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 investigate 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 unwritten 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 historical 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 number 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 languages, 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 recording 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 representation of the data, and help in comparing data from different varieties. The latter – phonetic transcriptions – make it possible to indicate certain peculiarities 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 researchers. 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 results. 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 (laments 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 research). 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. The former looks like the corresponding Ingrian (Laanest 1986: 119) or Ingrian Finnish (Leppik 1975: 76) pronoun. As there is only one such example in the texts, one cannot be sure whether it is indeed a case of Ingrian influence, or an unclearly pronounced minun (from our point of view, the second explanation is more likely, as in all other cases G. Rein transcribed the forms as minun). The variant miu looks like an unclearly pronounced miun or, more likely, minu. The most interesting point is the difference between minu and minun. Both the finaln as a Genitive marker and the form minun are typical of the standard Finnish language, while in Votic the n of the Genitive marker was lost. Hypothetically, the presence of n in Votic Genitive forms could be explained in several ways: a) the laments are very archaic and contain archaic elements; b) the language of the lamenter was influenced by Finnish (or another Finnic language); c) a researcher did not quite catch the exact form and in difficult cases transcribed it according to his personal standard. Of course, several of these reasons could apply simultaneously. Most of the existing sources have Votic Genitive forms without the final n (minū, sinū (Ariste 1968: 54), minûʼ, sinûʼ (Ahlqvist 1856: 44), minu, sinù (Tsvetkov 1995: 176, 300), minu, sinu (Tsvetkov 2008: 57)). Only in Vadja keele sõnaraamat (III 1996 : 329) do we find in addition the variantminun , in two occurrences from two distant villages. It is clear that this variant was not typical for either of the villages. The first two possible reasons mentioned above should have given a more or less equal distribution of the forms with and without n in the laments collected by different researchers. However, in the laments transcribed by E. Lönnrot, the variant without the final consonant is much more frequent, and only this variant is used by D.E.D. Europaeus. On the other hand, G. Rein always transcribes the Genitive forms of 1Sg and 2Sg pronouns with the final n.

Experiment 2. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1942–1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen, P. Ariste. Compared forms: the Genitive forms of 1Sg and 2Sg personal pronouns. Variants: minu/sinu, minuu/sinuu. Number of occurrences: 54 80 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Figure 2.

In this experiment, the same grammatical forms are analyzed, but the lamenter, the researchers and the period of collecting are different from that in Experiment 1. There are only two variants: neither of them has a final consonant, but they differ in the length of their final vowel. Ju. Mägiste and M. Virolainen transcribe these pronouns with a short final vowel, while P. Ariste always transcribes them with a long vowel. The variant with a long vowel is also presented in the grammar by Ahlqvist (1856), and P. Ariste follows this standard in his grammar (Ariste 1968). In the grammar by Tsvetkov (2008: 57), the corresponding pronouns have a short final vowel, while the dictionary (Tsvetkov 1995: 176, 300) gives different transcriptions for 1sg and 2sg pronouns: minu and sinù (in our view, this is due merely to the lack of a consistent standard, as it is difficult to imagine any phonetic reality corresponding to such variation in the length of the final vowel). In Vadja keele sõnaraamat (III 1996: 329; V 2006: 251), the basic variants of the pronouns are transcribed with a long vowel, but the variants minu and sinu are also mentioned. Such variation in different sources can be easily explained. In many Finnic languages, including Votic, words with CVCV structure have a prolonged second vowel.12 As this prolongation is triggered by the foot structure, the choice between the short or long phonological representation of the final vowel depends solely on each researcher’s preferences, and not on any phonetic differences. The complementary distribution of variants in transcriptions by Ju. Mägiste,

12 See, for example, the analysis of contemporary Ingrian data in Markus (2011). It is shown there that words having CVCV structure preserve the length of the final vowel much better than those words which have phonologically long final vowels. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 81

M. Virolainen and P. Ariste probably illustrate different interpretations of the prolongation.

Experiment 3. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1942–1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen, P. Ariste. Compared forms: the Nominative forms of 1Sg and 2Sg personal pronouns. Variants: miä/siä, mie/sie. Number of occurrences: 19

Figure 3.

In this experiment the Nominative forms of the same pronouns are compared. The variation concerns the second part of the diphthong, which can be transcribed as ä or e. The first variant of transcription is preferred by Ju. Mägiste, while M. Virolainen and P. Ariste always use the second variant. It is interesting to note that P. Ariste later changed his opinion and transcribed the same pronouns with the final ä in his grammar (Ariste 1968). Actually, this variant prevails in most of the sources on Votic (Ahlqvist 1856: 44; Tsvetkov 1995: 176, 300; Tsvetkov 2008: 57). The variants mie and sie are mentioned only in Vadja keele sõnaraamat (III 1996: 329; V 2006: 251), but even there they are not the main variants of the spelling. The phonetic grounds for this variation are that the pronunciation of Votic miä and siä is rather specific, at least in the contemporary language. The second part of the diphthong is slightly reduced and hence more closed if compared 82 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy with, for example, the neighboring Ingrian language (where these pronouns are spelled in the same way). Thus, the spelling with finale looks acceptable, and the choice of a particular variant depends very much on the transcription system preferred by an individual researcher.

Experiment 4. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1942–1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen, P. Ariste. Compared feature: the diphthong in the stem of the verb ‘to become’. Variants: nõise-, nõuse-, noise-. Number of occurrences: 22

Figure 4.

This case of variation looks to be the most mysterious. There are three variants of the diphthong in the first syllable of the verb. The most common variant nõise- is found in the texts transcribed by Ju. Mägiste and P. Ariste, and corresponds to the data presented in Ariste (1968: 72), Tsvetkov (1995: 193), Tsvetkov (2008: 85), and Vadja keele sõnaraamat (IV 2000: 75). The variant noise- occurs only once, and can be explained either as a mistake in transcription or as an anomalous form (although it should also be taken into account that the neighbouring Ingrian dialects have a diphthong oi in place of Votic õi). How- ever, M. Virolainen always transcribes this verb with the diphthong õu, which is not found in other sources and cannot be explained by phonetic similarity. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 83

Experiment 5. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1942–1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen, P. Ariste. Compared feature: the initial vowel of the verb ‘to be’. Variants: ole-, õle-. Number of occurrences: 42

Figure 5.

In most sources (Ahlqvist 1856: 66; Ariste 1968: 68; Tsvetkov 1995: 35; Ts- vetkov 2008: 71), only the vowel õ 13 (or its long counterpart ȭ in some stem types) is indicated as the initial vowel of this verb. Vadja keele sõnaraamat (VII 2011: 272) gives õ in all cases except for that of the village of Kukkuzi (here the initial vowel is o) and the extinct Krevin dialect (here the vowel is e). Contemporary data show that the initial õ is specific for the verb ‘to be’ in Votic, while o appears in closely-related Ingrian, Finnish, and in the mixed Votic-Ingrian variety spoken in the village of Kukkuzi (Markus, Rozhanskiy 2012). Initial õ occurs in the laments transcribed by P. Ariste and by Ju. Mägiste (there is only one exception). However, M. Virolainen always transcribes the verb ‘to be’ with initial o. In our view, the only reasonable explanation for the transcription with o is the influence of a related language known by the researcher.

13 In different descriptions of Votic, symbols e̮ and õ have been used to denote the same high-mid central vowel. In order to avoid misinterpretations, in this paper we are using only the õ symbol, and transliterate all the instances of e̮ from other sources into õ. 84 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Experiment 6. Lamenter – Anna Ivanovna. Period of collecting the laments: 1840–1853. Researchers: A. Reguly, E. Lönnrot, D.E.D. Europaeus. Compared feature: the vowel in the Future form of the verb ‘to be’. Variants: lie-, le(e)-. Number of occurrences: 26

Figure 6.

Here we find two variants which can be very close to each other from the phonetic point of view. In general, the difference between a long vowel and a diphthong is extremely subtle as the degree of diphthongization can vary significantly between speakers. In Ariste (1968), Tsvetkov (1995: 147), and Tsvetkov (2008: 89), only the variant with a long vowel is presented, and contemporary data from the Western Votic villages support this. However, Ahlqvist (1856: 66) gives the variant with the diphthong. Vadja keele sõnaraamat (III 1996: 76) shows that the variant with the long vowel is the most common, but the variant with the diphthong exists in some Central Votic villages. It is likely that there was some diphthongization in the speech of this lamenter, who lived in the Central Votic region. A. Reguly and D.E.D. Europaeus have preferred to transcribe the verb with a diphthong, while E. Lönnrot has chosen a long vowel as the basic variant, but occasionally transcribed the form with the diphthong. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 85

Experiment 7. Lamenter – Anna Ivanovna. Period of collecting the laments: 1840–1844. Researchers: G. Rein, A. Reguly, E. Lönnrot. Compared feature: the Inessive marker. Variants: -ssa/-ssä, -sa/-sä, -za. Number of occurrences: 12

Figure 7.

In this experiment the variation involves the consonant in the Inessive marker. Three variants are found in the laments: a voiceless geminate, a voiceless single consonant, and a voiced single consonant. A. Ahlqvist (1856: 24) gives the Inessive marker with a voiced single consonant; P. Ariste (1968: 23) lists additionally an apocopated marker -z along with the voiceless variants -s and -š (if there is no final vowel, the preceding consonant can be either voiced or voiceless depending on the phonetic context). In Tsvetkov (1995: 89, 265), which contains material from the Jõgõperä sub-dialect with a strong apocope, there are many examples with both voiced and voiceless consonants: karjõs ‘herd:iness’, ravvõz ‘iron:iness’, etc. In Tsvetkov (2008: 31) only ‑s is presented. Thus, the grammars and dictionaries of Votic mention neither the -sa/-sä variant nor the variant with an initial geminate as the marker of the Inessive. However, only A. Reguly has consistently transcribed the Inessive forms with a voiced consonant in the laments. G. Rein always uses the variant with 86 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy the voiceless geminate, and E. Lönnrot’s transcription has either a voiceless geminate or a voiceless single consonant. It should be noted that -ssa/-ssä is the marker of the Votic Elative. How- ever, in our analysis we have tried to avoid confusion of the Inessive and the Elative. In most cases, the syntactic context shows the case of a noun very clearly. For example, the form pöuessa in enneni elteesä pöuessa pitäjäni ‘My mother, my holder-in-your-tender-arms’ (Nenola 2002: 470) can certainly not be interpreted as the Elative.

Experiment 8. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen. Compared feature: the Inessive marker. Variants: -ssa/-ssä, -sa/-sä, -za, -z. Number of occurrences: 22

Figure 8.

In this experiment we can see the same variants as in the previous case, plus the variant without a final vowel. Ju. Mägiste always transcribes the Inessive marker with a voiced consonant, while in M. Virolainen’s transcription one can usually find voiceless consonants (single or geminate).14

14 Once again, syntactic contexts help to avoid confusion with the Elative marker, e.g. näytä Jumala emä i meitä unessa meddie isäle ’Mother of God, show us in a dream to our father’ (Nenola 2002: 572). Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 87

Experiment 9. Lamenter – Solomonida Kuzmina. Period of collecting the laments: 1943. Researchers: Ju. Mägiste, M. Virolainen. Compared features: the first vowel and the following consonant of the word ‘each’. Variants: joga, jeka. Number of occurrences: 5

Figure 9.

In spite of the fact that this word occurs in the laments only five times, we in- clude this experiment because the variants of the spelling differ greatly. Neither the vowels o and e, nor the consonants k and g in intervocalic position, have a similar sounding and so are rarely confused. In general, this word has several variants: P. Ariste (1968: 60) mentions jõka, jeka and ikä; in Tsvetkov (1995: 73) and Tsvetkov (2008: 55) the variant jõka is presented. Vadja keele sõnaraamat (I 1990: 344) has jõka as the basic variant, plus jeka in several villages, jykka only in one Eastern Votic village, and joka only in the Western Votic village of Luutsa. However, we do not find any variants that have a voiced consonantg . The situation with the vowel is more complicated. The variation of õ and e looks very natural here, as after the consonant j these vowels are pronounced very similarly. The variant joka (from Vadja keele sõnaraamat) is in general not typical for Luutsa Votic, but can be easily explained by Ingrian influence. However, in the current example the probability of Ingrian influence is very 88 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy small, since the laments were collected in the Central Votic villages, which are not located in the contact zone with Ingrian.

Experiment 10. Lamenter – Anna Ivanovna. Period of collecting the laments: 1840–1844. Researchers: A. Reguly, E. Lönnrot. Compared feature: the stem vowel in the verb ‘to bring’. Variants: too-, tuo-. Number of occurrences: 15

Figure 10.

The results of this experiment should – and do – correlate with the results from Experiment 6 concerning the diphthong in the Future tense of the verb ‘to be’ (lie- vs. lee-). The current example supports the results shown in Experiment 6: A. Reguly uses the spelling with the diphthong, and E. Lönnrot prefers the variant with a long vowel (in this instance there are no exceptions). In both works by D. Tsvetkov (1995; 2008: 73), the spelling with a long vowel is used, while in Vadja keele sõnaraamat (VI 2010: 132) alongside the basic variant too- we findtuo - in several Central Votic villages and even tuu- in Jõgõperä.

Conclusions The examples above reveal an apparent correlation between different variants in the transcription of the same forms and the individual researchers responsible for the transcription. Each collector has used his own standard of transcription, and quite often the differences between the standards concern not only pho- Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 89 netic peculiarities, but also phonological interpretations of the segments. For example, there is no doubt that е, ē, o, õ, ss, and s have phonological status in Votic, and thus variation in these segments presents more serious differences than mere phonetic peculiarities. It is common for traditional Finno-Ugric studies to consider phonetic transcription to be an accurate reproduction of the real sound, and to avoid standardization (in particular, the use of phonological transcription). However, the experiments that we have conducted in this paper show that even the most experienced researchers have been following a certain standard when transcribing the field materials, and hence their transcription is not exactly phonetic. The standards are individual, and usually they are not explicitly described. Thus, the use of phonetic transcription (presumably “real”) instead of phonological (standardized) does not offer serious advantages, as the former is also standardized, but not as consistently. It is clear that folklore texts fixed in a written form cannot be used as a reliable source of data for phonetic investigations. Nor is it always possible to convert the texts into a phonological transcription, as some instances of variation level out phonological contrasts. Nevertheless, the problems with transcription do not make folklore texts less valuable, and we are definitely not trying to suggest that previous researchers were not sufficiently competent. They simply did not have the theoretical and technical grounding that is available nowadays (primarily with regard to phonological theories and sound recording equipment). Contemporary field researchers have much better opportunities for presenting their data in a way that will not raise doubts from their colleagues. Accompa- nying all published speech samples with the original audio recordings makes it easy for any kind of phonetic and phonological analysis to be used in the future. Also, it seems reasonable to give parallel phonetic and phonological transcription of recorded texts.

References Adler, Elna 1968: Vadjalaste endisajast I. Idavadja murdetekste I. Tallinn: Keele ja kirjanduse instituut. Ahlqvist, August 1856: Wotisk grammatik jemte språkprof och ordförteckning. Helsingfors: Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae VI. Ariste, Paul 1941: Vadja keelenäiteid. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool. Ariste, Paul 1960: Vadjalaste laule. Emakeele seltsi toimetised 3. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. Ariste, Paul 1968: A grammar of the Votic language. Uralic and Altaic Series 68. Bloomington; the Hague: Indiana University. 90 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Ariste, Paul 1973: Forschlag für die phonetische Transkription des Wotischen und des Ižorischen. In Posti, Lauri – Terho Itkonen (eds.): FU-transkription yksinkertaistaminen. Castrenianumin toimitteita 7. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. 32–33. Ariste, Paul 1977: Vadja muistendeid. Emakeele seltsi toimetised 12. Tallinn: Valgus. Ariste, Paul 1979: Vadja mõistatusi. Emakeele seltsi toimetised 13. Tallinn: Valgus. Ariste, Paul 1982: Vadja pajatusi. Emakeele seltsi toimetised 18. Tallinn: Valgus. Ernits, Enn 2005: Vadja keele varasemast murdeliigendusest ja hilisemast hääbumisest. In Pajusalu, Karl – Jan Rahman (eds.): Piirikultuuriq ja -keeleq. Konvõrentś Kurgjärvel, 21.-23. rehekuu 2004. Võro: Võro Instituut. 76–90. Kettunen, Lauri; Posti, Lauri 1932: Näytteitä vatjan kielestä. Helsinki: Suom- alais-ugrilainen Seura. Laanest, Arvo 1986: Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia. Tallinn: Valgus. Leppik, Merle 1975: Ingerisoome Kurgola murde fonoloogilise süsteemi ku- junemine. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. Markus, Elena 2011: The phonetics and phonology of a disyllabic foot in Soik- kola Ingrian. Linguistica Uralica 47 (2). 103–119. Markus, Elena; Rozhanskiy, Fedor 2012: Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen, Band 35. 77–95. Muslimov, Mehmed Z. [Муслимов, Мехмед З.] 2005: Языковые контакты в Западной Ингерманландии (нижнее течение реки Луги). Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Санкт- Петербург: Институт лингвистических исследований Российской академии наук. Nenola, Aili 2002: Inkerin itkuvirret. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura. Tsvetkov, Dmitri 2008: Vadja keele grammatika (Эсимейн’ ваддя чээле грамаатикк. Первая грамматика водьского языка, 1922). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Tsvetkov, Dmitri 1995: Vatjan kielen joenperän murteen sanasto. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura. Vadja keele sõnaraamat I. 1990. Adler, Elna – Merle Leppik (eds.). Tallinn: Signalet. Vadja keele sõnaraamat III. 1996. Adler, Elna – Merle Leppik (eds.). Tallinn: Eesti keele instituut. Vadja keele sõnaraamat IV. 2000. Adler, Elna – Merle Leppik (eds.). Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus. Folklore Texts as a Source of Linguistic Data 91

Vadja keele sõnaraamat V. 2006. Grünberg, Silja (ed.). Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus. Vadja keele sõnaraamat VI. 2010. Grünberg Silja (ed.). Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus. Vadja keele sõnaraamat VII. 2011. Grünberg Silja (ed.). Tallinn: Eesti keele sihtasutus. Winkler, Eberhard 1997: Krewinisch. Zur Erschließung einer ausgestorbenen ostseefinnischen Sprachform. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 49. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.