Lexical convergence reflects complex historical processes
-
Ilia Chechuro
Abstract
This paper is an illustration of how deep historical and anthropological analyses may be of use in studies of linguistic convergence and in contact linguistics. The study reported here aims at investigating the lexical influence of Russian on East Caucasian languages. In this study, I use an extended version of the DagLoans wordlist created by the members of the Linguistic Convergence Laboratory (HSE, Moscow). I collect this list in the languages belonging to two different linguistic areas of Daghestan: the Rutul area and the Tsezic area. The two areas share many sociolinguistic features, such as the neighboring languages, multilingualism and migration patterns. However, the wordlists show completely different counts for loanwords coming from source languages with similar status (Azerbaijani and Georgian on the one hand and Russian on the other). In order to explain the observed counts, I discuss historical and anthropological data from the two regions and propose several possible explanations. With these explanations, I intend to show that studies of language contact cannot be based exclusively on geographical proximity and surface sociolinguistic profiling and should be refined by more detailed information such as cultural influence, as well as a deeper historical investigation.
Abstract
This paper is an illustration of how deep historical and anthropological analyses may be of use in studies of linguistic convergence and in contact linguistics. The study reported here aims at investigating the lexical influence of Russian on East Caucasian languages. In this study, I use an extended version of the DagLoans wordlist created by the members of the Linguistic Convergence Laboratory (HSE, Moscow). I collect this list in the languages belonging to two different linguistic areas of Daghestan: the Rutul area and the Tsezic area. The two areas share many sociolinguistic features, such as the neighboring languages, multilingualism and migration patterns. However, the wordlists show completely different counts for loanwords coming from source languages with similar status (Azerbaijani and Georgian on the one hand and Russian on the other). In order to explain the observed counts, I discuss historical and anthropological data from the two regions and propose several possible explanations. With these explanations, I intend to show that studies of language contact cannot be based exclusively on geographical proximity and surface sociolinguistic profiling and should be refined by more detailed information such as cultural influence, as well as a deeper historical investigation.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- Nominal borrowings in Tsova-Tush (Nakh-Daghestanian, Georgia) and their gender assignment 15
- Lexical convergence reflects complex historical processes 35
- The ideological background of language change in Permic-speaking communities 59
- Enets-Russian language contact 85
- Izhma Komi in Western Siberia 119
- From head-final towards head-initial grammar 143
- Russian influence on Surgut Khanty and Estonian aspect is limited but similar 183
- Quotative indexes in Permic 217
- Some structural similarities in the outcomes of language contact with Russian 259
- Why do two Uralic languages (Surgut Khanty and Erzya) use different code-switching strategies? 289
- Analyzing Modern Chinese Pidgin Russian 315
- The choice of forms in contact varieties 345
- Language data and maps 369
- Languages & language families 381
- Subject index 383
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- Nominal borrowings in Tsova-Tush (Nakh-Daghestanian, Georgia) and their gender assignment 15
- Lexical convergence reflects complex historical processes 35
- The ideological background of language change in Permic-speaking communities 59
- Enets-Russian language contact 85
- Izhma Komi in Western Siberia 119
- From head-final towards head-initial grammar 143
- Russian influence on Surgut Khanty and Estonian aspect is limited but similar 183
- Quotative indexes in Permic 217
- Some structural similarities in the outcomes of language contact with Russian 259
- Why do two Uralic languages (Surgut Khanty and Erzya) use different code-switching strategies? 289
- Analyzing Modern Chinese Pidgin Russian 315
- The choice of forms in contact varieties 345
- Language data and maps 369
- Languages & language families 381
- Subject index 383
