1. “Language or dialect” question and Samoyedic languages
Yuri Koryakov
“Language or dialect” question and 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) – 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: сомату нау, манду нау
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 [ (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 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:
Old name
New name, En
New name, Ru
Autonym
Tundra Nenets
(Tundra) Nenets
(тундровый) ненецкий
nʲenəʨa’ wada
Forest Nenets
Neshan
Нещанский
nʲéʃaŋ
Tundra Enets
Somatu
Соматский
сомату нау
Forest Enets
Oney / Bay
Онейский / байский
онɛй база
Northern Selkup
Sholqup
Шёлькупский
šöl’qum / söl’qup / šȫši̮qum
Central-Kety Selkup
Chumylkup (?)
Чумылькупский
ʨ'úmɨlkup + sissɨqum
Southern Selkup
Tuyqum
Тюйкумский
tüjqum

36. THANK YOU! KIITOS! SPASIBA!
KÖSZÖNÖM!