Search

In this article, I emphasize the importance of maintaining and transmitting indigenous languages to the next generations, and I explore the motivations and difficulties of indigenous language speakers to do so when living far away from their native language community. The article is an autoethnographic analysis that amplifies the insider's perspective and reflects on my own thoughts, perceptions, and emotional reactions regarding my language use practices. Specifically, I analyze the use of the Udmurt language with my children and the process of writing a blog in Udmurt. As a researcher of the Udmurt language, I use my previous sociolinguistic studies in the analysis and place it within the broader context of indigenous peoples from Russia. Indigenous languages often involve the use of multiple languages simultaneously, including language mixing, which is entirely natural. In societies with a monolingual language ideology, such practices are seen as signs of linguistic incompetence, leading to feelings of shame or inferiority among indigenous speakers. This negatively impacts the preservation of indigenous languages. Raising sociolinguistic and emotional awareness about how indigenous languages function and sharing personal experiences, including negative ones, can help overcome these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Faits de Langues is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper we investigate the case split on the possessor in Udmurt. Traditionally, the choice between ablative and genitive possessor case is said to be driven by the grammatical function (GF) of the XP containing the possessor. We argue that the case split is not driven by GFs; rather, it is determined by the case value of the XP that contains the possessor. Importantly, there is no evidence which points to a possessor raising analysis in Udmurt. Instead, we present an analysis according to which the possessor always bears genitive but may be assigned another structural case by an external head. Due to a morphological constraint, stacked case features fuse into a single feature set in the postsyntactic morphological component. If accusative and genitive stack on the possessor, only the default semantic case marker, i.e., the ablative marker, can realize the resulting feature set. In any other context the genitive marker is chosen. We thus claim that there is no abstract ablative on the possessor; instead, the morphological ablative marker realizes a combination of two abstract structural cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until now only two types of patterns have been regarded in the framework of attributive possession in Udmurt languages: NN+N, N-GEN+NPX. The pattern NAbl+NPX was considered as the variant of the latter. In the present paper I deal with possession in a wider sense which can be presented by wider range of patterns. Attributive constructions with elative, inessive also express possession. Furthermore, I observe attributive phrases with adverbial, instrumental, and dative which are not yet grammaticalized as possessive, but which have the tendency to express possessive relationships. The usage of these constructions depends on semantic and syntactic specificities as inalienable/alienable, inanimate/animated, whole/partial, indefinite/definite possession, and indirect/ direct object function of the possessee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]