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 . 55 Markus, Elena – Rozhanskiy, Fedor: Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety...... 77 Tamm, Anne: 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...... 189 Dobzhanskaya, Oksana: Kazimir Izidorovič Labanauskas ...... 193 Knüppel, Michael: Selkupisch und Sumerisch...... 205 Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety

Elena Markus (Tartu – Moscow) – Fedor Rozhanskiy (Tartu – Moscow)

Abstract This paper discusses the status of the Kukkuzi variety spoken in Votic-Ingrian contact zone. We perform comparative analysis of five Finnic varieties in , basing on a unified questionnaire collected in field research, and partially on published materials. It is shown that the Kukkuzi variety has common features both with Votic and with Ingrian, but it is not a random mixture of Votic and Ingrian languages. In Kukkuzi, Votic grammar is combined with Ingrian phonetics and vocabulary. We conclude that the Kukkuzi variety is a mixed language based on the Votic substrate. The analysed material also presents evidence that in the whole of the Lower Luga area, the Votic influence was much stronger than that of Ingrian, and the Lower Luga Ingrian can be qualified as a convergent language that developed in the multilingual environment.

Keywords: mixed languages, multilingualism, Kukkuzi, Votic, Ingrian

1. Introduction The territory of Ingria in the Leningrad region of presents a vivid ex- ample of multilingualism. It is inhabited by speakers of three cognate : Votic, Ingrian, and the Ingrian dialect of Finnish. The language situation in Ingria is characterized by a high degree of con- vergent processes. For centuries, Votic, Ingrian, and the of Finnish were in close contact with each other, since the area of distribution was very compact. There were many villages with mixed populations, especially in the Lower Luga area. At present, Finnic languages in Ingria constitute a dialectal continuum; it is sometimes difficult to affiliate an idiolect or even a whole variety. This specific multilingual environment gave rise to a range of interesting contact-induced phenomena, one of which is mixed languages. The present paper focuses on the Kukkuzi variety, which was usually classified as a dialect of Votic, but in fact its status among Votic and Ingrian dialects is not so evident.

Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 35 © Helmut Buske Verlag 2012 78 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

2. Background Votic was traditionally described as having four dialects: Kreevin, Eastern, Western, and Kukkuzi. Kreevin Votic was spoken in by who were relocated from Ingria as prisoners of the Livonian War in the 16th century. The last speakers of this dialect died in the middle of the 19th century (Winkler 1997: 30). Eastern Votic became extinct with the death of its last speaker in 1976 (Ernits 2005: 87). Western Votic was in fact highly heterogeneous, and in recent publications researchers have pointed to the need to distinguish be- tween the varieties of Central Votic and Lower Luga Votic (Muslimov 2005; Ernits 2005: 77–79). At present, Central Votic is extinct, but there are several speakers of Lower Luga Votic. The Kukkuzi variety is the language of a single village located in the Lower Luga area on the eastern bank of the Luga River. The is divided into Heva, Oredezhi, Soikkola, and Lower Luga Ingrian. Oredezhi and Heva Ingrian are at present extinct. Soikkola In- grian is spoken on the Soikkola Peninsula, and Lower Luga Ingrian is spoken along the lower course of the Luga River. Traditionally, the Kukkuzi variety was considered Votic (Adler 1966; Adler et al. 1990–2011), and speech samples from Kukkuzi were included in Votic texts collections (Kettunen and Posti 1932; Mägiste 1931, 1959; Ariste 1962, 1982, 1986). On the other hand, Arvo Laanest, the main researcher of the Ingrian language, used the examples collected in Kukkuzi in his description of Ingrian dialects (Laanest 1966). His opinion was that originally the Kukkuzi variety was Votic, but it underwent a strong influence of the Lower Luga Ingrian dialect, and it was difficult to affiliate this variety synchronically (Laanest 1966: 17). Analyzing the Kukkuzi variety, Suhonen (1985: 147) concluded that it has both Votic and Ingrian features in approximately equal proportion: Die Hälfte der Stufenwechselbesonderheiten des Ku-Dialektes gehört zum gemeinwotischen, die andere Hälfte zum ingrischen Typ. ... Wir können den Schluss ziehen, dass der Ku-Dialekt vom deskriptiven Standpunkt aus ingrisch, historisch gesehen aber wotisch ist. Muslimov (2005: 15) found it difficult to classify this variety and preferred to avoid this question: “We will refer to the dialect of the Kukkuzi village, which has been previously defined by some scholars as a specific Votic dia- lect, as simply to the Kukkuzi, without specifying its affiliation with Votic or Ingrian languages”. Thus, it is obvious that many researchers treated Kukkuzi as a Votic-Ingrian mixture. Although the Kukkuzi variety was claimed extinct (Adler 1966; Hein- soo 1995), during our field trips to Ingria we visited the village and managed to find several speakers of this variety. The peculiar features of their language Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 79 fully correspond to the Kukkuzi dialect as documented in speech samples from Kukkuzi by previous researchers (Posti, Suhonen 1980; text collections mentioned above). Hence, we have no doubt that the examples we are referring to in this paper belong to the Kukkuzi variety (and not, for example, to the Lower Luga Ingrian, which is also spoken by few people living in Kukkuzi).

3. Data and methods The data for this research were collected during field trips to Ingria in 2006– 2010. The analysis presented in the paper is based on a specially elaborated questionnaire (150 sentences) that the speakers of different Finnic dialects in Ingria were asked to translate from Russian into their native language. With this questionnaire we were able to compare data from the Kukkuzi variety, Lower Luga Votic, Lower Luga Ingrian, and Soikkola Ingrian. Also, we used published materials (first of all (Ariste 1968a, Adler et al. 1990–2011)) to include material from the extinct Central Votic. The cases of dialectal variation observed in the data were distributed into three groups of features: phonetic and phonological, grammatical, and lexical. We do realize that the list of features is not comprehensive, as we have used a rather limited corpus of data, but still the tendencies that we have observed make it possible to draw interesting conclusions both about the status of the Kukkuzi variety and about the Lower Luga area in general. The criteria used in the present paper for comparing different varieties over- lap to some extent with the criteria used in (Suhonen 1985). However, there are only few exact matches. Major part of grammatical and phonological criteria differs from those used by S. Suhonen. We have introduced lexical criteria, which are missing in (Suhonen 1985), and we do not explore the differences based on grade alternation at all. In our opinion, the latter are not distinctive for defining the origin of contact-induced changes in Kukkuzi, since a lexeme can be borrowed either as a whole paradigm (i.e. it preserves its original alterna- tions) or as a source form that adopts the alternations of the recipient language.

4. Analysis In this section we list the features and give examples from each of the discussed varieties. The varieties are labelled as follows: ku Kukkuzi variety vot-l Lower Luga Votic vot-c Central Votic ing-l Lower Luga Ingrian ing-s Soikkola Ingrian 80 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

4.1. Phonetic and phonological features

4.1.1. The system of consonant oppositions In Votic, Lower Luga Ingrian, and Kukkuzi there is a binary opposition of voiceless vs. voiced, and single vs. geminate . On the other hand, Soikkola Ingrian demonstrates a typologically rare ternary durational contrast of plosives (single consonants vs. short geminates vs. long geminates), while the voiceless vs. voiced opposition is phonologically irrelevant (Markus 2011).

Schematically, this difference can be presented as follows:1 vot, ing-l, ku ing‑s Single Geminate Single Geminate Short Long Voiceless p pp b1 p̆ p pp Voiced b (bb)2

Examples:2 ku, ing‑l sata ‘hundred:nom’ – satta ‘hundred:part’, sada ‘garden:nom’ – sadda ‘garden:part’ vot‑c siga ‘pig:gen’ – sika ‘pig:part’, kukka ‘flower:nom’ – kuka ‘flower:gen’ vot‑l sika ‘pig:nom’ – siga ‘pig:gen’ – sikka ‘pig:part’, griba ‘mushroom:nom’ – gribba ‘mushroom:part’ ing‑s taba ‘kill:imp.2sg’ – tap̆ pa ‘be.enough:imp.2sg’ – tappa ‘kill:prs.3sg’

4.1.2. /o/ – /e̮/ correspondence Like other southern Finnic languages, Votic has a mid-central phoneme /e̮/, which corresponds to /o/ in Ingrian and Kukkuzi.

1 We use small caps b, d, g and z to mark single plosives and a single sibilant in Soikkola Ingrian. The same system of transcription was used in other works on Soikkola Ingrian (Laanest 1966, 1986; Nirvi 1971). The exact pronunciation of a single intervocalic varies among the speakers from unvoiced to half-voiced, and even fully voiced, but this is not a phonological contrast. 2 We do not have any evidence of the presence of voiced plosive geminates in vot-c, but these geminates are found in contemporary vot-l, ing-l, and ku. Prob- ably, they are a recent phenomenon caused by a wide spread of (cf. griba ‘mushroom’ > gribba ‘mushroom:part’). Anyway, the voiced–unvoiced and single–geminate phonological contrasts are crucial for all four varieties. Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 81

Examples: ‘own:part’ ‘buy:imp.2sg’ ‘war’ ku omma osa sota ing‑l omma ossə sota ing‑s om̆mā ošša šoda vot‑c e ̮mā e ̮sa se̮ta vot‑l e̮mma e ̮sa se̮ta

4.1.3. Word‑initial /h/ A number of words with initial /h/ in Ingrian and Kukkuzi start in a vowel in Votic. Examples: ‘tomorrow’ ‘good’ ‘teeth’ ku homen hüvä hampad ing‑l homen hüvä hampad ing‑s humen ~ homen hüvä hamp̆pahaD vot‑c ome̮nna üvä ampād vot‑l ome̮n üvä ampad

4.1.4. Palatalization of /k/ before front A unique characteristic of Votic among other Finnic languages is the palata- lization of /k/ into /tš/ before front vowels. This palatalization is absent both from Ingrian and from Kukkuzi. Examples: ‘who’ ‘walk:prs.1sg’ ‘stone’ ku ken käün kivi ing‑l ken käün kivi ing‑s ken käün kivi vot‑c tšen tšäün tšivi vot‑l tšen tšäün tšivi

4.1.5. /s/ – /š/ correspondence Soikkola Ingrian stands out among the discussed varieties for having sibilant /š/ instead of /s/. Examples: ‘your’ ‘love:imp.2sg’ ‘can:prs:1sg’ ku sinu suvva sān vot‑c sinu suva sān vot‑l sinu suva ~ suvva sān ing‑l siun suvva sān ing‑s šiun šuv̆vā šān 82 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

4.1.6. Opposition of high and mid long vowels In Kukkuzi, Votic, and Lower Luga Ingrian, high and mid long vowels are phonologically contrastive: /u̅ / – /o̅ /, /ü̅ / – /ȫ/, /ī/ – /e̅ /. In a part of Soikkola Ingrian idiolects, the high and mid long vowels have merged into one phoneme. Examples: ‘mouth’ ‘swamp’ ku su so vot‑c su so vot‑l su so ing‑l su so ~ suo ing‑s šu šu (~ šo)

4.1.7. Apocope of the final vowel (full or partial) In both Lower Luga varieties, and in Kukkuzi, a strong apocope has develo- ped. In some idiolects the final vowel is completely dropped, and in others it is reduced to schwa. In Central Votic, full final vowels were preserved. In Soikkola Ingrian, the pronunciation of final vowels varies between full and reduced , de- pending on a speaker and the speech rate, but in slow distinctive pronunciation the vowels are always pronounced as full. Examples: ‘water:part’ ‘wash:inf’ ku vettə pessə vot‑l vett ~ vettə pess ~ pessə ing‑l vett ~ vettə pess ~ pessə vot‑c vettä pessä ing‑s vettä peššä

4.2. Grammatical features

4.2.1. Replacement of 3Pl forms with Impersonal forms In Kukkuzi, and both Lower Luga varieties, the original 3rd person forms were replaced with Impersonal forms, so that now the same form is used both in personal and impersonal constructions. In Kukkuzi and Lower Luga Votic, the neutralisation is complete; in Lower Luga Ingrian, both personal and im- personal forms occur in 3rd Plural. Central Votic and Soikkola Ingrian preserved the opposition between 3Pl forms and Impersonal forms: Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 83

Examples: ‘buy‑impers. ‘do‑impers. ‘buy‑impf.3pl’ ‘do‑prs.3pl’ impf’ prs.’ ku ose-tti tehä-z

vot‑l e̮se̮‑tti teh-hä osse̮‑tti ~ teh-hä ~ ing‑l osse̮‑tti teh-hä ost‑i‑vad tekkö-d vot‑c e̮ss‑i‑vad e̮se̮-ttı̄ tetš̮e-väd tehä-ssä

ing‑s ošt‑ı̄‑d ošša‑ttı̄ tekkö-D̅ teh-hä

It should be noted that Impersonal forms occurred occasionally in personal constructions in Central Votic (Ariste 1968a: 68, 76). However, this was not a case of total replacement as in Lower Luga Votic. We oppose Central and Lower Luga Votic varieties by this criterion, although we understand that this decision is questionable, as there is no possibility to compare the two varieties at contemporary state (Central Votic is already extinct).

4.2.2. The oblique case of the actant with modal verbs In constructions with modal verbs, the oblique case of the actant is always Adessive for Kukkuzi and both Votic varieties. In Soikkola Ingrian, the actant is marked with Genitive. In Lower Luga Ingrian, both Genitive and Adessive occur. Examples: ‘You have to go to the town’ ku sillə (2sg:adess) tarviz männə linna vot‑c siллa (2sg:adess) piäb mennä linnā vot‑l siлл(ə) (2sg:adess) piäb menn(ə) linna ing‑l siun ~ siul (2sg:gen ~ 2sg:adess) pittä männə linna ing‑s šiun (2sg:gen) pitt̆ ä männä linnā

4.2.3. 3Sg form of the negative verb In Kukkuzi and both Votic varieties, the 3Sg form of the negative auxiliary verb is eb, while in both Ingrian varieties it is ei. Examples: ‘neg.3sg want’ ku eb taho vot‑c eb taho vot‑l eb taho ing‑l ei taho ing‑s ei taho 84 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

4.2.4. The Future forms of the verb ‘to be’ In Ingrian, the Future forms of the verb ‘to be’ contain the potential marker -ne, which is the only case of otherwise lost Potential mood, cf. (Nikolaev 2001). In Kukkuzi and both Votic varieties, there are no traces of the Potential in the same forms. Examples: ‘be.fut.1sg’ ‘be.fut.3sg’ ku len leb vot‑c len leb vot‑l len leb ing‑l lenen lenö ing‑s līnen ~ lenen līnö ~ lenö

4.2.5. The marker of 3Sg Present The 3Sg Present marker in Kukkuzi and both Votic varieties is ‑b. In Ingrian, the same marker is used only with monosyllabic stems, while in all other cases the markers ‑ja(ja)/‑jä(jä) or a zero marker occur. Examples: ‘hang:prs:3sg’ ‘become:prs:3sg’ ‘love:prs‑3sg’ ku ripu‑b noize̮‑b suvva‑b vot‑c ripu‑b ne̮ize̮‑b suva‑b vot‑l ripu‑b ne̮ize̮‑b suvva‑b ~ suva‑b ing‑l rippu noiso suva‑ja ing‑s rippu noišš̆ o šuva‑jā

4.2.6. The marker of Imperfect In cases where Soikkola Ingrian markes Imperfect with -iži, all other varieties use the markers without the initial vowel: ‑zi(‑si). Examples: ‘paint‑impf‑1sg’ ‘saw‑impf‑1sg’ ku krāske̮‑si‑n saha‑si‑n vot‑c krāska‑zi‑n saha‑zi‑n vot‑l krāske̮‑zi‑n saha‑zi‑n ing‑l krāske̮‑si‑n saha‑si‑n ing‑s krāška‑iži‑n šahhă ‑iži‑n

4.2.7. The vowel in the Active marker (singular form) In Kukkuzi and in Votic, the marker of the Active Participle single form is ‑(n)nu(d)/‑(n)nü(d)3. In Soikkola Ingrian, the corresponding marker is -nd or -d without the vowel (except for the most southern sub-dialects that are heavily

3 The choice between single or geminate consonant depends on the paradigmatic type of the verb. The final‑ d is consistently used in the singular form in the Jõgõperä (Lower Luga Votic) subdialect, but is not used in other varieties. Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 85 influenced by the Lower Luga Votic). In Lower Luga Ingrian we have attested markers both with and without the vowel. Examples: ‘live‑prtact’ ‘be‑prtact’ ku elä‑nnüd ol‑lud vot‑c elä‑nnü e̮л‑лu vot‑l elä‑nnü(d) e̮л‑лu(d) ing‑l elä‑d ~ elä‑nü(d) ol‑d ~ ol‑lu(d) ing‑s elä‑nd ol‑d

4.2.8. The marker of Genitive One of the easily spotted differences between the analysed varieties is the marker of the Genitive, which is -n in Ingrian and zero in Kukkuzi and Votic. Examples: ‘wolf:gen head’ ‘sea:gen shore’ ku sue pä mere rantə vot‑c suē̮ pä mere ranta vot‑l sue̮ pä mere rant(ə) ing‑l sue‑n pä mere‑n rantə ing‑s šue‑n pä mere‑n randa

4.2.9. Comitative In Kukkuzi, Votic, and Lower Luga Ingrian, the semantic roles of Companion and Instrument are encoded by Comitative. Soikkola Ingrian does not have the . The role of Compa- nion is expressed by the postposition kera ‘with’, and the role of Instrument is expressed by the Adessive (‑l). Examples: ‘They are sawing this log with a saw’ ‘with a dog’ ku hü sahatte̮z tätä palkkia saha‑ka koira‑ka vot‑c nämä sahavad tätä irttä sahā‑kā koirā‑kā vot‑l hü sahata tätä irttə saha‑ka koira‑ka ing‑l hö sahata tätä palkkia sahan‑ka koiran‑ka ing‑s hü šahajād tädä herttä šaha‑l koiran kera

4.2.10. The marker of Translative The Translative is marked with -ssi in Kukkuzi and Votic, and with -ks(-kš) in Ingrian. Examples: ‘teacher‑trans’ ku opettaja‑ssi vot‑c e̮pe̮ttaja‑ssi vot‑l e̮pe̮ttaja‑ssi ~ utšit̕eľa‑ssi ing‑l opettaja‑ks ing‑s obettaja‑kš 86 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

The change of *ks into ss is a well-known phonetic peculiarity of Votic. However, in contemporary language it cannot be classified as a phonetic rule, because there are a few widely used borrowings from Ingrian with the ks cluster, for example paksu ‘large, fat’.

4.2.11. The marker of Elative The marker of Elative starts with a geminate ss in Kukkuzi and both Votic varieties, while in Ingrian it has the cluster st instead. Examples: ‘work‑elat’ ‘window‑elat’ ku tǖss ikkune̮‑ss vot‑c tȫssä akkuna‑ssa vot‑l tǖss(ə) akkune̮‑ss(ə) ing‑l tȫst ikkuna‑st ing‑s tǖšt ~ tȫšt ikkuna‑št

4.2.12. Assimilation of the Partitive marker -t(a) after the stem-final ‑s In Kukkuzi and in Votic, the Partitive marker ‑t(a) gets assimilated with the preceding stem-final -s. In both Ingrian varieties, this assimilation does not happen. Examples: ‘boy:part’ ku poikaissə vot‑c poikaissa vot‑l poike̮iss(ə) ing‑l poikaist ing‑s pojaišt Note that the cluster -st is perfectly allowed both in stems and on morpheme boundaries, cf. ku, vot-l, vot-c лusti ‘beautifil’,pes ‑tü ‘wash-prtpass’. There- fore, we treat the assimilation of the Partitive and the Elative markers in Kuk- kuzi and Votic as grammatical features.

4.2.13. Comparative degree of adjectives The Comparative is marked with -p(i) in Kukkuzi and Votic. In Soikkola In- grian, the marker is -mp, while in Lower Luga Ingrian a variation is observed. Examples: ‘beautiful‑comp’ ‘fast‑comp’ ku lusti-p kı̄re‑p(i), vot‑c лusti‑p(i) tšı̄re‑p(i) vot‑l лusti‑p(i) tšı̄re‑p(i) ing‑l lusti‑p(i) ~ lusti‑mp(i) kı̄re‑p(i) ~ kı̄re‑mp(i) ing‑s käbie‑mp kı̄rehe‑mp Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 87

4.2.14. 1Sg and 2 Sg Possessive pronouns The 1Sg and 2Sg Possessive pronouns (which are the same as the Genitive forms of Personal pronouns) are minu and sinu in Kukkuzi and Votic. In Ingrian, these are miun and siun (šiun) correspondingly.

4.2.15. Secondary geminates In Kukkuzi, both Ingrian varieties, and Lower Luga Votic, originally single consonants were geminated before a long vowel or a after a stressed syllable. Later, in some varieties the long vowels that had caused the gemination shortened, but the secondary geminates preserved. In Central Votic, secondary geminates did not develop. Examples: ‘money:part’ ‘fish:part’ ‘hen:part’ ku rahha kalla kanna ing‑l rahha kalla kanna ing‑s rahhā̆ kallā̆ kan̆nā vot‑l rahha kaллa kanna vot‑c rahā kaлā kanā

4.3. Lexical features Although the differences in vocabulary often play a crucial role in determining dialectal boundaries, they are not so helpful in the multilingual environment. In language contact situations a researcher can not rely on the fact, if a speaker knows a certain word or not, since people often know words from the neighbou- ring variety or language. In our case, the situation is even more difficult, as all the speakers are elderly people who do not use their native variety as the main language of communication (Russian is used in everyday life). It often hap- pens that a person translating the questionnaires can not immediately recollect a word from his own language, but uses a word from a neighbouring variety instead. Statistical analysis also does not help, as there are only few speakers. Considering all this, in this section we only list those lexemes from the questionnaires that showed consistent differences depending on the variety.

4.3.1. pronoun ‘this’ ku, ing‑l, ing‑s tämä vot‑c, vot‑l kase

4.3.2. 3Sg Personal pronoun ku hän ing‑l, ing‑s hä ~ hän vot‑c, vot‑l tämä 88 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

4.3.3. 3Pl Personal pronoun ku hü ing‑l hö ~ hüö ing‑s hü ~ hüd ~ hö ~ höd vot‑l hü ~ nämä(d) vot‑c nämä(d)

4.3.4. ‘milk’ ku maito ing‑l maito ing‑s maido vot‑l pı ̄m̕(ə) vot‑c pı̄mä

4.3.5. ‘often’ ku, ing‑l, ing‑s tihti vot‑l tšasta vot‑c uze̮i

4.3.6. ‘week’ ku, ing‑l, ing‑s vı̄kko vot‑c, vot‑l näteli

4.3.7. ‘stove’ ku kiuge̮z ~ kiuka ing‑l kiuka ing‑s kiukkā̆ vot‑c, vot‑l ahjo

4.3.8. ‘many, a lot’ ku moni, paľľu ing‑l, ing‑s moni, paljo vot‑c, vot‑l paľľo

In Kukkuzi and Ingrian, both moni and paľľu ~ paljo mean ‘a lot’, but in Votic only paľľo expresses this meaning, while me̮ni means ‘some, few’. 4.3.9. ‘mushroom’ ku, ing‑l, vot‑l griba ing‑s obokka vot‑c sı̄ni Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 89

4.3.10. ‘bag’ ku, vot‑c kotti vot‑l kotti, säkki ing‑l säkki ing‑s šäkki

4.3.11. ‘out, away’ ku, ing‑l, vot‑c, vot‑l vällä, poiz ing‑s poiž

4.3.12. ‘bucket’ ku, ing‑l, vot‑c, vot‑l panki ing‑s uhlu

4.3.13. ‘beautiful’ ku, ing‑l lusti vot‑c, vot‑l лusti ing‑s käp̆piä

4.3.14. ‘table’ ku, ing‑l lautə vot‑l лaut(ə) vot‑c лauta ing‑s kanž

5. Results and discussion The resulting distribution of the discussed features among the varieties is summarized in Table 1. The table is organised so that each feature is either present (+) or absent (-) in the concrete variety. The features are named in a way that all of them are present in the Kukkuzi variety, thus the ku column contains only plusses. Theoretically, there are 16 possible ways of distribut- ing the features among the rest of the varieties. Thus, 16 types are listed in the table. The features are grouped into Phonetics/phonology, Grammar, and Lexical columns, and are numbered in the same order as they were presented in the Analysis section. 90 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Table 1. Types of dialectal variation in Ingria Phonetics/ Type ing‑s ing‑l ku vot‑l vot‑c Grammar Lexical phonology 1 + + + + + 15. secondary 2 + + + + ‑ geminates 3. hü ‘they’ 3 + + + ‑ + 1. tämä ‘this’ 2. /o/ (instead 2. hän ‘he’ of /e̮/) 4. maito ‘milk’ 3. word‑initial 4 + + + ‑ ‑ 5. tihti ‘often’ /h/ 6. vı̄kko ‘week’ 4. palatalization 7. kiuk(k)a of /k/ ‘stove’ 8. moni ‘a lot’ 5 + ‑ + + + 6 + ‑ + + ‑ 7 + ‑ + ‑ + 8 + ‑ + ‑ ‑ 1. binary op- 6. ‑si/‑zi position of Imperfect 11. vällä ‘out’ plosives marker 12. panki 5. /s/ (instead (without the ‘bucket’ 9 ‑ + + + + of /š/) initial i) 13. lusti 6. phonological 9. Comitative ‘beautiful’ opposition of marker 14. laut(a) high and mid ‑ka(/‑kä) ‘table’ long vowels 1. replacement of 3Pl forms 10 ‑ + + + ‑ 7. apocope 9. griba with Imper- ‘mushroom’ sonal forms 11 ‑ + + ‑ + 12 ‑ + + ‑ ‑ Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 91

Phonetics/ Type ing‑s ing‑l ku vot‑l vot‑c Grammar Lexical phonology 2. no Genitive with modal verbs 3. eb (3Sg form of the negative verb) 4. leb (3Sg fu- ture form of the verb ‘to be’) 5. ‑b (3Sg Pre- sent marker) 7. preservation of the vowel in the Active Par- ticiple marker 8. No Genitive 13 ‑ ‑ + + + marker ‑n 10. kotti ‘bag’ 10. Translative marker ‑ssi 11. Elative marker ‑ss(a) 12. assimilation of the Partitive marker -t(a) after /s/ 13. no [m] in the Compara- tive marker 14. pronominal forms minu ‘my’ and sinu ‘your’ 14 ‑ ‑ + + ‑ 15 ‑ ‑ + ‑ + 16 ‑ ‑ + ‑ ‑

Note that we have not considered features that are common for all the five varieties (Type 1), as they represent the general characteristics of Finnic lan- guages and have no value for analysing dialectal variation. As for the rest, it is quite obvious that the distribution of features is not random. More than a half of the hypothetically possible types are in fact empty. The combinations of features that do occur in the analysed material reflect the following characteristics: Type 4 contains features that are present in both Ingrian dialects and in Kukkuzi, but absent from the Votic dialects. This type contains only phonetic and lexical features, and shows the similarity between Kukkuzi and Ingrian phonetics and vocabulary. 92 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Type 13 contains features that are present in both Votic dialects and in Kukkuzi, but absent from the Ingrian dialects. This type reflects the similar- ity between Kukkuzi and Votic, and unlike the previous one, it contains only grammatical features. Type 10 contains features that are present in three Lower Luga varieties, but absent from Soikkola Ingrian and Central Votic. This small group shows specific characteristics of the Lower Luga area, and it contains phonetic, grammatical as well as lexical features. Type 9 combines features that are present in all varieties except for Soikkola Ingrian. This group presents the evidence of the Votic influence on the Lower Luga area, and it contains features of all types: phonetic and phonological, grammatical, and lexical. Finally, Type 2 presents a very limited evidence of the Ingrian influence on the Lower Luga area, as it contains features that are present in all dialects except for Central Votic.

6. Conclusions As seen from the table, there are no features specific solely to the Kukkuzi variety. Thus, Kukkuzi is indeed a mixed language with both Votic and Ingrian features, but not a special variety which has developed some unique charac- teristics. However, the most important observation is that the Kukkuzi variety is not a random mixture of Votic and Ingrian languages. It has Votic grammar and Ingrian vocabulary and phonetics. Universally, grammar is a more stable part of a language, than vocabulary and phonetics. Thus, the Votic features in Kukkuzi should be qualified as substrate. It is very likely that the Kukkuzi population was originally Votic. Later, the language changed significantly under the Ingrian influence, but the shift into Ingrian was not completed. The affiliation of Kukkuzi as a Votic or an Ingrian variety is thus to a big extent subjective, and depends on whether a researcher considers grammar or vocabulary as the basic language component. From our opinion, grammar is more essential for characterising a language, thus we prefer to treat Kukkuzi as a specific Votic variety. The data in the table also present evidence that in the whole of the Lower Luga area, the Votic influence was much stronger than that of Ingrian. There are only two features that combine Soikkola Ingrian with the Lower Luga varieties and oppose them to Central Votic (Type 2). On the other hand, the number of features separating Soikkola Ingrian from the rest of the varieties is quite essential (Type 9). There are also some specific areal features in the Lower Luga varieties (Type 10), but their number is very small. In most cases, the origin of a feature (either Votic or Ingrian) can be traced. Votic or Ingrian: new evidence on the Kukkuzi variety 93

We cannot completely agree with P. Ariste’s statement (1968b: 19) “Die Woten in Vaipooli waren auf dem Wege des Übergangs vom Wotischen zum Ižorischen”. This might be true if we consider only the sociolinguistic part of the question, for example the population dynamics, and the shift of language and identity from Votic into Ingrian (see Markus, Rozhanskiy in print for more details). However, when we consider the contact-induced changes in the lan- guages, it becomes clear that Lower Luga Ingrian has adopted a lot of features from Votic, while the opposite is not true. Our final observation is that Lower Luga Ingrian can be treated as a con- vergent language based on the Votic substrate. One can assume that the Lower Luga Ingrian speaking population includes both Ingrians who have significantly adapted their language to communicate with the Votes, and Votic people who have shifted into this new variety of Ingrian (see also Rozhanskiy, Markus in print).

Abbreviations 1 1st person 2 2nd person 3 3rd person adess Adessive comp Comparative elat Elative fut Future gen Genitive imp Imperative impers Impersonal impf Imperfect inf ing-l Lower Luga Ingrian ing-s Soikkola Ingrian ku Kukkuzi variety nom Nominative part Partitive pl Plural prs Present prtact Active Participle prtpass Passive Participle sg Singular trans Translative vot-c Central Votic vot-l Lower Luga Votic Acknowledgements We are grateful to the participants of the conference and multilingualism held in Hamburg 2-3 June 2011 for their questions and valuable comments on the paper. The present research was partly supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grant JD100, and the Russian Foundation for Humanities project 11-04-00153. 94 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

References Adler, Elna [Адлер, Эльна] 1966: Водский язык. In Лыткин, Василий И. – Клара Е. Майтинская (eds): Языки народов СССР, III. Финно-угорские и самодийские языки. Москва: Наука. 118–137. Adler, Elna; Leppik, Merle; Grünberg, Silja (eds.) 1990–2011: Vadja keele sõnaraamat I–VII. : Eesti keele instituut. Ariste, Paul 1962: Vadja muinasjutte. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. Ariste, Paul 1968a: A grammar of the . Bloomington; the Hague: Indiana University. Ariste, Paul 1968b: Welche Sprache spricht die ostseefinnische Bevölkerung in Vaipooli? In Fenno-Ugrica. Juhlakirja Lauri Postin kuusikymmenvuo- tispäiväksi 17.3.1968. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 145. 12–19. Ariste, Paul 1982: Vadja pajatusi. Tallinn: Valgus. Ariste, Paul 1986: Vadja rahvalaulud ja nende keel. Tallinn: Valgus. Ernits, Enn 2005: Vadja keele varasemast murdeliigendusest ja hilisemast hää- bumisest. In Pajusalu, Karl – Jan Rahman (eds): Piirikultuuriq ja -keeleq. Konvõrentś Kurgjärvel, 21.-23. rehekuu 2004. Võro: Võro Instituut. 76–90. Heinsoo, Heinike [Хейнсоо, Хейнике] 1995: Водь и ее этнокультурное состояние. In Jokipii, Mauno (ed.): Прибалтийско-финские народы. История и судьбы родственных народов. Jyväskylä: Ateena. 168–182. Kettunen, Lauri; Posti, Lauri 1932: Näytteitä vatjan kielestä. Helsinki: Suoma- lais-ugrilaisen Seura. Laanest, Arvo [Лаанест, Арво] 1966: Ижорские диалекты. Лингвогеогра- фическое исследование. Таллинн: Академия наук Эстонской ССР. Laanest, Arvo 1986: Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia. Tallinn: Valgus. Markus, Elena 2011: The phonetics and phonology of a disyllabic foot in Soik- kola Ingrian. Linguistica Uralica 47. 103–119. Markus, Elena; Rozhanskiy, Fedor in print: Correlation between social and linguistic parameters in modeling language contact: evidence from endan- gered Finnic varieties. Mägiste, Julius 1931: Kukkosi vadja mõistatusi. Eesti Keel 10 (3–4). 110. Mägiste, Julius 1959: Woten erzählen. Wotische Sprachproben. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Muslimov, Mehmed Z. [Муслимов, Мехмед З.] 2005: Языковые контакты в Западной Ингерманландии (нижнее течение реки Луги). Санкт-Пе- тербург: диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата фило- логических наук. Nikolaev, Ilya S. [Николаев, Илья С.] 2001: Основные тенденции в изме- нении грамматической системы ижорского языка в течение XX века. In 95 Elena Markus – Fedor Rozhanskiy

Seilenthal, Tõnu (ed.): Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum 7.-13.8.2000. Tartu. Pars V: Dissertationes sectionum. Linguistica II. Tartu: Eesti Fennougristide Komitee. 449-453. Nirvi, Ruben E. (ed.) 1971: Inkeroismurteiden sanakirja. Helsinki: Suomalais- ugrilainen seura. Posti, Lauri; Suhonen, Seppo 1980: Vatjan kielen Kukkosin murteen sanakirja. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Rozhanskiy, Fedor; Markus, Elena [Рожанский, Федор И.; Маркус, Елена Б.] in print: О статусе нижнелужского диалекта ижорского языка среди родственных идиомов. Suhonen, Seppo 1985: Wotisch oder Ingrisch? In Veenker, Wolfgang (ed.): Dialectologia Uralica. Materialen des ersten Internationalen Symposions zur Dialektologie der uralischen Sprachen 4–7. September 1984 in Hamburg. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 139–148. Winkler, Eberhard 1997: Krewinisch. Zur Erschließung einer ausgestorbenen ostseefinnischen Sprachform. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 49. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.