1 / 36

Distinction of Samoyedic Languages: Nenets, Enets, Selkup Criteria

Explore the distinctions between Nenets, Enets, and Selkup within the Samoyedic language family, examining criteria like linguists' opinions, mutual intelligibility, and self-identification.

candances
Download Presentation

Distinction of Samoyedic Languages: Nenets, Enets, Selkup Criteria

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Yuri Koryakov “Language or dialect”questionand Samoyedic languages Moscow, 2016

  2. Samoyedic languages • Traditionally there are 4 living Samoyedic languages: Nenets, Enets, Nganasan and Selkup. • There were also extinct Kamassian, Mator and Yurats (Old East Nenets), but I won’t touch them further.

  3. Map

  4. Samoyedic languages • But at least three of these living languages are sometimes (or often?) treated as being groups of two or three languages. • Nenets: Tundra and Forest • Enets: Tundra and Forest • Selkup: Northern, Central, Southern or something like that.

  5. Samoyedic languages • What is interesting, • they are rather treated as single languages in Russia; • and rather as clusters of languages in other countries.

  6. Samoyedic languages • I’ll try to consider different criteria of language/dialect distinction for each of four living language, • and find out what is justification for each of points of view. • Also I’ll try to use lexicostatistics as a measure of divergence for all Samoyedic languages.

  7. Criteria • (History of) Linguists’ opinion • Mutual intelligibility • Shared standard or codified form • Ethnic orientation • Speakers identification • Lexicostatistics

  8. Nenets • Two main varieties: • Tundra Nenets (TN) – 95% (c.20k) of speakers • Forest Nenets (FN) – 5% (c.20k) of speakers

  9. Nenets: Linguists’ opinion • Single language with 2 dialects: all works published in Russia; Janhunen 1998; Helimski; Lehtisalo;Pusztay 1976 • Single, but maybe two: Хелимский 2002 (КК); Квашнин • Two languages: Бартенев 1896; Мяги; Приходько; Salminen; Kavitskaya; Janhunen 1986; Nikolaeva; Pusztay 1980,1984;Toulouze; +Glottolog;

  10. Nenets: Mutual intelligibility • Mutual comprehension between TN and FN is almost impossible [Nikolaeva 2014] • Though some Forest Nenetses learned at school Tundra N. and understand it.

  11. Nenets: standard form • Until recently only one codified norm existed based on Bolshezemelsky dialect of Tundra Nenets. It was taught in Forest Nenets settlements as well. • There are recent attempts to introduce writing in Forest Nenets: in 1990s (Vella via Toulouze 2003); in 2000s (Mägi & Ojamaa 2002; Мяги 2004).

  12. Nenets: Self-identification • Different autonyms: • TN ethnic: nʲenéʨˀ; language: nʲenəʨa’ wada • FN ethnic: nʲéʃaŋ; • Closeness between two varieties is not evident for the speakers themselves [Toulouze 2003].

  13. Nenets: 1st conclusion • There are little or no reasons to treat TN and FN as dialects of one language.

  14. Enets • Two main varieties: • Tundra Enets (TE) – 20-23 speakers • Forest Enets (FE) – 30-35 speakers • Enets was treated as a dialect of Nenets up until [Терещенко 1965].

  15. Enets: Linguists’ opinion • Dialect of Nenets: Прокофьев 1937 • Single language with 2 dialects: all other works • Single, but maybe two: Comrie et al. • Two languages:Janhunen 1993; Salminen; Siegl; +Glottolog;

  16. Enets: Mutual intelligibility • TE and FE are hardly mutually intelligible [Salminen 2007]. • They are mutually incomprehensible [Siegl, Rieszler 2015]. • Данные два идиома в целом (остаются) взаимопонятны(ми)[Урманчиева 2006; Шлуинский forth.].

  17. Enets: standard form • No common written norm existed. Though both varieties are occasionally used in writing most publications are in FE.

  18. Enets: Self-identification • Different autonyms: • TE ethnic: сомату, more rarely манду; language: соматунау, мандунау • FE ethnic: онɛй энчиу”; language: онɛй база • Speakers have no common consciousness. • The common name “Enets” was artificially introduced by G.N. Prokofjev in 1930s.

  19. Enets: 1st conclusion • There are little or no reasons to treat TE and FE as dialects of one language.

  20. Selkup The main “dialect groups” are: • Northern (Taz-Turukhan) • Central (Tym-Narym) • Southern • Kety

  21. Selkup: Linguists’ opinion • Single language: all other works +Glottolog; • Single, but maybe several: Helimski 1998 • Three languages:Janhunen 1993; Salminen.

  22. Selkup: Mutual intelligibility • Taz and Middle Ob’ are mutually incomprehensible, differing approximately as much as Russian and Polish or Ydmurt and Komi [Helimski 1998];

  23. Selkup: standard form • Several written norms were developed at different times: • Southern – 19 c. • Northern – 1930s • Central – 21 c.

  24. Selkup: Self-identification • Many different autonyms: • NS: šöl’qum / söl’qup / šȫši̮qum • CS: ʨ'úmɨlkup • Kety: sissɨqum /søsʲekum • SS (Middle Ob’): šøšqum • SS (Chulym): tüjqum

  25. Selkup: Self-identification • The common name “Selkup” (on base of NS autonym) was artificially introduced by G.N. Prokofjev in 1935. • But Selkups in Tomsk region do not use it in their Russian using instead “wrong” name Ostyak or appelations based on river names.

  26. Selkup: 1st conclusion • There are complex situation.

  27. What to do? • So we can see quite unclear situations for all three “languages”. • It is perfect case to use some common measure of divergence for all Samoyedic languages.

  28. Lexicostatistics • In March 2016 I proposed to use the cognate shares [http://lingvarium.org/koryakov/Lg_vs_dt.shtml] (of 110-word lists) between varieties to clarify if they are dialects or different languages. • On base of 220 language pairs the following threshold values were calculated: • varieties having ≥92 cognate shares are dialects of one language; • varieties having ≤90 cognate shares are different languages; • varieties with 90-92 cognate shares are in transitional zone.

  29. Lexicostatistics The following 110-word lists were compiled: • Nenets: 1 list for FN and 2 lists for TN (W & E) • Enets: FE and TE • Selkup: 2 lists for NS (Middle Taz and Farkovo); 3 lists for CS (Narym, Tym, Vasyugan), 1 list for Kety and 1 list for SS (Lower Chaya).

  30. Lexicostatistics The following results were obtained: • Nenets: FN / TN = 87%, WTN / ETN = 98% • Enets: FE / TE = 88.8% • Selkup:

  31. Lexicostatistics In other words according to the lexicostatistical data: • There are two Nenets languages: FN and TN differing as much as say Russian and Ukrainian or Koryak and Chukchi; • There are two Enets languages: FE and TE differing as much as Dutch and Standard German or Finnish and Votic.

  32. Lexicostatistics • Selkup situation is more complex. • Northern dialects are quite close each to other (95%). • Central dialects are also quite close each to other (94%). • Kety is quite close to CS (93%). • SS is more divergent but not too far. Difference between CS+Kety and SS (90.5) fits in transitional zone. It equals to difference between Russian and Belorussian or Bulgarian and Macedonian.

  33. Lexicostatistics • So we can say about two or three Selkup languages. • NS vs. all other (CS+Kety+SS) (84.5%) • Or, NS vs. CS+Kety vs. SS. • More good dialect data are needed to make the choice.

  34. Lexicostatistics • So there are no clear reason to say about single “Nenets”, “Enets” or “Selkup” languages besides some tradition. • Moreover it’s may be important as for native speakers as for official organizations. For the asking say funding for language reservation or development is a bit different than asking for dialect.

  35. Terminology • It seems not too appropriate and sometimes misleading to use two-word glossonyms for separate languages. So there are proposals:

  36. THANK YOU! • KIITOS! • SPASIBA! • KÖSZÖNÖM! • email: ybkoryakov@gmail.com • http://lingvarium.org/

More Related