DOCSLIB.ORG

Folklore Texts As a Source of Linguistic Data: Evidence from Votic Folklore1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Folklore Texts As a Source of Linguistic Data: Evidence from Votic Folklore1 Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data: Evidence from Votic Folklore1 Elena Markus (Tartu – Moscow) – Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu – Moscow) Abstract This paper discusses the use of folklore collections for linguistic research in minor unwritten languages. In particular, we examine the case of the Votic language. As with many other minor languages, the earliest texts in Votic date from the middle of the 19th century, and mostly come from folklore materials. The focus of our research is the influence of a particular collector on the system of transcription. In this paper, we inve- stigate variation in the spelling of forms, and show that there is an apparent correlation between different ways of transcribing the same forms and the individual researchers responsible for the transcription. It is clear that the written form of Votic folklore texts cannot be fully relied upon for the analysis of Votic phonetics and phonology. Keywords: Votic, folklore, phonetics, phonology, transcription Introduction The goal of the present study is to discuss certain aspects of the use of folklore collections for linguistic research. Although the history of linguistic studies goes back centuries, there is hardly any representative material older than 200 years to be found in languages that do not have a written variety. This paper examines the case of the Votic language, which is an example of a minor un- written language. Similar to many such cases, the earliest texts in Votic date from the middle of the 19th century, and come mainly from folklore materials.2 It is widely known that there are certain limitations on the use of folklore texts as a source of linguistic data. For instance, such texts often contain archaic features that are not present in the everyday language of the contemporary his- torical period. Folklore texts are limited to specific genres, and therefore use specific vocabulary and a limited set of grammatical constructions. Additionally, folklore collections do not precisely reflect the dialectal background of the nar- rator. Usually, the place where the text has been collected is indicated, but the text itself can come from a different dialect or even a closely related language. 1 This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities, project 12- 04-00168a. 2 A rare but very valuable exception is the grammar by A. Ahlqvist (1856). Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 36 © Helmut Buske Verlag 2013 76 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy The focus of our research is another problematic issue, which is largely underestimated or even ignored by many scholars who base their research on folklore materials. We are going to consider the accuracy of text recordings, and the influence of a particular collector on the system of transcription. This aspect is especially important in cases such as Votic. Although there are a num- ber of grammars, dictionaries, and Votic text collections,3 the amount of Votic material is finite and limited. At present, the Votic language is moribund: there are no more than seven speakers left, and some Votic dialects became extinct long ago.4 There is no opportunity to create a corpus of Votic data nearly as representative as the corpuses of many other languages. Consequently, Votic folklore collections are highly valuable as the earliest data on the language which could help to reconstruct its historical development. It should be noted also that Votic had long-lasting permanent contact with closely related lan- guages, primarily Ingrian and the Ingrian dialect of Finnish. Votic underwent many contact-induced divergent and convergent changes,5 and its history will continue to be an object of investigation for many years to come. The main basis for modern linguistic research is original audio recordings, which allow researchers to work with “real” speech that has not been modified in any way. The corpus of Votic audio recordings is very limited, since record- ing technology developed only in the 20th century, and most of the recordings from the first half of the century are either lost or of rather poor quality. For example, there are almost no sound recordings of the Central Votic varieties,6 which have been considered to be a kind of “standard” Votic language.7 Hence, there is often no choice other than to work with published text collections fixed in a written form by previous researchers. However, a question that should be kept in mind is to what extent the data can be trusted. This applies first of all to the accuracy of the transcription. Contemporary linguistic approaches distinguish between phonological and phonetic transcriptions. The former utilize a limited set of symbols that allow the expression of meaningful contrasts, impose a certain standard on the repre- sentation of the data, and help in comparing data from different varieties. The latter – phonetic transcriptions – make it possible to indicate certain peculiari- ties of individual pronunciation to the extent that is considered necessary by the researcher. 3 See, for example, Ahlqvist (1856); Ariste (1941, 1960, 1968, 1977, 1979, 1982); Tsvetkov (1995, 2008); Vadja keele sõnaraamat (1990–2011); Kettunen, Posti (1932); Adler (1968), etc. 4 The Kreevin dialect became extinct already in the middle of the 19th century (Winkler 1997). Eastern Votic and Central Votic varieties disappeared in the second half of the 20th century (Ernits 2005, 84–87). 5 See, for example, Muslimov (2005). 6 However, a few existing recordings of Central Votic are now available on the internet: http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?s=4093 7 The grammars by Ahlqvist (1856) and Ariste (1968) are based on Central Votic. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 77 The study of phonology emerged later than the first appearance of Finno- Ugric studies, and after the first Votic folklore texts were collected. Naturally, therefore, the first investigators of Finno-Ugric languages used only phonetic transcription, and this tradition was continued by many scholars until recently,8 as phonetic transcription is supposed to reflect the language data more accu- rately and in more detail. In this paper, we are going to investigate a single specific question: can Votic folklore texts be relied upon for the analysis of Votic phonetics (and phonology)? From the general point of view, the answer to this seems to be negative, but we would like to present some empirical evidence to support these speculations. Data and methods This research is based on a collection of Votic laments presented, among laments from other languages of Ingria, in Nenola (2002). What makes this research possible is that the collection includes many texts on similar topics collected from the same lamenter at approximately the same time, but by different re- searchers. This therefore offers a good opportunity to analyze variation in the spelling of the same forms. In general, the presence of several variants of the same form in different sources can be due to one of a number of different causes: 1) A dialectal peculiarity; 2) An individual speaker’s way of pronunciation; 3) Historical changes in the language, if the two variants date from different time periods; 4) Specifics of the genre of the text; 5) Free variation in the language; 6) A collector’s individual principles of transcription. In our case, the first four reasons are automatically excluded, as we compare laments by the same speakers recorded within narrow time intervals. Hence only the last two explanations are possible, but they should show different re- sults. If there is free variation in the language, there should be no correlations between the specific variant and the researcher who transcribed the lament. On the other hand, if there is such a correlation, this cannot be considered to be free variation.9 It should be pointed out that we avoid explaining variation in transcription as the result of mistyping or a lapse on the part of the transcriber. If such an explanation were to be admitted, the main question of the paper (whether or not folklore texts can be used as a source of phonetic data) would be answered automatically, and this answer would definitely not be positive. 8 Compare, for example, Ariste (1973). 9 Both reasons can be valid simultaneously, of course, but in this case the overall picture would be blurred. 78 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy For this study, we chose laments by two Votic speakers: Anna Ivanovna (la- ments 1700, 1701, 1703–1706, 1716–1718, 1720, 2702, 2707–2715, and 3719, collected in the middle of the 19th century), and Solomonida Kuzmina (laments 1734–1736, 1746, 1747, 1756, 2737–2739, 2748–2750, 2754, 3755, 4745, and 4753, collected in the 1940s). We did not analyse all instances of variation in every lament (which would require much more profound and substantial re- search). Our work should be treated as a pilot study aimed at investigating the one particular question specified above. Therefore, we have compared only a few features, each of which occurred in a considerable number of examples, and which gave reasonably representative results. Altogether we have conducted ten experiments, which are listed below. For each experiment we show the graphical distribution of the results, and give a minimal analysis of the variation in the context of other sources of information on the Votic language. Results and discussion Experiment 1. Lamenter – Anna Ivanovna. Period of collecting the laments: 1840–1853. Researchers: G. Rein, A. Reguly, E. Lönnrot, D.E.D. Europaeus. Compared forms: the Genitive forms of 1Sg and 2Sg personal pronouns.10 Variants: minu/sinu, minun/sinun, miun, miu.11 Number of occurrences: 55 Figure 1. 10 We analyze 1Sg and 2Sg forms together because they have a very similar structure. 11 The two last variants were represented only by the 1Sg pronoun. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 79 We will not pay much attention to the variants miun and miu.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Izhorians: a Disappearing Ethnic Group Indigenous to the Leningrad Region
    Acta Baltico-Slavica, 43 Warszawa 2019 DOI: 10.11649/abs.2019.010 Elena Fell Tomsk Polytechnic University Tomsk [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7606-7696 Izhorians: A disappearing ethnic group indigenous to the Leningrad region This review article presents a concise overview of selected research findings rela- ted to various issues concerning the study of Izhorians, including works by A. I. Kir′ianen, A. V. Labudin and A. A. Samodurov (Кирьянен et al., 2017); A. I. Kir′ianen, (Кирьянен, 2016); N. Kuznetsova, E. Markus and M. Muslimov (Kuznetsova, Markus, & Muslimov, 2015); M. Muslimov (Муслимов, 2005); A. P. Chush′′ialova (Чушъялова, 2010); F. I. Rozhanskiĭ and E. B. Markus (Рожанский & Маркус, 2013); and V. I. Mirenkov (Миренков, 2000). The evolution of the term Izhorians The earliest confirmed record of Izhorians (also known as Ingrians), a Finno-Ugrian ethnic group native to the Leningrad region,1 appears in thirteenth-century Russian 1 Whilst the city of Leningrad became the city of Saint Petersburg in 1991, reverting to its pre-So- viet name, the Leningrad region (also known as the Leningrad oblast) retained its Soviet name after the collapse of the USSR. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 PL License (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/), which permits redistribution, commercial and non- -commercial, provided that the article is properly cited. © The Author(s) 2019. Publisher: Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences [Wydawca: Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk] Elena Fell Izhorians: A disappearing ethnic group indigenous to the Leningrad region chronicles, where, according to Chistiakov (Чистяков, 2006), “Izhora” people were mentioned as early as 1228.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhalt Des 41. Bandes
    INHALT DES 41. BANDES ORIGINALIA Bíró, Bernadett: From nouns into nominalizers and even further – Gram- maticalization processes in Northern Mansi .................................... 1 Bíró, Bernadett – Katalin Sipöcz: Ditransitivity in the Mansi language from typological perspective ........................................................... 25 Budzisch, Josefina: Locative, existential and possessive sentences in Selkup dialects ................................................................................ 45 Däbritz, Chris Lasse: Zur Markierung von Numerus an Nomina in den samojedischen Sprachen – Synchronie und mögliche Implikationen für die Rekonstruktion des Protosamojedischen und des Proto- uralischen ........................................................................................ 63 de Smit, Merlijn: Insular Etymologies: Indo-European and substrate coastal terminology on Finnic and Saami ........................................ 103 Gusev, Valentin: On the etymology of auditive in Samoyedic .............. 131 Harder, Anja: Grammaticalization of spatial expressions in Central and Southern Selkup .............................................................................. 153 Kahrs, Ulrike: Historische Ereignisse als Konstituente der kollektiven Identität: der Multan-Fall und seine Bedeutung für die udmurtische Identität ........................................................................................... 175 Rozhanskiy, Fedor – Elena Markus: Negation in Soikkola Ingrian ....... 189 Wegener, Hannah: On annotating
    [Show full text]
  • The Baltic Sea Region the Baltic Sea Region
    TTHEHE BBALALTTICIC SSEAEA RREGIONEGION Cultures,Cultures, Politics,Politics, SocietiesSocieties EditorEditor WitoldWitold MaciejewskiMaciejewski A Baltic University Publication Language and 15 multilingual societies Sven Gustavsson 1. Language families and language groups In the Baltic area two language families have been in contact since prehistorical times, the Indo-European and the Uralic language families. Indo-European is represented by three linguistic branches, the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic groups, and Uralic by the Balto- Fennic branch and the Saami language(s). In addition, relatively early settlers in the area are the Tatars in Belarus (Belorussia, Byelorussia), Lithuania and Poland, and the Karaims in Lithuania and Poland who have partly kept their languages (of the Turko-Tataric language family) and the Roma (Gypsies) who speak various dialects of Romani or Romanes (an Indo- Iranian language). An enumeration gives an overview of great linguistic diversity in a relatively small area but this is not the full picture. The overview may be both simplified and complicated. Many of the languages mentioned above are small. Only Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, German, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, Belarusian (Belorussian, Byelorusian, Belarusian), Ukrainian and Polish count more than a million speakers, and these languages are the only ones able to fulfil the role of national languages. All the other languages are minority lan- guages, spoken by as few as 50–60 people up to as many as a hundred thousand. Some of them are near extinction, such as Votian, Livonian, Ingrian, the South Saami, and Lower Sorbian. 2. Language and dialect In defining a language it is never easy to draw a borderline between dialect and language.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Resource for Finnic Languages: the Outcomes of the Ingrian Documentation Project
    FEDOR ROZHANSKIY University of Tartu & Institute for Linguistic Studies RAS ELENA MARKUS University of Tartu & Institute of Linguistics RAS A new resource for Finnic languages: The outcomes of the Ingrian documentation project Abstract The report introduces a new digital resource on minor Finnic languages. This resource is the main outcome of the project “Documentation of Ingrian: collecting and analyzing fieldwork data and digitizing legacy materials” carried out by Fedor Rozhanskiy and Elena Markus at the University of Tartu in 2011–2013. The collected materials cover several minor Finnic languages with a special focus on varieties spoken in Western Ingria: the Soikkola, Lower Luga, and Heva dialects of Ingrian, the Lower Luga varieties of Votic, and Ingrian Finnish. The re­ source contains (a) legacy recordings of different genres made by previous researchers in 1968–2012; (b) new audio and video materials recorded mostly in 2011–2013 by the project partici­ pants; (c) transcriptions and translations into Russian and English synchronized with sound and video using the ELAN software. Altogether the resource presents 510 hours of audio recordings, 21 hours of video recordings, and 15 hours of ELAN annota­ tions. All media files in the resource are provided with detailed metadata specifying the place and time of the recording, sociolin­ guistic data about the speaker, the contents of the recording, and the access rights. The resource is available on the websites of the Endangered Languages Archive (London, UK) and the Archive of Estonian Dialects and Kindred Languages of the University of Tartu (Estonia). Multi lingual Finnic. Language contact and change. 303–326.
    [Show full text]
  • Elena Markus (Tartu), Fedor Rozhanskiy (Moscow) The
    Elena Markus (Tartu), Fedor Rozhanskiy (Moscow) The development of a mixed language in the multilingual environment 1 (evidence from the Kukkuzi dialect) The Lower Luga area in the Leningrad region of Russia presents a vivid example of multilingualism. It is inhabited by speakers of three cognate Finnic languages: Votic, Ingrian, and Ingrian Finnish. This specific multilingual environment gives rise to a whole range of interesting phenomena, one of which is contact or mixed languages. A famous example of this kind is the Kukkuzi dialect, which was traditionally classified as a dialect of Votic. In fact, many scholars argued this affiliation and treated Kukkuzi as a mixed Votic-Ingrian language ([Suhonen 1985], [Муслимов 2005]). Although the Kukkuzi dialect was claimed extinct in some publications ([Adler 1966]), we were lucky to collect some modern Kukkuzi data. The analysis presented in this paper is based on a specially elaborated questionnaire (150 sentences) that was offered to the speakers of different Finnic dialects for translation from Russian into their native language. Using this questionnaire we compared data from the Lower Luga Votic, the Kukkuzi dialect, the Lower Luga Ingrian, and the Soikkola Ingrian. Also, we used published materials (first of all [Ariste 1968], [Vadja keele sõnaraamat 1990-2010]) to include data from the extinct Central Votic. The five Finnic dialects were analyzed using 40 binary features, divided into three approximately equal groups: phonetic, grammatical, and lexical. The results of the comparison gave the following distribution of features among the dialects: (Group1) Features that are present in both Ingrian dialects and the Kukkuzi dialect, but absent from the Votic dialects.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhalt Des 35. Bandes
    INHALT DES 35. BANDES ORIGINALIA Blokland, Rogier: Borrowability of pronouns: evidence from Uralic .. 1 Fenyvesi, Anna: Hungarian Minorities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia: Schoolchildren’s Attitudes to their Languages (minority vs. majority languages vs. EFL) and Teaching these Languages in School ............ 35 Keevallik, Leelo: Pragmatics of the Estonian heritage speakers in Sweden 55 Markus, Elena – Rozhanskiy, Fedor: Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety ............................................................................... 77 Tamm, Anne: Partitive objects and the partitive evidential marker -vat in Estonian express incomplete evidence .............................................. 97 Venken, Sarah: The Afterlife of ‘The Seven Brothers’. Traces of Aleksis Kivi’s Seitsemän Veljestä in Finnish culture ...................................... 141 DISKUSSION UND KRITIK Hasselblatt, Cornelius: Rezension Ulrike Kahrs, Monika Schötschel: Literatursoziologische Entwicklungen bei Wolgafinnen und Permiern (1985-2008). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač 2011. 261 Seiten (Poetica. Schriften zur Literaturwissenschaft 113) ........................................ 167 ESSAY Laakso, Johanna: Language contact in space and time: Perspectives and pitfalls in diachronic contact linguistics ............................................ 173 BERICHTE, MITTEILUNGEN, NACHRICHTEN Bentlin, Mirkko: „Finnische Sprache und Literatur im europäischem Kontext – Historische Perspektiven und aktuelle Herausforderungen“, Greifswald, 6. – 7.10.2011 ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (ESTONIAN, FINNISH, INGRIAN, VOTIC) Sound Symbolism Of
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Journals from University of Tartu ESUKA – JEFUL 2015, 6–1: 55–74 SOUND SYMBOLISM OF EXPRESSIVE VERBS IN FINNIC LANGUAGES (ESTONIAN, FINNISH, INGRIAN, VOTIC) Sound symbolism of expressive verbs in Finnic languages Heinike Heinsoo and Eva Saar University of Tartu Heinike Heinsoo, Eva Saar Abstract. This article will study language, using the contrastive-descriptive method, as a phonetic imitation of the world around us, and will concentrate on the verb vocabu- lary, based on sound imitation and natural sound imitation, characteristic of the Finnic languages spoken in the region of the Gulf of Finland, i.e. Estonian, Finnish, Ingrian and Votic, with a special focus on verbs expressing sounds produced by inanimate sound generators/sources. The investigation clarifi es the differences between expressive verbs and general vocabulary in terms of phonetic composition, and describes derivation patterns of expressive verbs. In comparisons of the four related languages, the theory of sound symbolism has not been confi rmed. It is almost impossible to fi nd identical expressive lexemes (stems) carrying the same (collocative) meaning in all four closely related languages. Keywords: Finnic languages, expressiveness, sound symbolism, verb derivation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.04 1. Introduction: onomatopoetic words, imitatives, expressive words Finnic languages are extremely rich in onomatopoetic-descriptive vocabulary, and closely related languages resort to similar devices to form such words (phonetic composition differs from the standard vocab- ulary, verb stem model). Traditionally, onomatopoetic-descriptive words are divided into two categories: onomatopoetic words and descriptive words (ISK: 178).
    [Show full text]
  • URALIC OSMO IKOLA and AULIS J. JOKI Linguistics Like All Scholarly
    URALIC OSMO IKOLA and AULIS J. JOKI Linguistics like all scholarly work is a matter of international interest. Thus in a paper like this one could treat Western Europe as a whole without any boundaries between countries. But in this respect there does not even exist a boundary between Western Europe on one hand and Eastern Europe or America on the other. But the starting point is geographical. We have chosen the alternative of dealing separately with the linguistic work done in different Western European countries. This choice has some disadvantages but, nevertheless, this arrangement seems to be the most appropriate. Although the linguistic discussion does not respect the boundaries of countries, there are certain principal trends, certain focuses within Uralic linguistics in each country. Since Uralic linguistics in the Soviet Union (Estonia included) and Hungary is out- side the present topic, Finland has quantitatively an indisputable leadership among the countries to be covered. Therefore we will start with Finland. The other countries where Uralic linguistics is carried on to a considerable extent will follow in geographi- cal order. After that the remaining countries will be briefly treated in an analogous order. FINLAND Organization of the Work Chairs at universities. At the University of Helsinki a chair for Finnish language and literature was established in 1850 (the first professor was M. A. Castrón) and one for Finno-Ugric linguistics in 1892. At present there are five full professorships in the field: two for Finnish, one especially for Finnish onomastics, one for Balto-Finnic languages, and one for Finno-Ugric linguistics.
    [Show full text]
  • Phonetic Realization and Phonemic Categorization of Reduced Vowels In
    This is the accepted manuscript version of an article published by S. Karger AG in Phonetica/2019/76/2-3/201-233 (Special Issue “Constancy and variation in speech), DOI: 10.1159/000494927, and available on www.karger.com/Article/FullText/10.1159/000494927. Phonetic realisation and phonemic categorisation of the final reduced corner vowels in the Finnic languages of Ingria Natalia Kuznetsova1,2*, Vasilisa Verkhodanova3 1 Institute for Linguistic Studies, Dept. of the Languages of Russia, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; 2 Universita degli studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature straniere e Culture moderne, Turin, Italy; 3 Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Campus Fryslân, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands Individual variability in sound change was explored at three stages of final vowel reduction and loss in the endangered Finnic varieties of Ingria (subdialects of Ingrian, Votic, Ingrian Finnish). A correlation between the realisation of reduced vowels and their phonemic categorisation by speakers was studied. Correlated results showed that if V was pronounced >70%, its started loss was not yet perceived, apart for certain frequent elements, but after >70% of loss V was not perceived any more. A split of 50/50 between V and loss in production correlated to the same split in categorisation. At the beginning of sound change, the production is, therefore, more innovative, but after reanalysis the categorisation becomes more innovative and leads the change. Vowel ‘a’ was the most innovative in terms of loss, ‘u/o’ the most conservative, and ‘i’ in the middle, while the consonantal palatalisation was more salient than labialisation. These differences are grounded in their acoustics, articulation and perception.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialectal Variation in Votic: Jõgõperä Vs
    ESUKA – JEFUL 2015, 6–1: 23–39 DIALECTAL VARIATION IN VOTIC: JÕGÕPERÄ VS. LUUDITSA Dialectal variation in Votic Fedor Rozhanskiy and Elena Markus University of Tartu and Institute of Linguistics of Russian Academy of Sciences Fedor Rozhanskiy, Elena Markus Abstract. This paper provides a comparison of two varieties of the Votic language. Based on fi eld materials collected between 2001 and 2012 from the last speakers of Votic, we compiled a list of the most important phonetic and grammatical features that distinguish between Jõgõperä and Luuditsa varieties. The ten features are: the degree of apocope, the initial h, merging of allative and adessive cases, secondary geminates, illative singular forms, genitive and partitive plural markers, imperfect forms, the active participle marker, conditional markers, and negative pronominal forms. The analysis has shown that many differences can be explained by the infl uence of the neighbour- ing Ingrian language. There are more contact induced changes in the Luuditsa variety, which is probably the result of more intensive contacts with the Ingrian population in this village. The contemporary Luuditsa variety is a vivid example demonstrating that language change in the Lower Luga area was driven by convergent developments in no lesser degree than by divergent processes. Keywords: Votic, dialectal variation, language contacts, phonetics, morphology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2015.6.1.02 1. Introduction Although the Votic language can hardly be characterised as poorly described, there is rather little data on Votic dialectology. Traditionally, Votic was divided into four dialects: Krevin, Eastern Votic, Western Votic and Kukkuzi Votic (Adler and Leppik 1990: 60), however, this classification was questioned by contemporary researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Areal Relations of Indo-European Loanwords in Finnic Dialects
    ESUKA – JEFUL 2014, 5–2: 71–89 AREAL RELATIONS OF INDO-EUROPEAN LOANWORDS IN FINNIC DIALECTS Vilja Oja Institute of the Estonian Language Abstract. The areas of the distribution of Indo-European loanwords in Finnic dialects are described on many lexical maps of the Atlas Linguarum Fennicarum and the Atlas Linguarum Europae. The maps of those atlases offer an opportunity to follow the post-formational contacts of the languages. The analysis of the spread of loanwords makes it possible to find the main routes and centres of Indo-European innovations in Finnic dialects and discuss the reasons for the different sources of the influences. Sometimes, the Finnic area has been a boundary zone for several widespread Indo- European stems coming from different directions. Often the area distribution of dialect words is etymologically suggestive, but the source language depends on the concept. The differences in the use of stems with the same Indo-European origin in different Finnic languages may, at least partly, be due to the words having been borrowed at different times and from different donor languages. Keywords: dialect vocabulary, Indo-European loanwords, linguistic atlases, Finnic languages DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2014.5.2.04 1. Introduction All of the neighbours of the Finnic branch of the Uralic language family speak Indo-European languages: Germanic languages are spoken to the north and west of the Finnic area, Baltic languages to the south of it, and Slavic languages to the east of the area. Such a position means close contacts with several Indo-European languages. The contacts between the neighbouring languages are vividly shown in linguistic atlases.
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity of Finnish Vowel Harmony
    Productivity of Finnish Vowel Harmony: Experimental Evidence by Liisa Christine Duncan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto © Copyright by Liisa Christine Duncan 2015 Productivity of Finnish Vowel Harmony: Experimental Evidence Liisa Christine Duncan Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics University of Toronto 2015 Abstract Finnish has a well-studied palatal harmony system whereby front and back vowels cannot co- occur in non-compound words and suffixes alternate according to the stem’s harmonic class. Nevertheless, disharmonic forms exist in the language. This thesis examines the phonetic realization of vowels in harmonic and disharmonic loanwords and nonce forms created by a language game in order to establish the productivity of stem and suffix harmony. With respect to stem harmony, when words were borrowed into Finnish in the past, disharmonic stems tended to be repaired, providing evidence for the productivity of stem harmony. If stem harmony is robust, some degree of harmonization is expected in disharmonic loans and language games. While stem harmonization was observed in existent words and novel forms created by the game, the harmonization rates were lower than would be expected of a robust constraint, indicating that stem harmony is no longer fully productive, at least for some speakers. When harmonization did occur, a strength asymmetry was apparent with [+back] functioning as a stronger harmony trigger. ii The examination of the phonetic suffixes indicated that front suffixes were unexpectedly common with all loanword stem types. While co-articulation was a possible cause of some fronting, certain speakers, especially young females, exhibited substantial overlap in the expected front and back suffix categories.
    [Show full text]