Book of Abstracts
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Congressus Duodecimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015 Book of Abstracts Edited by Harri Mantila Jari Sivonen Sisko Brunni Kaisa Leinonen Santeri Palviainen University of Oulu, 2015 Oulun yliopisto, 2015 Photographs: © Oulun kaupunki ja Oulun yliopisto ISBN: 978-952-62-0851-0 Juvenes Print This book of abstracts contains all the abstracts of CIFU XII presentations that were accepted. Chapter 1 includes the abstracts of the plenary presentations, chapter 2 the abstracts of the general session papers and chapter 3 the abstracts of the papers submitted to the symposia. The abstracts are presented in alphabetical order by authors' last names except the plenary abstracts, which are in the order of their presentation in the Congress. The abstracts are in English. Titles in the language of presentation are given in brackets. We have retained the transliteration of the names from Cyrillic to Latin script as it was in the original papers. Table of Contents 1 Plenary presentations 7 2 Section presentations 19 3 Symposia 199 Symp. 1. Change of Finnic languages in a multilinguistic environment .......................................................................... 201 Symp. 2. Multilingual practices and code-switching in Finno-Ugric communities .......................................................................... 215 Symp. 3. From spoken Baltic-Finnic vernaculars to their national standardizations and new literary languages – cancelled ...... 233 Symp. 4. The syntax of Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric languages ...... 233 Symp. 5. The development of Volgaic and Permic literary languages .............................................................................. 249 Symp. 6. Syntactic structure of Uralic languages ......................... 275 Symp. 7. Functional verbs in Uralic – cancelled .......................... 319 Symp. 8 – cancelled ...................................................................... 319 Symp. 9. Computational Uralistics ............................................... 319 Symp. 10. Language technology through citizen science ............. 325 Symp. 11. Finno-Ugric languages as target languages ................. 337 Symp. 12. Expressions of evidentiality in Uralic languages ......... 357 Symp. 13. Personal name systems in Finnic and beyond ............. 365 Symp. 14. Multilingualism and multiculturalism in Finno-Ugric literatures .............................................................................. 377 Symp. 15. Ethnofuturism and contemporary art of Finno-Ugric peoples .................................................................................. 389 Symp. 16. Rethinking family values. The conception of family in the context of new rural everyday life .................................. 403 Symp. 17. Body – identity – society: Concepts of the socially accepted body ....................................................................... 415 Symp. 18. Borderlands in the North-East Europe – complex spaces and cultures of Finno-Ugric peoples ..................................... 429 Symp. 19. Archives enriching the present cultures of the Northern peoples .................................................................................. 443 Symp. 20. Music as culture in an Uralic language context ........... 451 Symp. 21. Diaspora Mordvins and their neighbours .................... 461 Symp. 22. Linguistic reconstruction in Uralic: Problems and prospects ............................................................................... 473 5 6 1 Plenary presentations 7 8 Campbell, Lyle – Hauk, Bryn University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Language endangerment and endangered Uralic languages In this paper we report on the status of the endangered languages in the world based on research findings of the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (at endangeredlanguages.com, ELCat). We compare and contrast the situation for Uralic languages with that of most of the rest of the world’s endangered languages. In this context we focus on new findings concerning the status of Uralic languages, on the implications of these findings for language typology and historical linguistics, and on what is now needed in the documentation and revitalization of these languages. Although concern for language endangerment became prominent after 1992, Uralic scholars have made substantial strides in recording the Uralic languages from the 19th century onward. As a result, documentation and archival materials exist for nearly all Uralic languages and major dialects. However, as languages across the globe are increasingly threatened with extinction, Uralic linguists once again have the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in further documentation of the many endangered Uralic languages to help safeguard linguistic diversity. ELCat lists 37 endangered Uralic languages, 15 of them severely endangered. These results underscore the responsibility of linguists and other scholars to guarantee adequate documentation of these languages, and to act urgently in the case of the most critically endangered ones. In this paper we point to the cases where it is important to provide more adequate documentation, to foster language revitalization where possible, and to consider better curation for existing language documentation. For some of the numerous Uralic languages that were documented in the 19th and early 20th centuries portions of these valuable collections remain undigitized or out of reach for researchers and revitalization programs. The problem is not limited just to these materials from past documentation work either. Modern documentation efforts face similar issues of curation and access. We raise the questions of what further documentation is most urgently needed and of how to best to deploy documentation of Uralic language materials for future researchers and language revitalization efforts. Hasselblatt, Cornelius University of Groningen The Finno-Ugric message. Literary and cultural contributions of our discipline Although our notion of Finno-Ugrianness is strongly connected with linguistics and based on linguistic evidence only, it makes sense to speak of Finno-Ugric cultures too. The reason for this is that many cultural manifestations are linked to language in one or another way – be it only through the fact that the mother tongue of the creator of a work of art is a Finno-Ugric language. Most of these manifestations can be properly, or at least better, understood only with knowledge of the respective language. 9 The basic idea underlying the lecture is the following: If linguistic features of Finno-Ugric languages contribute to our general knowledge of language, then, as a consequence, also specific features of Finno-Ugric cultures should have the ability to broaden our horizon with respect to general literary and cultural history. Therefore as the motto of the lecture may serve a quote by the Estonian poet, philosopher and scholar Uku Masing, who wrote in 1940: Small peoples necessarily have a broader outlook on life on account of the fact that they cannot disregard the existence of others. The inevitable and implicit reverse version of this insight would be: Large peoples necessarily have a narrower outlook on life on account of the fact that they can disregard the existence of others. Since all Finno-Ugric cultures are small when compared to, e.g., English, Russian, German or Chinese, they lack the restrictions of these large cultures. The aim of the lecture is not to establish a comprehensive set of cultural features which are regarded or interpreted as something 'specifically Finno-Ugric'. This would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove for two reasons: First of all, the divergence between a modern Hungarian film and a Mansi folk dance is too large to be able to serve as an example for common Finno-Ugric features. And, secondly, the creators of a Finnish poem on the one hand and a Mordvinian song on the other hand have undergone such different foreign influences that it seems impossible to distil any kind of 'Finno-Ugric essence' from them. The first aim of the lecture is rather to point to several features or simply elements of different Finno-Ugric cultures that deserve more attention because of their – real or alleged or reputed – uniqueness. Uniqueness here means that the respective phenomenon cannot be found in the same shape within other cultural environments without any connection to a Finno-Ugric language. This may help us to establish a notion of Finno-Ugrianness in the cultural field. The only possibility to label a cultural phenomenon 'Finno-Ugric' seems here to be the method Wittgenstein sketched in his concept of family resemblance: No single fixed criteria or distinctive feature for 'Finno-Ugric cultural manifestations' can be given, but a set of criteria can be established of which, say, a certain number has to be matched in order to make something 'Finno-Ugric'. Secondly, investigating these specific features should lead to a better understanding of multicultural situations, since all Finno-Ugric cultures are situated in a more or less multicultural environment. Therefore the study of these cultures has a high potential to contribute to our theoretical framework of multicultural studies. Tsypanov, Jevgeni Institute of Language, Literature and History, Syktyvkar Modified model of linguo-ethnogenesis of the Permian people Now as well as previously nobody doubts concerning close relationship of the Permian languages and their common origin. Their typological peculiarities and distinctions in phonetics and