Selkup-Russian Contacts and their Sociolinguistic and Linguistic Consequences Olga Kazakevich kazakevich.olga@gmail.com http://siberian-lang.srcc.msu.ru http://www.lcl.srcc.msu.ru SLE 2016 , Naples, 31.08.2016

Selkup-Russian contacts began well over four centuries ago, competence in Russian was rather common among the Southern Selkups (the Middle Ob basin) by the beginning of the 20th century, but it is only since the 1920s that it started spreading in the Northern Selkup communities intensely enough to make the majority of the Northern Selkups bilingual by the 1960s (Prokofieva 1966) and monolingual with Russian as their only language by the end of the second millennium.

In the paper I’ll focus on the Northern Selkup dialects still spoken by some 600 people in 14 communities. Today in all these communities the main means of communication both at home and in the community life, the dominant language (Sasse 1992) is Russian, so the process of language shift is developing in all the communities, but the level of its progress vastly varies from the communities where the language is still transmitted from parents to children in some families to those with just a handful of elderly Selkup speakers.

Meanwhile all the local varieties of Northern Selkup undergo structural changes, and the objective of the paper is to consider some of these changes in the context of the linguistic situation in each community. The question is whether the progress of the changes correlates with the progress of language shift in a particular community.

Selkup (Uralic family, Samoyed branch) Population Census 2010 RF 3649 / Speakers 1023 , Sv 600 Northern Selkup group 2346 Southern Selkup group 1181

As a starting point for the comparison, beside the existing Selkup grammar descriptions (Prokofiev 1935; Kuznetsova et al 1980; 2002), three text corpora recorded in the 1920s, 1940s and 1970s (about 60000 running words) were used. The corpus of contemporary Selkup (over 65000 running words) was formed with the texts recorded in the course of my fieldwork in Selkup communities in 1996-2015. Additional data was collected through elicitation using grammar questionnaires.

Regions of the fieldwork Northern Selkup group Krasnoselkup and Pur districts, Yamalo-Nenets autonomous area, Turukhansk districts, Krasnoyarsk territory, Southern Selkup Group - Upper-Ket, Kargasok, Parabel and Kolpashevo districts, Tomsk region

Selkup data was collected in 16 settlements time of fieldwork Population Selkup Ket, Evenki Others Krasno- selkup 1996, 2002, 2013 5068 100 % 636 12,5 % Ab. 150 EL speakers 13 Evenkis 0,3 % 4476 88,3 % Tolka, KS 1996, 2012, 2013 3820 512 32,4 % Ab. 110 EL speakers 15 Evenkis 0,4 % 3293 67,2 % Ratta 1996, 2002, 2012, 2013 241 149 61,8 % Ab. 120 EL speakers. 1 Ket, 30 Evenkis 12,8 %. No EL sp 61 25,4 % ,

Settlement, time of fieldwork Population Selkup Ket, Evenki Others Sidorovsk 2013 12 100 % 11 92 % 5 EL speakers 1 8 % Chaselka 2013 30 26 87 % Ab. 15 EL speakers 4 13 % Bystrinka 2011 66 62 94 % Ab, 50 EL speakers 6 % ,

Settlement, time of fieldwork Population Selkup Ket, Evenki Others Tarko-Sale 2000, 2001, 2009, 2011 24000 100 % 174 0,15 % Ab. 30 EL speakers 23826 98,85 % Tolka, Pur 2000, 2001, 2011 103 97 95 % Ab. 60 EL speakers 6 5 %& Farkovo 1999, 2003, 2014, 2015 327 246 75,2 % Ab, 40 EL speakers 19 Kets No EL sp 4 Evenkis 2 EL sp 58 17,7 % ,

Settlement, time of fieldwork Population Selkup Ket, Evenki Others Turukhansk 1999, 2003, 2006, 2014, 2015 5670 100 % 60 1,1 % Ab. 20 EL speakers 209 Kets Ab. 20 Elsp 34 Evenkis Ab 20 ELsp 4860 95,6 % Sovrechka 1998. 2006, 2014 166 34 20,5 % 4 EL sp 23 Kets 115 Evenkis Ab 70 ELsp 14 8 % Baklanikha 1999, 2003 43 2 2 EL sp 19 Kets 2 Evenkis 16 37 % ,

Settlement, time of fieldwork Population Selkup Ket, Evenki Others Surgutikha 1999, 2005 192 100 % 3 3 EL speakers 44 Kets 1 Evenki 144 98,3 % Kellog 2005, 2009, 2015 324 2 1 EL sp 241 Kets 74 % Ab 50 ELsp 81 26 % ,

Local Dialects of Northern Selkup: text collections Recording time Number of texts, publications Graph. repr. Sound Video Middle-Taz 1925-1928 36 (3 publ) + - 1970-1977 25 (all publ) (+) 1996, 1999 8 2002, 2009, 2014, 2015 19 (3 publ ) Upper-Taz 3 (all publ) 8 (4 publ) 2002, 2005, 2012 27 (1 publ) ,

Baikha Upper-Tolka Yelogui 1925-1928 12 (1 publ) + - 1941 94 (6 publ) Local dialect Recording time Number of texts, publications Graph. repr. Sound Video Baikha 1925-1928 12 (1 publ) + - 1941 94 (6 publ) (Farkovo) 1999 19 (1 publ) 2003, 2014, 2015 17 Upper-Tolka 2000-2001 35 (2 publ) 2009, 2011 25 (4 publ) Yelogui 2005, 2015 7 (1 publ with morph. glosses) ,

Map 2

The categories undergoing most evident transformation are Number (the loss of the Dual in some local dialects); Type of conjugation of the verb (neutralisation of the opposition of the forms of the subjective and objective conjugation in some local dialects); Mood (reduction of the mood system)

Number + - +|- Local dialect Sg  Du Pl -t /-n, -ī Middle-Taz -qį / -qy, -qǟqį -į ̅/ -įj Pl -t /-n, -ī Middle-Taz + Sovrechka - Upper-Tolka Upper-Taz +|- Farkovo Yelogui

ima ‘woman’ – ima-qį ‘two women‘, ima-t ‘women’ či ‘bowler' – či-l-įj (PS2-DU) ‘your (of you two) bowler‘, či-l-yt (PS2-PL) copa-sy-qǟqį / tįmńa-sy-qǟqį ‘two brothers' ira-sy-qǟqį / ima-sy-qǟqį / ima ira-sy-qǟqį / ira ima-sy-qǟqį ‘husband and wife’

šerqo ‘enter' - šer-n-ɔ̄qy (INS-3DU šerqo ‘enter' - šer-n-ɔ̄qy (INS-3DU.OBJ) ‘they (two) entered’, šer-n-ɔ̄tyt (INS-3PL) ‘they entered’ n'ōtyqo ‘chase' - n'ōty-tįj '(3DU.OBJ) they (two) chase / are chasing’ (1) Šöt-qyn ily-s-ɔ̄qį šitty copa-sy-qǟqį Forest-LOC live-PST=3DU.SBJ two brother-FAM-DU ‘In the forest there lived two brothers’

(1) TymDy šitty qumō-qy šöt-ty qəs-s-ɔqy There two man-DU forest-ILL go-PST-DU.SBJ ‘There two men went to the forest’ (2) Šöt-qyn ily-s-ɔ̄qį šitty copa-sy-qǟqį Forest-LOC live-PST=3DU.SBJ two brother-FAM-DU ‘In the forest there lived two brothers’ But (3) Šitty ima-qy pakt-ɔ̄tyt Two woman-DU run-PL ‘Two women ran (away) (Baikha 1941)

Rudiments of the Dual in the Ttexts from Farkovo šittǟmį̅ ‘we two’ On-tį̄ ‘we two ourselves’ šittty qumō-qį ‘they two (lit. two men)’ Tįmńa-sy-qǟqį ‘two brothers’ Ima-sy-qǟqį , ira-sy-qǟqį ‘married couple’

Subjective Objective 1Sg -ak/ŋ -am/p 2Sg -anty -al 3Sg -a, -y -yt(y) Person & Numbe Conjugation type Subjective Objective 1Sg -ak/ŋ -am/p 2Sg -anty -al 3Sg -a, -y -yt(y) 1Du -į̅, -ymį̅, -ɔ̄mį̅ -εj, 2Du -ylį̅, -ɔ̄lį̅ 3Du -ɔ̄qį, -ɔ̄jį -ytį̅, -ɔ̄tį̅, -ɔ̄tįj 1Pl -ymyt/n, -ɔ̄myt/n 2Pl -ylyt/n, -ɔ̄lyt/n 3Pl -ɔ̄tyt/n

Subjective type (4) Mat qən-t-ak na qäl-ira-n mɔ̅t-ty 1SG go-FUT-1SG.SBJ this Nenets-man-GEN tent-ILL ‘I’ll go to the tent of that Nenets’. (5) Mašįp pičča sattε̄-mp-a 1SG.ACC pike bite-PSTN-3SG.SBJ) ‘A pike bit me’. (6) Mat tε̄ čɔ̄ty nəkyry-ľ sola-m mē-t-ak 1SG 2SG.GEN for pattern-ADJ spoon-ACC make-FUT-1SG.SBJ) ‘I’ll make a patterned spoon for you (two)’.

Objective type (7) Imaqota wərqy tūty-p mušyrε-̄lä įnnä ammε̄-ty old.woman big crucian-ACC cook-CV up eat-3SG.OBJ ‘The old woman cooked and ate the fish’. (8) Macō-qyt ńūty-p ńiŋkyl-n-ytį̅ forest-LOC grass-ACC pick.up-INS-3DU.OBJ ‘(They two) picked up the grass in the forest’. (9) Mat tε-̄qyńcyt ašša mi-nt-ap 1SG 2PL-DAT NEG give-FUT-1SG.OBJ ‘I will not give you’ (will not give you the hide – it is known from the context)’.

Shifting in the Conjugation type category Local dialect 1Sg Sbj&Obj 2Sg Sbj&Ob 3Sg Sbj&Obj Sovrechka -ak/ŋ -anty Sbj -a, -y Obj -yty Upper-Taz Sbj -a, -y Obj –yty Farkovo 1 -am/p -al Farkovo 2 Sbj -ak/ŋ Obj –am/p Sbj -anty Obj –al Yelogui Sbj -a,-y, -yt Obj –yt

(10) Nyŋ-aŋ aj üŋylDymB-ak stand-1SG.SBJ and listen-1SG.SB Upper-Taz (10) Nyŋ-aŋ aj üŋylDymB-ak stand-1SG.SBJ and listen-1SG.SB ‘I am standing and listening (to the sounds) (11) Kikkä-p tō pūDalDy-s-aŋ creek-ACC away cross-PST-1SG.SBJ ‘I crossed the creek’ (12) Kuccä qəs-s-anty? Qajy-p mē-s-anty? where go-PST-2SG.SBJ what-Acc do-PST-2SG.SBJ ‘Where did you go? What have you done?’

Farkovo 1 (13) Man muntyk ürō-myn-ty mē-s-am 1SG all custom-PROL-PS3SG do-PST-1SG.OBJ ‘I have done all properly’. (14) Mat tapcēly śöt-ty qən-D-am 1SG today forest-ILL go-FUT-1SG.OBJ ‘I’ll go to the forest to-day’ (15) Tat täľcēl śöt-ty qəs-s-al 2SG yesterday forest-ILL go-PST-2SG.OBJ ‘You went to the forest yesterday’

‘You will take (the fish)’ Sovrechka (16) Man taty-s-ak 1SG bring-PST-1SG.SBJ ‘I brought (my wife)’. (17) Tat mi-nn-anty 2SG take-FUT-2SG.SBJ ‘You will take (the fish)’

Yelogui (18) Qonak tətypy tü-s-yt Ket shaman come-3SG.OBJ ‘A Ket shaman came’.

Selkup written texts (19) Автономнай округ-қый источни-қа власть-қый населения ә-ң-а, илы-нтый тэпы-т территория-қын ныны обладающий соответствия-са Конституция-са Российскай Федерация-қый ныны федеральный законодательства-са, настоящий Устав-са, автономнай округ-қый законый-мы-са, избирательный права-са.

The research results show that the progress of structural changes in a particular local dialect does not correlate (or only partly correlates) with the progress of language shift in the community speaking this dialect.

Finally, it should be mentioned that in some cases the contact with Russian probably does not induce the changes in Selkup structure, but just speeds up the inner processes slowly developing in the language itself, or under the influence of the earlier linguistic contacts (Ket-Selkup or Evenki-Selkup).

Thank you!