Search

Kolvitsa is the only surviving Karelian village on the Kola Peninsula, and the northern­most Karelian village in the world. Its inhabitants speak a mixed migrant vernacular, which developed in isolation from the Karelian Proper dialect continuum. This study uses linguistic-ethnographic insights from the region to investigate the lexical and grammatical structure of receding Kolvitsa Karelian. The last generation of speakers manifests a profusion of alternative forms, not only across but also within idiolects, and the study explores different factors giving rise to this variation. Kolvičča on viimeni karjalaini kylä Kuolan niemimualla ta šamoin muajilman pohjosin karjalaini kylä. Šen eläjät ollah eri Vienan Karjalan paikka­kunnilta tulle­hien šiirtolaisien jälkiläisie ta paissah šekamurrehta, kumpani on kehittyn erikseh varšinaiskarjalan murrehjatkumošta. Kirjašša tutkitah rappeutujan Kolvičan murtehen šanaštuo ta kielioppie alove­helta šuatujen lingvistis-etnografisien tietojen avulla. Karjalua taitajien viimesen šukupolven kieleššä rikeneh tulou ilmi vaihtoehtosie muotoja šekä idio­lektien välillä jotta idiolektien šiämeššä, ta tutkimukšešša punnitah eri šyitä, kumpaset šuahah aikah tätä variatijuo.

Can we pinpoint an Eastern Finnic dialect on the map, based exclusively on the Russian influence in its phonology and grammar? How precisely do differences between Russian (sub-)dialects manifest themselves in Eastern Finnic? Due to its unique location, far from its relatives, and its contacts with different Russian dialects, Djorža Karelian is a promising tool for answering these questions. We explore the distribution of three phonological features in Djorža Karelian vocabulary borrowed from Russian; all of them correspond to isoglosses on the Russian dialect map. In addition, we also shortly examine one syntactic feature in this Karelian variety: the distribution of two borrowed conjunctions with similar meaning and North-South divide in Russian dialects. We conclude that phonology is not the best detector of contact between non-cognate dialects, because of the small sound inventories of the contact varieties and the problems in distinguishing externally driven change from internally driven change. Syntax seems to be a better diagnostic for contact between non-cognate dialects, because of its complex relationship with meaning. We go on to demonstrate how syntactic evidence from a non-Slavic variety can also be suggestive for the occurrence of linguistic phenomena in Russian dialects., Can we place an Eastern Finnic dialect on the map, based exclusively on the Russian influence on its phonology and grammar? How precisely do differences between Russian (sub-)dialects manifest themselves in Eastern Finnic? Due to its unique location, far from its relatives, and its contacts with different Russian dialects, Djorža Karelian is a promising tool for answering these questions. We explore the distribution of three phonological features in Djorža Karelian vocabulary borrowed from Russian; all of them correspond to isoglosses on the Russian dialect map. In addition, we also briefly examine one syntactic feature in this Karelian variety: the distribution of two borrowed conjunctions with similar meaning and a North–South divide in Russian dialects. We conclude that phonology is not the best detector of contact between dialects of non-cognate languages, because of the relatively small sound inventory of the contact languages and the problems in distinguishing externally driven change from internally driven change. Syntax seems to be a better diagnostic for such contact, because of its complex relationship with meaning. We go on to demonstrate how syntactic evidence from a non-Slavic variety can be suggestive for the occurrence of linguistic phenomena in Russian dialects.

This chapter gives an overview of Uralic evidential systems: of the type A3 in Finnic, A2 in Mari and Permic, A1 and A2 in Ob-Ugric (with strong mirativization), of B3, C3, and higher types in Samoyedic, i.e. very different in different branches of the Uralic family. Due to this and to similarities in both semantic values and coding with their geographical neighbours, grammatical evidentiality cannot be considered an inherited feature of Uralic languages—but rather appeared due to areal diffusion and independent innovations with different sources, from past tenses to desubordination. Uralic evidentials are not used in commands and tend to be incompatible with non-indicative moods; they are rarely found in negative clauses and questions, in which case they are outside the scope of the negative/interrogative operator; i.e. the content of the clause is negated/questioned, not the information source.

This paper discusses the development of expressions such as “who/God knows wh” into negative degree adverbs in Estonian. The study provides an answer to the question of how certain negative polarity items emerge in a language. This question is rarely answered in the literature focused on polarity; hence, the case-study at hand is an attempt to contribute to the general understanding of the grammaticalization/lexicalization of polarity items. Two issues are studied in detail: first, the pragmatic prerequisites, and second, the structural idiosyncrasies triggering the lexicalization of these types of expressions into NPIs. The insights obtained allow challenging the view (see VON BERGEN & VON BERGEN 1993: 130) according to which the historical change in the meaning of the linguistic elements is not relevant for the synchronic description of polarity items.

Annotatsioon. Luudi keel on uks vahem uuritud ja dokumenteeritud ning samal ajal uks ohustatumaid laanemeresoome keeli. Artikkel esitab ulevaate 2012. aastal keskluudi alal toimunud Tartu Ulikooli keeleteadlaste valitoode tulemustest ning on suunatud eelkoige keeleteadlastele, kuid ka ajaloolastele, etnoloogidele ning keelesotsioloogidele. Artikli esimeses osas esitatakse hinnang keskluudi murde konelejaskonna suuruse kohta tanapaeval. Teine osa sisaldab keelelist analuusi, mis keskendub haabuva murde nuudisaegsele struktuurile – peamiselt fonoloogiale ja morfoloogiale. Toodud andmed taiendavad seniseid teadmisi keskluudi murde sisemisest liigendusest. Eraldi tahelepanu puhendatakse ka keelekontakti ilmingutele murdegrammatikas, eelkoige sellistele, mis on teoreetiliselt valjakutsuvad. Artiklis lopus esitatakse vaadeldava murdeala keelenaiteid. Votmesonad: deskriptiivne keeleteadus, ohustatud keeled, keelekontaktid, keele dokumenteerimine, luudi keel, fonoloogia, morfoloogia

The Estonian subdialect Kihnu, Latvian and Kuronian Livonian share a type of interrogative containing morphemes whose primary function is to mark 3rd person imperatives. This construction is not attested in other Estonian dialects or in Standard Estonian, other than in some petrified idioms. In Kihnu and Latvian, the question type is used for deliberative questions. This interrogative type may have originally been used as a translation of German Konjunktiv in embedded interrogatives, but by the desubordination process, it has spread to main clauses as well. This the most probable scenario for Estonian (Kihnu subdialect). Contacts between Kihnu and Livonian and Latvian have probably reinforced this interrogative type in terms of structural relevance and usage frequency.