authors":"Aleksandr Krasovicky, C. Sappok","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_020","url":null,"abstract":"The language varieties we are presenting here have their historical origin in a migration process taking place in the early 17th century. From that time on these language communities have been isolated from the Russian homeland, but in intense contact with several non-Russian languages, mainly Even. Before the linguistic facts (mostly phonemic) are presented indicating far-reaching contact between Russian and Tungus languages, a short overview of the present situation shall be given, restricted to the following information:","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122341122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_024
P. Mather
A pidgin is traditionally defined as a simple code which "evolves as a response to a limited need for communication" and which encodes only "the most basic functions of communication (...) the result being impoverished or absent morphology (...) limited lexical stock; a constrained number of adpositions; non-expression of the copula; and lack of sentential embedding" (Hymes 1971: 65-90). Creoles were long thought to be nativized pidgins that had become increasingly complex to meet all the requirements of a native language. There are, of course, many examples of pidgins corresponding to the general definition above: Russenorsk and Chinese Pidgin English are two well-documented cases, and there are others. However, if one looks at the history of European-lexifier creoles, in particular the exogenous varieties spoken today in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean, there is little direct evidence of a pidgin stage in the development of these languages. In addition to the absence of any written attestation of Pidgin English or Pidgin French which may have been spoken on European plantation colonies in the 17th century, Chaudenson (1979, 1995), Singler (1996) and others have shown that, at least in French plantation colonies, the African/European ratio in the early stages of colonization was very low, and that both groups lived in close contact on isolated homesteads, before the shift to large-scale sugar plantations required the import of massive numbers of slaves by the early 18th century. Finally, some authors have shown (e.g., Chaudenson 1981) that the earliest recorded creole texts are much closer to their respective European lexifier texts, than contemporary creoles. The evidence would indicate that, in many European plantation colonies, there never was a pidgin stage per se, but rather the gradual development of increasingly basilectal varieties of French or English, based on increasingly divergent L2 interlanguage varieties of the lexifier language spoken by successive waves of African slaves. In a sense, one could say that creolization in these circumstances is like second language acquisition in reverse, i.e., the successive interlanguage
{"title":"Creole Genesis: Evidence from West African L2 French","authors":"P. Mather","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_024","url":null,"abstract":"A pidgin is traditionally defined as a simple code which \"evolves as a response to a limited need for communication\" and which encodes only \"the most basic functions of communication (...) the result being impoverished or absent morphology (...) limited lexical stock; a constrained number of adpositions; non-expression of the copula; and lack of sentential embedding\" (Hymes 1971: 65-90). Creoles were long thought to be nativized pidgins that had become increasingly complex to meet all the requirements of a native language. There are, of course, many examples of pidgins corresponding to the general definition above: Russenorsk and Chinese Pidgin English are two well-documented cases, and there are others. However, if one looks at the history of European-lexifier creoles, in particular the exogenous varieties spoken today in the Caribbean and Indian Ocean, there is little direct evidence of a pidgin stage in the development of these languages. In addition to the absence of any written attestation of Pidgin English or Pidgin French which may have been spoken on European plantation colonies in the 17th century, Chaudenson (1979, 1995), Singler (1996) and others have shown that, at least in French plantation colonies, the African/European ratio in the early stages of colonization was very low, and that both groups lived in close contact on isolated homesteads, before the shift to large-scale sugar plantations required the import of massive numbers of slaves by the early 18th century. Finally, some authors have shown (e.g., Chaudenson 1981) that the earliest recorded creole texts are much closer to their respective European lexifier texts, than contemporary creoles. The evidence would indicate that, in many European plantation colonies, there never was a pidgin stage per se, but rather the gradual development of increasingly basilectal varieties of French or English, based on increasingly divergent L2 interlanguage varieties of the lexifier language spoken by successive waves of African slaves. In a sense, one could say that creolization in these circumstances is like second language acquisition in reverse, i.e., the successive interlanguage","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131662799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_027
Irina Nevskaja
The territory of South Siberia has always been a melting pot of cultures, peoples and languages. The Shor people, an indigenous Turkic people of the area, are no exception: Ob'-Ugric, Mongolian and later Russian had their turn in playing a prominent role in the development of the Shor language; the genetically and areally close languages Khakas, Altay, Kumandy, Teleut have been in contact with Shor for centuries and contributed to its areal features. Contacts with Russian, a language of a completely different system, episodic in the earlier periods of the Shor language history, got more and more intense beginning with the seventeenth century, when the area was joined to the Russian Empire, and became a decisive factor in the Shor language development since the 1930s. One of the first Russian fortresses in South Siberia was built in Mountain Shoriya in 1618; it grew into the town of Novokuznetsk, today one of the most important industrial and cultural centers. Early Russian speaking migrants had to adopt a number of Shor traditional life patterns in order to survive in the severe Siberian climate; they also shared their own skills and knowledge with the Shors. This period is characterized by lexical borrowing processes between the Shor and the Russian languages. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Altay missionaries started propagating Christianity to the native population of South Siberia; they organized primary schools, published religious and educational literature and preached in the languages of indigenous peoples. In the time of the Stolypin reform at the end of the nineteenth century, the territory absorbed a considerable number of Russian settlers. But it was not until the 1930s that the Shor-Russian interaction became one-sided and menacing for the Shor language and culture. The cultural revolution of the early 1930s, which can be defined as the most flourishing period in the history of the Shor language, was followed by a long period of its neglect. This turn took place in the late 1930s when the industrial development of the region began. The mass influx of migrants for whom Russian was a lingua franca initiated assimilation processes, which created a threat to the very existence of the Shor nation. The long period (1942-1988) when Shor was neither written, nor taught at schools lowered the social status of the language as compared to Russian even more. As a result, the people began to give up their
{"title":"Shor-Russian Contact Features","authors":"Irina Nevskaja","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_027","url":null,"abstract":"The territory of South Siberia has always been a melting pot of cultures, peoples and languages. The Shor people, an indigenous Turkic people of the area, are no exception: Ob'-Ugric, Mongolian and later Russian had their turn in playing a prominent role in the development of the Shor language; the genetically and areally close languages Khakas, Altay, Kumandy, Teleut have been in contact with Shor for centuries and contributed to its areal features. Contacts with Russian, a language of a completely different system, episodic in the earlier periods of the Shor language history, got more and more intense beginning with the seventeenth century, when the area was joined to the Russian Empire, and became a decisive factor in the Shor language development since the 1930s. One of the first Russian fortresses in South Siberia was built in Mountain Shoriya in 1618; it grew into the town of Novokuznetsk, today one of the most important industrial and cultural centers. Early Russian speaking migrants had to adopt a number of Shor traditional life patterns in order to survive in the severe Siberian climate; they also shared their own skills and knowledge with the Shors. This period is characterized by lexical borrowing processes between the Shor and the Russian languages. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Altay missionaries started propagating Christianity to the native population of South Siberia; they organized primary schools, published religious and educational literature and preached in the languages of indigenous peoples. In the time of the Stolypin reform at the end of the nineteenth century, the territory absorbed a considerable number of Russian settlers. But it was not until the 1930s that the Shor-Russian interaction became one-sided and menacing for the Shor language and culture. The cultural revolution of the early 1930s, which can be defined as the most flourishing period in the history of the Shor language, was followed by a long period of its neglect. This turn took place in the late 1930s when the industrial development of the region began. The mass influx of migrants for whom Russian was a lingua franca initiated assimilation processes, which created a threat to the very existence of the Shor nation. The long period (1942-1988) when Shor was neither written, nor taught at schools lowered the social status of the language as compared to Russian even more. As a result, the people began to give up their","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122362417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_019
Yuri A. Kleiner, Natalia S Vetozarova
From the point of view of quantity, the dialects of Yiddish can be divided into two major groups, viz. (a) those that have the opposition of vowel length and (b) those that do not have it. The Western and Mid-Eastern dialects, on the one hand, and the North-Eastern dialects, on the other, represent groups (a) and (b), respectively. According to most dialectologists, the South-Eastern dialects have not retained the opposition of length, thus belonging to the (b)-group dialects. Yet, there are those who argue that in some of the SE dialects this opposition is still present, although it is less manifest than in (a) (e.g. covering some of the vowels only). If this group exists in reality, it belongs to an intermediary type that may or may not reflect the general tendency, but itself is not indicative of the mechanism of quantity loss. According to Ulrike Kiefer,1 the tendency to lose the "systematische Opposition zwischen Langund Kurzvokalen" becomes stronger towards the East (Kiefer 1995: 158), leading to North-Eastern Yiddish which is "der am meisten neuernde [Dialekt] (weil Langenunterschiede vollig abgeschafft sind)", as Dovid Katz has put it (Katz 1983: 1030). Since the loss of quantity distinctions is regarded as indicative of the advanced state of the language, it follows that the opposite (i.e. length distinctions, as in Western Yiddish) must be typical of its most archaic state. The latter must have coincided with the earliest period of the history of Yiddish, most probably from its origin (between the 1 1th and 13th c.) to the time of the migration of the Jews to the East (^-lo* e). In other words, the earliest state of Yiddish is the period when Yiddish was a German(ic) dialect. In this capacity, it must have been characterized by an admixture of Hebrew elements only. According to Neil G. Jacobs, the Hebrew component in Yiddish had a certain specificity with respect to quantity. Thus, Hebrew words show reflexes coinciding with those of long vowels in some forms, but not in others, cf. sojdes 'secrets' and
从数量的角度来看，意第绪语方言可以分为两大类，即(a)元音长度相反的方言和(b)元音长度相反的方言。西部和中东方言，以及东北部方言，分别代表(a)和(b)组。根据大多数方言学家的观点，东南方言没有保留长度的对立，因此属于(b)群方言。然而，有人认为，在一些东南方言中，这种对立仍然存在，尽管它不像(a)中那么明显(例如，只覆盖了一些元音)。如果这个群体在现实中存在，它属于一种中介类型，可能反映也可能不反映总体趋势，但本身并不表明数量损失的机制。根据Ulrike Kiefer的说法，1失去“systematische Opposition zwischen Langund Kurzvokalen”的倾向在东方变得更加强烈(Kiefer 1995: 158)，导致了像戴维·卡茨(david Katz)所说的“der am meisten neuernde [Dialekt] (weil Langenunterschiede vollig abgeschafft sind)”的东北意第绪语。由于数量差异的丧失被认为是语言先进状态的标志，因此，相反的(即长度差异，如西意第绪语)一定是其最古老状态的典型特征。后者一定与意第绪语最早的历史时期相吻合，最有可能是从它的起源(公元11 - 13世纪之间)到犹太人向东迁移的时期(^-lo* e)。换句话说，意第绪语最早的状态是意第绪语是德语方言的时期。在这种情况下，它的特点一定是混合了希伯来语的元素。根据尼尔·g·雅各布斯(Neil G. Jacobs)的说法，意第绪语中的希伯来语成分在数量方面有一定的特殊性。因此，希伯来语单词在某些形式中表现出与长元音相一致的反射，但在其他形式中则不然，例如sojdes的“secrets”和
{"title":"Quantity Loss in Yiddish: A Slavic Feature?","authors":"Yuri A. Kleiner, Natalia S Vetozarova","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_019","url":null,"abstract":"From the point of view of quantity, the dialects of Yiddish can be divided into two major groups, viz. (a) those that have the opposition of vowel length and (b) those that do not have it. The Western and Mid-Eastern dialects, on the one hand, and the North-Eastern dialects, on the other, represent groups (a) and (b), respectively. According to most dialectologists, the South-Eastern dialects have not retained the opposition of length, thus belonging to the (b)-group dialects. Yet, there are those who argue that in some of the SE dialects this opposition is still present, although it is less manifest than in (a) (e.g. covering some of the vowels only). If this group exists in reality, it belongs to an intermediary type that may or may not reflect the general tendency, but itself is not indicative of the mechanism of quantity loss. According to Ulrike Kiefer,1 the tendency to lose the \"systematische Opposition zwischen Langund Kurzvokalen\" becomes stronger towards the East (Kiefer 1995: 158), leading to North-Eastern Yiddish which is \"der am meisten neuernde [Dialekt] (weil Langenunterschiede vollig abgeschafft sind)\", as Dovid Katz has put it (Katz 1983: 1030). Since the loss of quantity distinctions is regarded as indicative of the advanced state of the language, it follows that the opposite (i.e. length distinctions, as in Western Yiddish) must be typical of its most archaic state. The latter must have coincided with the earliest period of the history of Yiddish, most probably from its origin (between the 1 1th and 13th c.) to the time of the migration of the Jews to the East (^-lo* e). In other words, the earliest state of Yiddish is the period when Yiddish was a German(ic) dialect. In this capacity, it must have been characterized by an admixture of Hebrew elements only. According to Neil G. Jacobs, the Hebrew component in Yiddish had a certain specificity with respect to quantity. Thus, Hebrew words show reflexes coinciding with those of long vowels in some forms, but not in others, cf. sojdes 'secrets' and","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131764452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004488472_021
Jurij Kusmenko, Michael Rießler
The present Sami region spans westward from the Kola Peninsula in northern Russia to Dalarna in Sweden and Hedmark in Norway. Loan word studies show that the contact between Sami and Scandinavian began in the Proto-Scandinavian period (200-500 A.D.) (cf. Skold 1992). Such long contact can be traced in both languages. Common Sami-Scandinavian isoglosses were usually interpreted either as a heritage of a common non-Scandinavian and non-Sami substratum (Wagner 1964; Kylstra 1983) or as a result of Scandinavian influence on the Sami dialects (Posti 1954; Schlachter 1991). Influence the other way round is mostly neglected because of Scandinavian dominance (cf. Jahr 1997: 943). However, some Scandinavian dialectologists take into consideration the possibility of Sami influence in some northernmost Swedish and Norwegian vernaculars, contacting present-day Sami. But, this influence is regarded as restricted to marginal phonological features (cf. Wallstrom 1943: 24; Dahlstedt 1950: 1; Bull 1992). In fact, the social dominance of Scandinavian is clearly reflected in the lexicon of the respective languages. During the last 1500 years more than 2000 Scandinavian words have been borrowed into the neighbouring Sami dialects, and the process is continuing. In Scandinavian dialects, however, there are no Sami loan words other than a few related to Sami matters. Under these circumstances one
{"title":"Traces of Sámi-Scandinavian Contact in Scandinavian Dialects","authors":"Jurij Kusmenko, Michael Rießler","doi":"10.1163/9789004488472_021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_021","url":null,"abstract":"The present Sami region spans westward from the Kola Peninsula in northern Russia to Dalarna in Sweden and Hedmark in Norway. Loan word studies show that the contact between Sami and Scandinavian began in the Proto-Scandinavian period (200-500 A.D.) (cf. Skold 1992). Such long contact can be traced in both languages. Common Sami-Scandinavian isoglosses were usually interpreted either as a heritage of a common non-Scandinavian and non-Sami substratum (Wagner 1964; Kylstra 1983) or as a result of Scandinavian influence on the Sami dialects (Posti 1954; Schlachter 1991). Influence the other way round is mostly neglected because of Scandinavian dominance (cf. Jahr 1997: 943). However, some Scandinavian dialectologists take into consideration the possibility of Sami influence in some northernmost Swedish and Norwegian vernaculars, contacting present-day Sami. But, this influence is regarded as restricted to marginal phonological features (cf. Wallstrom 1943: 24; Dahlstedt 1950: 1; Bull 1992). In fact, the social dominance of Scandinavian is clearly reflected in the lexicon of the respective languages. During the last 1500 years more than 2000 Scandinavian words have been borrowed into the neighbouring Sami dialects, and the process is continuing. In Scandinavian dialects, however, there are no Sami loan words other than a few related to Sami matters. Under these circumstances one","PeriodicalId":252873,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contact","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123388449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：