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 ............................................................. 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 Ingria, 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 Russia presents a vivid ex- ample of multilingualism. It is inhabited by speakers of three cognate Finnic languages: 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 Ingrian dialects 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 Latvia by Votes 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 Ingrian language 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 plosives. On the other hand, Soikkola Ingrian demonstrates a typologically rare ternary durational contrast of plosives (single consonants