Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation: The Experience of the Russian School of Field Linguistics 3030793400, 9783030793401

Citation preview

Tatiana B. Agranat Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva   Editors

Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation The Experience of the Russian School of Field Linguistics

Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation

Tatiana B. Agranat  •  Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva Editors

Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation The Experience of the Russian School of Field Linguistics

Editors Tatiana B. Agranat Institute of Linguistics Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia

Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva Section of Iranian Languages Institute of Linguistics Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia

This book has been recommended for publication by the Academic Council of the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. ISBN 978-3-030-79340-1    ISBN 978-3-030-79341-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to our teachers and language consultants for their invaluable inspiration and guidance.

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Tatiana B. Agranat and Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva Part I Field Methods and Approaches Based on a Case Study of the Languages in European Russia: Theory and Methodology 2 Intermediary Language in Field Experiments��������������������������������������   17 Tatiana B. Agranat 3 Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages (A Permic Experience)��������������������������������������������   27 Maria N. Usacheva 4 The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research Methodology������������������������������������������������������������������   63 Svetlana Moskvitcheva and Alain Viaut 5 A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash Diaspora Group in the Moscow Region��������������������������   85 Marina V. Kutsaeva Part II Case Studies from the Eastern Region of the Russian Federation 6 Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift ��������������������������������������  103 Olga A. Kazakevich 7 Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer Expedition to Kellog, a Ket Village����������������������������  119 Julia E. Galiamina

vii

viii

Contents

8 Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi ��������������������������������������������  129 Maria Yu. Pupynina 9 Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 Kapitolina S. Fedorova Part III Post-Soviet Space: Fieldwork in the Western Pamir 10 Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern Iranian Languages����������������������������������������������������������������  157 Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva and Vladimir B. Ivanov 11 Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief (from the Experience of Fieldwork in Western Pamir) ��������  177 Joy I. Edelman 12 “The East Is a Delicate Matter”: Ethnopsychological Factors in the Outcomes of Fieldwork ����������������������������������������������������������������  189 Boghsho B. Lashkarbekov Part IV Experiences of Fieldwork Worldwide 13 Some Peculiarities of Data Сollection in Field Study of Isolating Languages in Vietnam ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  201 Irina V. Samarina 14 Data Collection for a Documentation Project: South Eastern Huastec (Mayan, Mexico)������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 Ana Kondic Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  239

About the Editors

Tatiana B. Agranat, Doctor habil.  is leading researcher and head of the Finno-­ Ugric Languages Group at the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, and a professor in the Department of General and Applied Linguistics at Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU). Prof. Agranat has research interests in Uralic languages, primarily the Baltic-­Finnic group, as well as the intragenetic typology of Uralic languages. She also conducts field research in the structure and functioning of minority and endangered languages, the documentation and revitalization of endangered languages, and the methodology of field linguistic research. She has led numerous expeditions to areas where native speakers of Votic, Ingrian, Vepsian, Seto and Saami languages live compactly; she is also head of the project “Expeditions along the route of M.A.  Kastren’s travels in Lapland, Northern Russia and Siberia”. As a professor at MSLU, Tatiana B. Agranat combines academic research with teaching general and specialized courses for students and postgraduate students. She is editor-in-chief of the “Rodnoy Yazyk/ Mother Tongue” linguistic journal. Her principal publications include “The first two grammars of the Votic language (publishing editor)” (St. Petersburg 2017), “Comparative analysis of grammatical systems of Balto-Finnic languages: the principles of intragenetic typology” (Moscow 2016), “Votic texts with morpheme-bymorpheme glosses” (Moscow 2012) and “Western dialect of the Votic language” (Moscow-Groningen 2007). Leyli  R.  Dodykhudoeva, PhD  is a senior researcher working in the Iranian Languages Section of the Department of Indo-European languages ​​at the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Dr Dodykhudoeva specializes in minority Iranian languages, including endangered indigenous languages and ​​ those of linguistic minorities (Pamir, Zoroastrian Dari, Gilaki and Mazandarani) in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and China. She is actively involved in field research, working with native Pamir language speakers on language documentation, revitalization and intangible cultural heritage, with particular focus on languages in a state of decline. Her articles on Pamir languages, particularly those of the Shughnani-Rushani group, Sanglichi and Ishkashimi, have ​​ been published in ix

x

About the Editors

numerous publications on Iranian languages. These include, co-authored with D.I. Edelman, the sections on “Pamir languages” and “Shugh(na)ni language” in “The Iranian languages” encyclopaedic collection edited by Gernot Windfuhr (Routledge 2009), as well as new data on the rare “Sanglichi language” widespread in Afghan Badakhshan, co-­authored with Sh.P.  Yusufbekov and published in the “Foundations of Iranian Linguistics” (Moscow 2008). Apart from her interest in the languages and cultures of minority peoples, Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva has published a number of studies devoted to the distinctive poetic and philosophical Persian vocabulary of Nasir Khusraw.

Chapter 1

Introduction Tatiana B. Agranat and Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva

Abstract  An overview of the research trajectories and orientations of Russian field linguistics established and developed by the authors is included in the present volume. We discuss the issues raised by Russian field linguists in recent decades; we consider the objectives and tasks they have applied to resolve these challenges, and reveal the methods and approaches they adopt to address them. Keywords  Research trajectories of Russian field linguistics · Methods of Russian field linguistics · History of field linguistics in Russia · Current issues in Russian field linguistics

1.1  Key Assumptions and Approaches In his work “Two approaches to the study of language,” V.A. Zvegintsev writes with reference to Wilhelm Humboldt: “Language is something permanent and at the same time at every given moment transitory... Language is not a product of activity, but activity itself.” In terms of this quote, Humboldt counterposed two types of language learning—as activity and as a result of the activity. These two types of study constitute two different understandings of the subject of linguistics. Philology is the study of documents written mostly in ancient, often dead, languages. So philological study of language means studying language as a “legacy” or, in Humboldt’s words, as a “dead” product of activity. Language as a “legacy” is studied primarily in its written form. Another feature of the philological approach to language is normativity. Correctness and normativity are needed but only in their own place—in the service of the culture of speech and in the learning process. They should not overshadow the entire field of linguistic research. According to the metaphor proposed by Joseph Vandries: “The process of the formation of written languages can

T. B. Agranat (*) · L. R. Dodykhudoeva (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_1

1

2

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

be compared with the formation of a layer of ice on the surface of a river. Ice is formed from the water of the river; or rather, it is nothing but the water of a river, but at the same time it is not a river. A child, seeing the ice, naively thinks that the river is no more, that its current has stopped. Illusion! Under the layer of ice, water continues to flow, following its bed. If accidentally the ice cracked, the water would immediately emerge. It is so with language. Written language is the icy layer on the river. The current under the ice is a people’s natural language.” Continuing this metaphor, V.A. Zvegintsev observes that the efforts of a philological, “resultative” approach to language are aimed at studying the ice layer, while under it, invisibly and imperceptibly, water flows. Of course, ice is one of the states of water, but can it provide an exhaustive picture of water quality? Can “effective” language formations give us knowledge of those qualities of language which are manifested when it is being generated? When studying language as a “resultative” construct, it is inevitably conceived separately from the human experience. Another dynamic approach involves learning language as a process. Language is not outside the human experience but is an inextricable function of it. Within this approach, we should also take into account the speech community or the speech collective, the prestige of the language, the cultural value of the language, speech or the language act, and so on (Zvegintsev 2007). In the past, linguistics was dominated by the “resultative” approach, which made it possible to study languages with an established written tradition. This approach does not apply, in principle, to non-written languages. The dynamic approach, to which the field study of languages is committed, was employed in the science of language much later. As we know, it was missionaries who first began to collect data of unknown “exotic” or so-called native (indigenous) languages. Not being professional linguists and not knowing related languages, they did not always adequately document the language data. Nevertheless, their activities cannot be overemphasized, since information about some languages has reached us only thanks to the pioneer efforts of such missionaries (see, e.g., the discussion of this issue in Widemann (1872)). In the eighteenth century, language material was collected during complex expeditions, which in many respects were carried out by insufficiently qualified personnel. Field linguistics as such began to develop in the nineteenth century. In Russia, P.K.  Uslar studied the languages of the North Caucasus, V.G.  Bogoraz—the languages of the Far East, F.  Wiedemann, A.  Ahlqvist—Uralic languages, ­ M.A. Castren—Uralic and Altaic, A. Sjøgren—Uralic, Ossetian, Georgian, and so on. In the United States, in the late nineteenth century, F. Boas laid the foundations for field studies of the languages of North American Indians, which were to be of great importance for the formation of descriptive linguistics in later years. The study of rare languages was also facilitated by the geopolitical interests of large empires, which fought for economic markets and political influence. For example, the languages of Central Asia—in particular Iranian, the so-called Pamir— came into focus during the “Great Game” at the time of the delimitation of zones of influence between Russia and Great Britain. At the turn of the century, brief

1 Introduction

3

descriptions of Tajik and Shughnani, as well as elements of Wakhi, Sarykoli, and Ishkashimi languages, were available. This trend was actively continued at the beginning of the twentieth century. The foundations of the Russian school of Pamir Studies and the traditions of fieldwork in this area were established early in the twentieth century by the anthropologist and linguist Ivan I. Zarubin, working in Tajik-Pamir-speaking communities within the borders of what was then the Soviet Union. At the time, fieldwork among these remote and isolated mountain communities was not a simple task due to their survival strategies, whereby they concealed information from outsiders; new linguistic material on Pamir and Yaghnobi languages was scarce and not easily available from other sources, so field trips to the language area were essential. Crucially, Zarubin drew attention to these minority endangered oral languages, some of them already extinct; he was one of the first to document them, work out their alphabets, and promote their written tradition. For the evolution of Russian field linguistics, Zarubin’s “method of linguistic analysis of living languages is highly influential” (Rahimov 1989: 111). Zarubin served as a role model for many of his pupils and followers such as Joy I. Edelman, key figures in the tradition of linguistic fieldwork in Iranian culture and languages, who widely adopted his approaches and methods; these have, in turn, influenced the younger generation of Russian researchers. For these scholars, the collecting and recording of cultural and language data during field trips include a process of socialization, through residing on-site for long periods; observation of the habits and verbal mode of the community from within; and the deployment of a broad set of specific data collection techniques (questionnaires, interviews, tests). This strategy entails competence in the native language, enabling the researcher to conduct direct dialogue with speakers and enhancing the process of observation and spontaneous communication during a long stay. In the present volume, this practice is  discussed by the field linguists Joy I. Edelman, Boghsho B. Lashkarbekov, Ana Kondic, and Irina Samarina. In addition, Maria Yu. Pupynina also touches on some aspects of this approach. In the second half of the twentieth century, field studies covered a significant number of languages on all continents. In the former USSR, almost all languages have become the object of field linguistics; in addition, many specialists actively joined the process, working at the junction of various disciplines, including ethnolinguistics, a discipline born at the interface of linguistics and ethnography. The Moscow ethnolinguistic school emerged from the work of the Academician Nikita I. Tolstoy in the early 1970s. According to Tolstoy, dialect is not only a linguistic territorial unit but is also ethnographic and cultural. In this context, language is seen in conjunction with folk culture, folklore, mythology, beliefs, and rituals (see, e.g., Tolstoy 1995). Annual expeditions to Polesye (a historical, cultural, and geographical region located on the territory of four countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland), which began in 1962 as dialectological expeditions, were to be a milestone in the development of the Moscow school of ethnolinguistics. From the early 1970s, when ethnolinguistics became established, the Polesye expeditions continued in line with this increasingly important discipline until 1986 (the year of the Chernobyl

4

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

accident) under the leadership of Academician N.I. Tolstoy. The participants were professional linguists but also students; several generations of field ethnolinguists were educated in this way. In their merging of educational and scientific goals, these expeditions were similar to the subsequent expeditions led by A.E. Kibrik. In later years, ethnolinguistic methods became prevalent in some other regions: various zones of the Balkans, the Carpathians, and so on (Uzeneva 2009). Among other developments, speakers themselves, who received linguistic education (e.g., Jalil Samedov, a speaker of the Archi language, see Kibrik 2007a) also actively participated in the process of describing languages. Since the 1960s, the Section of Iranian Languages of the Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of Sciences began a process of preparing native speakers as professional linguists for field and other linguistic research. As native speakers, these researchers thoroughly documented a wide range of Pamir languages. For example, Professor Shodikhon Yusufbekov, who became Head of the Institute of Humanities at the Academy of Sciences in Khorog, in the Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Region of the Republic of Tajikistan, documented Sanglichi, one of the critically threatened Pamir languages. With his help and under his supervision, the work on language documentation and field research of Pamir languages continued in Tajikistan for more than two decades. Later,  a volume (Kibrik 1972) was published in which the author took into account both his own expedition experience and the experience of foreign colleagues. The volume came to the notice of the publishing house Mouton who published its English translation (Kibrik 1977). Kibrik continued his expeditions for many decades (1967–2014); in his later works, he formulated his principles for conducting fieldwork as follows: 1. First, his main concern was that the expeditions should be collective in nature: A large team of researchers should travel to the field at the same time, each engaged in the description of “his own” fragment of the language. This method makes it possible to speed up the empirical stage of language data collection. Thus, what would otherwise take years to complete would now take several weeks. Another advantage of the collective method is that when participating in this way, the researcher works within a team; he/she functions not in professional isolation but working alongside like-minded thinkers. 2. Second, typological orientation of fieldwork and the application of structural modeling were of prime importance. The purpose of these expeditions was not only to describe the language but also to verify existing grammatical theories, identifying their shortcomings based on the data of the language being described. Consequently, an approach using elicitation (targeted surveys) was actively applied. The application of this approach is discussed especially in the chapters by Tatiana B. Agranat, Olga A. Kazakevich, Maria N. Usacheva, and Ana Kondic. According to Kibrik, the researcher of a particular language must be a theorist himself. Effective collection of material is not an observation of the behavior of speakers from the outside, but, first and foremost, a purposeful “test of the strength” of the theory and hypotheses about the structure of language: the

1 Introduction

5

researcher should “bear in mind” the hypothetical grammar of the language under study (which always underlies the observed facts); he consciously collects material on the borderline of “grammaticality,” simultaneously checking whether the grammar is correct in relation to the language under study, in correlation with the grammatical system he is preparing. For Kibrik, it follows that both the study and the description of a specific language are inevitably associated with a general or particular grammatical theory (Kibrik 1992a: 41). 3. Another principle was that fieldwork should be initiated “from a clean sheet,” without necessarily taking into account the results of previous studies (see discussion of this approach especially in the chapters by Tatiana B. Agranat, Irina V. Samarina, Ana Kondic). This principle is primarily related to the educational goals of an expedition: The researcher/student has to learn how to work with a language about which nothing or almost nothing is previously known, and how to find solutions “without any prompting.” For both students and more experienced field linguists, such a research situation is conducive to a favorable outcome. However, despite the benefits in terms of an expedition’s educational mission, the priority goal of an expedition is still research. A.E. Kibrik not only outlined his principles of fieldwork but also described this work in detail, in chronicles of the expeditions he led, (see: Kibrik 1970, 1971, 1988, 1992b, 2001, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010). For more details about the principle and organization of expeditions under Kibrik’s leadership, see Dobrushina and Daniel (2018) and Sumbatova (2018). Subsequently, almost all these principles were applied with varying degrees of consistency and continue to be applied in the Russian school of field linguistics. However, collective field trips are often inaccessible to researchers of languages on the verge of extinction because there are so few speakers: With a high number of expedition members, the number of language consultants also has to be quite large. Nevertheless, it is these languages that need urgent documentation and an increasing number of linguists make them the subject of their investigation. Most authors in this volume, although trained at university under Kibrik’s influence and having participated in his expeditions in the past, have since had to apply their own methodologies due to the declining number of speakers of endangered languages. In this regard, they have departed from the path adopted by Kibrik and no longer work in collective expeditions, although they believe that these offer advantages. Having chosen their own directions of research, many have devoted themselves to languages that are in an advanced state of shift. The total number of speakers of these languages is sometimes less than the number of members in Kibrik’s expeditions. Consequently, the field description of languages has become one of the most important areas of linguistics, since in time linguists realized that the disappearance of languages is occurring at an alarming rate and became especially evident at the end of the twentieth century. Consequently, their primary task was to document the languages of the planet. An increasing number of researchers are involved in this issue. Although the above-mentioned volume by Kibrik still serves as a tool for

6

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

Russian linguists working in the field, much has changed since its publication. These changes apply not only to the technical equipment used; for field linguists, with the emergence of new problems, the need has arisen to discuss these at greater length. Several chapters of this volume discuss the choice of language consultants and relations between members of the traditional community and the researcher; the latter could be either an “outsider,” that is, a researcher from the outside world, or a native researcher, belonging to the local community. He may also be a speaker of a neighboring related language with whom information can be shared as with a member of the native community. In these chapters, the authors categorize the prerequisites of a “model” language consultant, examining various criteria (distribution by age and/or gender; “specialists”, i.e., trusted language speakers, etc.). See discussion of this approach especially in the chapters by Olga  A.  Kazakevich, Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva, Vladimir B. Ivanov, Joy I. Edelman, Boghsho B. Lashkarbekov, Irina V. Samarina, and Ana Kondic. Samarina’s contribution is the only chapter in this volume based on a thesaurus method, which has enabled her to reveal discrepancies in the semantic aspects of vocabulary between intermediary and target languages. Several contributions raise thought-provoking issues for debate. Some chapters, notably those by Olga A. Kazakevich, Tatiana B. Agranat, Maria Yu. Pupynina, and Ana Kondic, address the specific issue of language shift, documented in various stages in the communities under study. Two chapters in this volume raise another challenging issue, concerning speakers’ attitude toward written language. In her chapter, Kondic emphasizes that the introduction of a writing system enabling people to read and write in their mother tongue gives the language a new lease of life. She considers this a positive asset for the language and for community mobilization. A conflicting viewpoint—which challenges conventional wisdom—is documented by Maria Yu.  Pupynina: As expressed by the native speakers with whom she worked, the process of writing constitutes an obstacle preventing them from using their language in an informal context. She observes that, in the process of free communication, language consultants feel hindered by the influence of standard written and literary language and its norms, in the sense that, from their perspective, written language takes no account of variations in locally-spoken dialects. In addition, most of the chapters of this volume are united by close attention to the preservation of the intangible cultural heritage of native peoples. Accordingly, in 2003, the first International Symposium on Field Linguistics was held in Moscow at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As the conference title implies, the circle of participants was not limited to Russian linguists. This event was followed in 2006 and 2009, respectively, by the second and third international conferences on Field Linguistics. From the first to the third conference, discussion of the problems of field linguistics was by no means exhausted; on the contrary, these discussions broadened in scope, and interest in them increased, as evidenced by the rise in the number of speakers, the depth and range of the

1 Introduction

7

collections of abstracts/proceedings, and the significant expansion of the geographical spread, as regards both the participants themselves and the “fields” of their activities. The following topics were covered: Methods/techniques of collecting linguistic material. Methodology for the collection of sociolinguistic data. Possible approaches to language documentation. Field observations of language changes in areas of contact. Field ethnolinguistics. New technologies in the field linguistics. Relations between linguists and language communities. Specific features of the “field” in the study of the Russian diaspora. History of field linguistics. For publications of the proceedings of these conferences, see volumes of materials of the three symposia on field linguistics held at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2003, 2006, and 2009.1 The full versions of selected articles were published in the collection of the proceedings (Polevaja lingvistika 2007). Later, session panels were regularly organized during a number of conferences, including Congresses of Anthropologists and Ethnologists of Russia. In addition to conferences and panels, a permanent seminar “News from the Field” is organized by Moscow State University in association with the Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of Sciences, where meetings host discussions of current problems of field linguistics. The present volume is intended to reflect the views of Russian field linguists; for other examples of wide current interest in this area, see also works on field methods in the United States, Australia, and Western Europe. There exists extensive literature on the problems of field linguistics, although the scope of the present volume permits us only the briefest overview of the available works. These include tutorials and textbooks: (Vaux et  al. 2003)—a primer for a 16-week semester; (Sakel and Everett 2012)—intended for student classroom use as well as for self-study; and (Scheyvens and Storey 2003)—aimed at researchers, especially postgraduate students, to help them prepare for fieldwork on issues in the developing world. Other works resemble manuals, rather than textbooks as such: (Bowern 2008) is intended for both experienced linguists and students and describes methods of field linguistics; (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011) is also addressed at both professional linguists and students; (Crowley 2007), despite its title, is geared toward advanced users. (Thieberger 2012) is dedicated to describing new methods and tools in field linguistics, shaping a new paradigm focusing on collaboration with native speakers, and on interdisciplinarity. (Gippert, Himmelmann, Mosel 2006) is intended for students and researchers involved in documenting languages and related disciplines. 1  I Mezhdunarodnyj simpozium po polevoj lingvistike. Tezisy dokladov (Moscow, 2003); II Mezhdunarodnyj simpozium po polevoj lingvistike. Materialy (Moscow, 2006); III Mezhdunarodnaja konferentsija po polevoj lingvistike. Tezisy i materialy (Moscow, 2009).

8

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

Other publications focus on a single aspect of fieldwork, in particular (Payne 2007), first published in 1997 and reprinted eight times, and on semantic problems see (Bochnak and Metthewson 2015). Finally, in some works, the authors seek to share their field experience, with no expectation that their volumes will be used as textbooks, for example, (Newman and Ratliff 2001; Sarvasy and Forker 2018), etc. Our volume is close to this genre. We are grateful to all these authors for their valuable scholarship and have referenced their research in many cases. Our work cannot cover all the topics covered in every region where Russian field linguists are working, nor include all the results of field research conducted there. As it happens, there is no chapter in this volume devoted to the study of the languages of the Caucasus, although many linguists continue to work in this region, including many of Kibrik’s former students whose works are highly regarded; several contributions were included in the volume edited by H. Sarvasy and D. Forker “Word Hunters” (Dobrushina and Daniel 2018; Sumbatova 2018). Although much has been written about the study of Caucasian languages by the founder of these expeditions, as well as by his pupils and followers (see, e.g., the two-volume collective work by Plungian and Fedorova 2017), we are far from believing that this topic is exhausted. The present volume also contains no specific discussion of work with native African-language speakers, which for extralinguistic reasons was long treated as a “quasi-field” (the term coined by A.I. Koval’). This is because for many years, in Soviet times, specialists in African languages could not travel to places where these languages were spoken. Compensating for this, a large number of students from African countries attending universities in Russia were used as language consultants. In the case of this “quasi-field,” the researcher uses the same data collection techniques as actually in the field (Koval’ 2007).

1.2  Contributions from the Field The first three parts of this volume are organized mainly on an areal basis, grouping language regions with a common geographical and sociocultural background. Part IV gives examples of the global spread and influence of Russian field linguistics. Part I opens with a chapter by Tatiana B.  Agranat entitled “Intermediary Language in Field Experiments,” which discusses the theoretical problem of whether an intermediary language should be a vehicle for the field linguist to explore the target language under study; what positive aspects can be revealed through the application of an intermediary language in field research, and what are the problems and dangers of this approach. The author concludes that the appropriateness of mastering a target language should by no means be denied but that in the light of modern techniques, the researcher should use this language in the field with caution, without giving the illusion that he speaks it as well, or at least in the same vernacular, as the native speaker. The author bases her conclusions on her field experience, obtained mainly in areas where Baltic-Finnic and Saami languages are spoken.

1 Introduction

9

In Chapter 3, “Dialogue-focused experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages (a Permic Experience),” Maria N. Usacheva refers to an experiment she conducted during fieldwork with speakers of Besermyan and Komi-Yazvin idioms (Finno-Ugric languages). In this chapter, the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and stimuli are considered (maps of different types, cartoons without sound, video recordings, photographs, 3D figures, audio materials, etc.). In addition, the author of this chapter deals with positive and negative consequences triggered by the influence of an intermediary language on a body of texts and shows that in the texts she obtained with her experiments, such interference is minimal. Chapter 4—a joint study by the Russian scholar Svetlana A. Moskvicheva and the French linguist Alain Viaut—deals with a specific issue. “The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research Methodology” describes the authors’ complex interdisciplinary methodology of sociolinguistic field research conducted in the Russian Republic of Karelia, based on data of Karelian, a Finno-­ Ugric (Baltic-Finnic) language spoken in various districts of the Republic. The aim of the study was to establish the respondents’ need for an ethnic Karelian language. The authors examine various sociopolitical approaches regarding language, notably its social status. The research tools applied—questionnaires and interviews—focus on an indication of the qualitative and quantitative features of the speakers’ attitude toward their mother tongue. This specific methodology developed by the authors can be applied to other minority languages of the Russian Federation. Finally, the last chapter of Part I, “A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash Diaspora Group in the Moscow Region,” is also devoted to the methodology of the sociolinguistic survey. Its author, Marina V.  Kutsaeva, conducts, for the very first time, a sociolinguistic field survey of a Russian internal diaspora. She describes her experience and practices while working with members of the diasporic community in the Greater Moscow area. The technique developed by the author is applicable to similar studies of diasporic communities. Part II includes chapters written by linguists working in the eastern part of Russia (Siberia and the Far East). The assumption behind this part is that, in the process of documenting and describing disappearing languages, field methods constitute the most prevalent approach, if not the only possible one, and that in the situation of language shift, field methods play a crucial role. Chapter 6 by Olga A.  Kazakevich, “Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift,” describes the author’s approaches and her experience of field linguistic work with regard to the disappearing languages of Siberia (Ket, Selkup, and Evenk). She also highlights the use of all kinds of modern audio- and video-recording techniques for fixing linguistic and extra-linguistic data. The author convincingly demonstrates that field research and documentation of endangered languages should incorporate a multidisciplinary approach. The chapter raises questions about the role of the field linguist in the transfer and preservation of language and traditional culture, and also broaches the issue of the linguist’s responsibility in this regard. The distinctive aspects of fieldwork with speakers of the Ket language are reflected in the following chapter by Julia E.  Galiamina “Object Evolving in the

10

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer Expedition to Kellog, a Ket Village.” The author describes a fairly common phenomenon in which the ­linguist, when describing a language, can influence the perception of the language in question. It should be stressed that this problem is hardly localized or typical only for one “field”; it is probably widespread and common to many languages and regions but receives little attention. See, for instance, the section on the influence of prescriptivism (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011: 207). Maria Yu. Pupynina, in Chapter 8, “Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi,” raises a number of issues relating to the Chukchi language. In general, Pupynina faces the same problems as when working with disappearing languages. She highlights the relationship between oral speech and standard written language, in situations where the written language takes no account of the variation in locally spoken dialects. Part II concludes with the chapter by Kapitolina S. Fedorova who worked in the eastern-most region of Russia—on the Chinese border, near Lake Baikal. The author, in her chapter “Communication on the Russian-Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data,” addresses the problems of collecting non-grammatical Russian expressions and phrases that, influenced by the Chinese language in the contact area, enter everyday speech but are perceived by speakers as vulgar, and so kept in secret from the researcher. Therefore, the only reliable way to obtain fully-fledged data is the constant observation and audio recording of natural speech occurring in the everyday interaction of native speakers of Russian and Chinese. However, this method has its limitations, which are described in detail in the chapter. Part III of the volume includes chapters on the specificities of fieldwork mainly in the area of the Western Pamir and adjacent regions. All three chapters are devoted to the field study of the languages of the Pamir minority groups who live mostly in the Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Region of the Republic of Tajikistan; there, these groups constitute the majority of the population, speaking up to 10 vernaculars (mother tongues). The part begins with Chapter 10 by Leyli R.  Dodykhudoeva and Vladimir B. Ivanov on the “Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern Iranian Languages.” The authors demonstrate their specific fieldwork techniques, using the latest technology to collect, interpret, and store the language data of these unwritten languages, enabling the compilation of an archive of audio language materials. They elaborate distinctive procedures of data collection designed to provide data for research and analysis, including detailed profiles of language consultants participating in fieldwork and a set of original techniques and strategies for data elicitation and collection. This approach gives them valuable insight into the worldview of native speakers as well as access to their material culture, religious traditions, and spiritual practices. Chapter 11 is devoted to layers of culture that are fading away before our eyes. Professor Joy I.  Edelman in “Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief (from the Experience of Fieldwork in Western Pamir)” refers to the history of her expeditions to the Western Pamir in the twentieth century. In the course of regular lengthy fieldwork, the author recorded precious ethnolinguistic information usually concealed from “outsiders” by local people. She describes her

1 Introduction

11

experience of communication with people in the field and her efforts to integrate with the rural community and family life in remote and isolated areas. The author examines the issues she encountered in collecting and processing little-known materials reflecting a people’s worldview which today is in danger of being lost forever. She analyses these unique observations which she documented for future generations. Illustrating her points with examples from local culture, she explains that the issues she describes are among the most significant as regards the recording and analysis of the data of languages with no written tradition, especially those spoken by small ethnic groups. Another significant aspect analyzed in this chapter is the need for accurate transmission of local concepts and phenomena, including notions or names, and their translation into the language of description. The author emphasizes the difficulties in translating and/or transmitting the notions of one culture into a language (or terminology) elaborated in the context of another culture. In Chapter 12, “‘The East is a Delicate Matter’: Ethnopsychological Factors in the Outcomes of Fieldwork,” Boghsho B. Lashkarbekov considers specific ethnopsychological factors that influence interaction with language consultants in the field, stressing that the researcher must bear in mind these factors to elicit the optimal outcomes. He formulates ethical standards concerning the collaboration of the researcher with the language consultant, emphasizing the importance of a sociable approach in the process of establishing working relations. The author draws attention to the fact that the first-time researcher—not seeking “secret” information but just starting with the basics—must first master the ability to socialize with the language consultant so that he does not refuse to communicate at all. This is no mean task because of the specificity of the region with its long forced isolation due to the population’s adherence to the Ismaili tradition. On the other hand, the author warns researchers to be aware of the codes of hospitality customary in Persianate societies; he describes situations where the obligations of a language consultant as a host, concerned with pleasing his guest, can impede the reception of trustworthy information because the host finds it inadmissible to argue with the guest or to challenge his opinions. Lashkarbekov considers a good command of the local vernacular as a key point because even native speakers can encounter difficulties in this regard (e.g., Iranian vernaculars can differ strikingly between regions). One further concern is that language consultants can give erroneous information about themselves, as the older generation of Muslims may not know the date, or even the year, of their birth because in Islamic tradition, celebrating a birthday is considered idolatry. Part IV of the volume contains two chapters by linguists working in remote regions of South-East Asia and Latin America. In Chapter 13, “Some Peculiarities  of Data Сollection in the Field Study of Isolating Languages in Vietnam,” Irina V.  Samarina focuses on problems arising from the compilation of the vocabulary database of minority languages in that country. She provides an overview of the correlation between the intermediary language and the target language, focusing on specific issues. She considers situations where the intermediary language and target language are genetically and typologically close (e.g., when both are of Vietic origin), and where they belong to different

12

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

language families but are nevertheless still typologically quite close (due to the convergence of the languages of Indochina). The final chapter is by the naturalized Australian linguist Ana Kondic who belongs to the “invisible college” (a term coined by Dolores Delgado Bernal and developed by Derek de Solla Price) of the Russian school of field linguistics. In her work, Kondic has maintained a close relationship with the Russian linguistic community over two decades. At events organized by the Institute of Linguistics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, she participated in all three international conferences on field linguistics, as well as giving presentations in linguistic seminars at the Institute on endangered languages in Latin America. In addition, she has presented several papers at the monthly “News from the Field” seminar at Moscow State University. In her chapter on working with Indian languages in Mexico, “Data  Collection for a Documentation Project: South Eastern Huastec (Mayan, Mexico),”  she describes the methods she uses to document everyday language, demonstrating how the latest digital technologies assist the linguist in recording usage of the language in all its varieties. She also highlights the benefits of video in recording facial expressions, gestures, and other body movements used to enhance verbal expression, as well as emphasizing the ethnological and anthropological components of her research and the researcher’s responsibility in helping the community preserve its traditions and cultural legacy. As mentioned earlier, research conducted by the Russian School is not limited to the topics presented in this volume. Work by Russian field linguists is ongoing in a range of areas, and we trust that their experience will continue to be shared with the wider global linguistic community.

References Bochnak Ryan, M., and Lisa Metthewson, eds. 2015. Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford University Press. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. Palgrave Macmillan. Chelliah, Shobhana, and Willem J. de Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Springer. Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field Linguistics. A Beginner’s Guide. Edited and prepared for publication by Nick Thieberger. Oxford University Press. Dobrushina, N., and M. Daniel. 2018. Field linguistics in Daghestan: A very personal account. In Word hunters, ed. H. Sarvasy and D. Forker, 79–94. John Benjamins. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P.  Himmelmann, and Ulrike Mosel, eds. 2006. Essentials of language documentation. Mouton de Gruyter. I Mezhdunarodnyj simpozium po polevoj lingvistike. Tezisy dokladov. 2003. [I International symposium on field linguistics. Abstracts of reports]. Moscow, Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). II Mezhdunarodnyj simpozium po polevoj lingvistike. Materialy.  2006.  [II International symposium on field linguistics. Materials]. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). III Mezhdunarodnaja konferencija po polevoj lingvistike. Tezisy i materialy. 2009. [III International conference on field linguistics. Abstracts and materials]. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian).

1 Introduction

13

Kibrik, A.E. 1970. “Ekspeditsii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki filologicheskogo fakulteta MGU: Dagestanskaja i Pamirskaja ékspedicii” [Expeditions of the Department of structural and applied linguistic philological faculty of MSU: Dagestan and Pamir expeditions], Vestnik MGU. Filologija, no 4. (In Russian). ———. 1971. “Strukturno-lingvisticheskie ékspeditsii po izucheniju khinalugskogo jazyka” [Structural linguistic expeditions to study the Khinalug language], Vestnik MGU. Filologija, no 4. (In Russian). ———. 1972. Metodika polevykh issledovanij (k postanovke problemy) [Methodology of field research (on the formulation of the problem)]. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russian). ———. 1988. “Iz opyta lingvisticheskikh ékspeditsij MGU” [From the experience of linguistic expeditions of MSU], Vestnik AN SSSR, no 12. (In Russian). ———. 1992a. “Tipologija i zadachi opisatel’noj lingvistiki”. In Ocherki po obschim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija [Essays on general and applied issues of linguistics] 39–46. MGU: Moscow. (In Russian). ———. 1992b. “Metodika polevoj raboty s infomantom” [Methodology of field work with a language consultant]. In Ocherki po obschim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija [Essays on general and applied issues of linguistics], ed. A.E. Kibrik, 262–287. Moscow: MGU. (In Russian). ———. 2001. “Chto takoe “lingvisticheskie ékspeditsii”?” [What are “linguistic expeditions”?]. In Za jazykom [For a language], ed. V.B. Borschov. Moscow: Azbukovnik. (In Russian). ———. 2004. “Metody kollektivnoj polevoj raboty: Shkola filfaka MGU” [Methods of collective field work: School of the faculty of philology of MSU]. Vestnik MGU 6: 24–43. (In Russian). ———. 2007a. “Kak stat’ polevym lingvistom? (Iz lichnogo opyta na OSiPLe, filfak MGU)” [How to become a field linguist? (from personal experience while studying at OSiPL, Faculty of philology of MSU)]. In Polevaya lingvistika [Field linguistics], 99–124. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). ———. 2007b. “Dialog lingvista s nositelem: v poiskakh polevogo metoda i formata lingvisticheskogo opisanija” [Linguist - native speaker dialogue: in search of a field method and format for linguistic description]. In Na mezhe mezh Golosom i Ekhom. Sbornik statej v chest’ Tat’jany Vladimirovny Tsivyan [On the interstices between Voice and Echo. Collection of articles in honor of Tatiana Vladimirovna Tsivyan] Moscow, 308–328. (In Russian). ———. 2008. “Ekspeditsionnye istorii 2: Nachalo dagestanskikh sopostavitel'nykh shtudij (1973)” [Expedition stories 2: The beginning of Dagestan comparative studies (1973)]. In Fonetika i nefonetika. K 70-letiju Sandro V. Kodzasova [Phonetics and non-phonetics. For the 70th anniversary of Sandro V. Kodzasov], 23–32. Moscow: JASK. (In Russian). ———. 2010. “Ekspeditsionnye istorii 3: Prodolzhenie dagestanskikh sopostavitel'nykh shtudij (1974–1977)” [Expedition stories 3: The continuation of Dagestan comparative studies (1974–1977)]. In V prostranstve jazyka i kul'tury: Zvuk, znak, smysl (K 70-letiju V.A.  Vinogradova) [In the space of language and culture: Sound, sign, meaning], 807–842. Moscow: JASK. (In Russian). Kibrik, Alexander E. 1977. The methodology of field investigations in linguistics (setting up the problem). The Hague-Paris: Mouton. Koval’, A.I. 2007. “Iz zametok afrikanista: Elementy metajazykovogo soznanija nositelej v kontekste polevoj raboty” [From the notes of an Africanist: Elements of metalanguage consciousness of native speakers in the context of fieldwork]. In Polevaja lingvistika [Field Linguistics], 72–81. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). Newman, Paul, and Martha Ratliff, eds. 2001. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Payne, Tomas E. 2007. Describing mophosyntax. A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plungian, V.A., O.V. Fedorova (eds.). 2017. Zhizn’ kak ékspeditsija. Sbornik statej k 50-letiju shkoly polevoj lingvistiki A.E. Kibrika i S.V. Kodzasova [Life as an expedition. Collection of articles for the 50th anniversary of the school of field linguistics of A.E. Kibrik and S.V. Kodzasov]. Moscow: Buki Vedi. (In Russian).

14

T. B. Agranat and L. R. Dodykhudoeva

Polevaja lingvistika. 2007. [Field Linguistics]. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian) Rahimov, R.R. 1989. Ivan Ivanovich Zarubin (1887-1964). In Sovetskaya étnografija [Soviet Ethnography], 111–121. (In Russian). Sakel, Jeanette, and Daniel Leonard Everett. 2012. Linguistic fieldwork: A student guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarvasy, Hannah, and Diana Forker, eds. 2018. Word hunters. Field linguists on fieldwork. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Scheyvens, Regina, and Donovan Storey, eds. 2003. Development fieldwork. A practical guide. London: SAGE Publications. Sumbatova, Nina. 2018. My fieldwork, from Georgia to Guinea. In Word hunters. Field linguists on fieldwork. ed. H. Sarvasy and D. Forker, 123–137. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thieberger, Nicholas, ed. 2012. The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork. Oxford University Press. Tolstoy, N.I. 1995. Jazyk i narodnaja kul'tura. Ocherki po slavjanskoj mifologii i étnolingvistike [Language and folk culture. Essays on Slavic mythology and ethnolinguistics]. Moscow. (In Russian). Uzeneva, E.S. 2009. “Etnolingvisticheskie metody v polevykh issledovanijakh: Opyt prakticheskogo prilozhenija” [Ethnolinguistic methods in field research: Experience of practical application]. In III International conference on field linguistics. Abstracts and materials, 148–151. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). Vaux, Bert, Justin Cooper, and Emily Tucker. 2003. Introduction to linguistic field methods. Munich: Lincom Europa. Widemann, F.I. 1872. O proiskhozhdenii i jazyke vymershikh nyne krevinov [On the origin and language of the now extinct Crevins]. Saint-Petersburg. (In Russian). Zvegintsev, V.A. 2007. Teoreticheskaja i prikladnaja lingvistika [Theoretical and applied linguistics]. Moscow: URSS. (In Russian).

Part I

Field Methods and Approaches Based on a Case Study of the Languages in European Russia: Theory and Methodology

In Part I, chapters are grouped according to two guidelines. First, they highlight and elucidate general methodological problems that are relevant in principle for field research. The second reason for grouping these chapters is regional: All the authors work in the European part of Russia. The first chapter is based on the author’s experience of working with native speakers of Baltic-Finnic and Saami languages, belonging to the Finno-Ugric group, common in the far west of Russia, while the third chapter is also based on a Baltic-Finnic languages, describing a sociolinguistic survey among speakers of Karelian in the Republic of Karelia, located in the north-­ west of Russia. The second chapter describes the author’s work with native speakers of Permic languages, (which also belong to the Finno-Ugric group of languages). Perm languages are widespread in the Udmurt Republic, the Komi Republic, the Perm Territory—west of the Ural Mountains, that is, also in the European part of Russia. The author of the fourth chapter conducts field sociolinguistic surveys among representatives of an internal diaspora in the Moscow region. In the opening chapter of Part I, “Intermediary Language in Field Experiments,” Tatiana Agranat discusses the need for the field linguist to master the object language and apply it to that language in his/her practice. She concludes that although it is in no case advisable to deny the positive effect of mastering a language under study, in various conditions it should be used in the field with care and without any illusions. In Chap. 3, “Dialogue-focused experiments in the field: Advantages and Disadvantages (a Permic Experience),” Maria Usacheva shares her experimental fieldwork techniques based on a series of tests. Through these tests, she verifies her data collected by means of elicitation and also her hypotheses concerning certain fragments of grammar; she models those factors that (supposedly) influence the given language phenomena. If her hypotheses prove correct, the results are confirmed by the experimental tests, and the researcher obtains narratives containing the language phenomena under study. This technique based on tests provides results that cannot be obtained by elicitation alone. Usacheva attempts to dispense with an intermediary language, instead presenting consultants with pictures (various maps,

16

Part I

cartoons without sound, video recordings, photographs, 3D figures, audio materials, etc.) that could serve as a trigger to produce narratives, in order to minimize the impact of the intermediary language on texts generated in the object language. In Chap. 4, “The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research Methodology,” Svetlana Moskvicheva and Alain Viaut attempt to document and estimate the need for respondents to keep their ethnic language, from sociolinguistic and psychological perspectives. In their fieldwork in the Republic of Karelia, they detected the frustration of speakers who could not speak their mother tongue, yet who felt the need for an indigenous language, even if its role was purely symbolic. As a result, the authors have elaborated their own complex interdisciplinary methodology identifying the parameters associated with the social image of the Karelian language. They go on to provide an analysis of the mother tongue as it is represented in the minds of native speakers. Finally, in Chap. 5, “Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash Diaspora Group in the Moscow Region,” Marina Kutsaeva introduces her own methodology developed in the course of her fieldwork. This chapter is distinctive in that it is the only case study of an internal diasporic group living in an urban area (Greater Moscow) in dispersal mode. The results of the research are based on a sociolinguistic survey and statistical data. The questionnaires that were developed include questions on respondents’ bio-profile, language skills, usage of various languages, and problems of language loyalty and devotion to the ethnic culture. This field research not only studied the functioning of the Chuvash language in the Moscow region but it also provides a methodology to facilitate further studies of other languages in the conditions of an internal diaspora. All four chapters in this part contain not only theoretical postulations but also the authors’ personal descriptions of their field experience.

Chapter 2

Intermediary Language in Field Experiments Tatiana B. Agranat

Abstract  The chapter deals with the choice of an intermediary language when working with a consultant. Surprisingly, the relationship between the language under study and the intermediary language is still being debated. There are several points of point of view: an extreme one, shared by increasingly few linguists, that only a native speaker can adequately describe a particular language; a less radical one—“constructing a description of the target language is pointless if one is unable to speak it fluently”; and the opposing one—“it is absolutely unnecessary to master the language.” Consequently, we need to answer at least two questions. First, how relevant is communication with a consultant in the language under study, if the consultant is a bilingual person who is fluent in the native language of the researcher? Second, communication with a consultant in his own language is surely not possible in most cases. The chapter provides examples from the author’s field experience, demonstrating the lack of feasibility in communicating with a consultant in the language under study. In no case would one deny the feasibility of mastering this language, but using it in the field in modern conditions, one needs to be careful and to have no illusions.  Keywords  Intermediary language · Language under study · Communication with a consultant

2.1  Introduction We understand field linguistics as a complex of linguistic methods directed toward the independent creative study and description of a living language that is not native for the investigator (Kibrik 1977: 2). Linguistic information in this case is extracted through an experimental method. A native speaker of this language (consultant), T. B. Agranat (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Moscow State Linguistic University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_2

17

18

T. B. Agranat

who is not an investigator, is used as a “generator” of data on a target language. The consultant serves as the basic investigative “tool” of the linguist and when used wisely will provide the linguist with those facts about the target language that interest him. Here the consultant is considered to be dependent on the investigator, and rather than being an unregulated “generator” of data, he is a means of eliciting the kind of information the investigator has requested» (Kibrik 1977: 4). This “generator” of data is “managed” by means of an intermediary language. “Field linguistics opens up huge opportunities for the researcher to experiment with the language under study. In almost all cases, sufficient “equipment” for experiments is a good command of the intermediary language. In this way, the accessibility of the experiment in linguistics is immeasurably greater than the possibilities available to researchers in natural sciences” (Testelets 2003: 89).

2.2  R  elationship between the Language under Study and the Intermediary Language The relationship between the language under study and the intermediary language is still, surprisingly, the subject of some debate. There is an extreme point of view shared by an ever-decreasing number of linguists that only a native speaker can adequately describe this language; a second, less radical view contends that “constructing a description of the target language is pointless if is one unable to speak it fluently” and finally, the exact opposite opinion—“it is absolutely unnecessary to master the language” (Kibrik 1977: 52). Some time ago (in Kibrik 1977), it was noted that there are both positive and negative aspects to mastering a language under study. Among the advantages were the possibility of using the language under study as the intermediary language, that is, of working with monolingual consultants; the ability to work with text without an interpreter; and the ability to collect data, observing the natural behavior of speakers. The researcher may subject himself to self-observation. Practical knowledge of the language under study serves the researcher as an additional source of self-assertion and confidence that the model he has constructed corresponds to the facts of this language; it also enhances the authority of the researcher in the eyes of native speakers. Not attempting to gain practical mastery of the language also has its advantages: Since an explicit knowledge of the grammar does not follow from knowledge of the language, the investigator need not expend a great deal of effort unrelated to the accomplishment of his primary aim; mastery of the target language is always relative and if the investigator is not critically aware of his degree of mastery, he may produce ungrammatical utterances and consider them to be grammatical; the peculiarities of the structure of the target language are immediately evident to the investigator who does not know the language, and he often notes facts that the person who has learned the language does not notice, since at the level of practical mastery

2  Intermediary Language in Field Experiments

19

the rules that define these facts have been absorbed into the investigator’s subconscious (Kibrik 1977: 52–53). This last phenomenon has apparently been observed by many researchers. (I also had to face a situation when a professional linguist, a Hungarian speaker who kindly agreed to act as consultant, did not notice “at close range” elements of his native language that were apparent to me as a student at the time.) Sometimes (e.g., in the case of a field survey by Western researchers of isolating syllabic languages in Vietnam), the positive role lies in the fact that the language of description is genetically and typologically very distant from the intermediary language and the language under study. We can then observe that a person who knows a language under study or a typologically close intermediary language does not pay enough attention to the distinction between these languages. In another case, the same result can be seen in the following: the genetically close language under study and the language of description  are “separated” by the intermediary language belonging to another language family (see Samarina this volume).

2.3  Linguist Versus Native Speakers A.A.  Burykin unreservedly advocates the socialization of the linguist within the language community, which leads to “equalizing him in status and rights with all other users of the language,” while the rejection of socialization generates opposition between the “linguist” and “native speakers.” The first specialists in the languages of the peoples of the North of Russia, most of whom spoke these languages, lived and worked for a long time among the studied peoples, and for them, mastery of the language was equal to socialization within the language community (Burykin 2003: 31). Nevertheless, it seems that the opposition “linguist”—“native speakers”—cannot completely disappear because “the researcher is just another person and never (except in cases of introspection) can completely “merge” with the object (i.e. the speaker), even when he is identical to it on all other points. However, it is possible to make the opposition “one of us, our own, ours”—“other, a stranger,” less noticeable, to narrow the gap between “one of us” and “not one of us”” (Vakhtin 2002: 318). All researchers working in the field with consultants know that the quality of the experiment can directly depend on the extent to which their consultants consider them “one of their own, close ones.” For example, when collecting information on the spiritual culture of ethnic groups in Western Pamir, “direct questioning of native speakers and bearers of local culture and, accordingly, the direct narrative of consultants largely depends on how “close” to them is the researcher, and how prepared he is to correctly perceive information” (Edelman 2003: 96). Is socialization a panacea in this case? Could it be that “if on the basis of some criterion there is inequality in the studied society, then the object (i.e. speaker) will determine the otherness of the researcher on this basis (on the principle “one of our own, one of us,” as opposed to “one of them, other, stranger”) and will interpret it in accordance with the existing situation in the given society” (Vakhtin 2002: 31). In

20

T. B. Agranat

that case, even practical mastery of the language under study will not help. N.B. Vakhtin deals with the situation when two folklorists work in a hypothetical village; the first is from this village, the second is from the city, but has been coming to the village for several years and is well acquainted with many residents. For the culture being studied, which of them is more “our own”? “Obviously, there can be a huge and incalculable number of variants and combinations here” (Vakhtin 2002: 317). Moreover, although, having visited native speakers of the Votic language for several years, I did not set myself the goal of practically mastering the language under study, a few consultants nevertheless told me a phrase that cannot be overestimated as regards recognition of “our own” in society, and its influence on the quality of the field experiment: “You are already like a relative for us!” It is clear that the first specialists on Northern Russian communities worked in conditions of much better language preservation than the modern generation of linguists, because today the “linguistic expedition begins to somewhat resemble emergency archaeological excavations: it may easily turn out that the language material that is not documented today will simply cease to exist tomorrow” (Kazakevich 2007: 87). Therefore, clearly, today it is worth reconsidering the problem of the linguist’s socialization and the question of abandoning the intermediary language as one of the features of socialization. Burykin identifies, in particular, the possibility of dialogue with monolinguals as one of the main features of the strategy of socialization. But the fact is that the first specialists in the languages of the peoples of Northern Russia, whom Burykin cites as an example, worked at a time when consultant-monolinguals prevailed, while bilinguals did not often meet a high level of Russian language proficiency. Nowadays, the situation has changed dramatically: “An artificial quasi-­ communication network consisting of a linguist, his bilingual assistant, and monolingual consultant” is a thing of the past. “Representatives of indigenous minorities of the North, who do not speak Russian at all, are very rare today. They can be found only in the older generation or among pre-school children of reindeer herders who lead a nomadic way of life (among the Tundra and Forest Nenets or among the Chukchi). It should be noted that older people who do not speak Russian are usually not monolingual: in addition to their ethnic language, they speak the language (or languages) of their neighbours” (Kazakevich and Kibrik 2005). It has been noted that since the late 1970s, with generational change in the study of languages and cultures of the peoples of the North, the bilingualism of the autochthonous population has become one-sided (Burykin and Sharina 2005). However, it is difficult to agree that linguists’ rejection of socialization is such a serious factor that it can negatively influence the language situation as Burykin described (see Burykin 2003). As for language building with the participation of Russian-native language bilingual speakers, whose positive role is discussed by Burykin and S.I. Sharina (see Burykin and Sharina 2005), it should not be forgotten that it was a double-edged sword. In those times, learning to read and write in the native language was initiated by the government mainly so that indigenous language speakers could learn Russian through their native language. The school syllabus for indigenous language speakers also provided for the compulsory study of the Russian

2  Intermediary Language in Field Experiments

21

language in the first grade and the gradual transition to Russian as the main means of education in the second grade (see See Kazakevich and Kibrik 2005). Another feature of the strategy of socialization is the possibility for the researcher to acquire his own status as a linguistic personality: In this way, he exactly achieves his goal—correct description of the phonetics and grammatical system, documentation of ethnographic stories and folklore, translation and interpretation, the ability to perform or improvise folklore texts, to write poems or prose in the language under study, to benefit from local printed or electronic media, and so on (Burykin 2003). It is unlikely that anyone will dispute that correct description of the phonetics and grammatical system, or the documentation of ethnographic stories and folklore, is part of the tasks of Language and Culture Studies; however, writing poetry or prose or using the media are functions of the native speaker, not the researcher.

2.4  I ntermediary Language = Language under Study: Some Problems It seems that the abandonment of the intermediary language (Russian language) as one of the identifiable features of the strategy of socialization in communicating with ethnic representatives is most relevant to the problem of the field experiment. First, is it appropriate, in conditions of practically universal ethnic group-Russian (natsional’no-russkiy) bilingualism, to communicate with a consultant in his own language, and secondly, is it not utopian in most cases to do so?  As regards expediency, Estonian linguists who study the Votic language (closely related to Estonian) communicate with consultants only in Votic. Monolingual speakers of the Votic language have long been a thing of the past. In one instance, a researcher, who knows Russian well, nevertheless tried to obtain dictionary information without referring to the intermediary language. As an incentive, she presented the consultant with the Votic word suur iiri “big mouse.” The consultant reasonably explained in her native language that a big mouse is… a big mouse! Attending the interview, I obviously had no right to interfere in someone else’s experiment, although I felt sorry for the consultant. After 10 minutes, the researcher gave up on her ideals and gave the Russian word “rat” as an incentive, which was immediately answered in the Votic language. We now consider communication with the consultant in his own language: N.I.  Tolstoy, instructing newcomers before an ethnolinguistic expedition to Polesye,1 stressed that it was impossible to speak with consultants in their “dialect,” but possible only in literary Russian language, which they passively possess, thanks to mass media. The fact is that it is impossible to really speak a dialect that is unique to each village, and two reactions are possible to a certain stylized form: consultants may  For details about ethnolinguistic expeditions led by N.I. Tolstoy, see Chap. 1.

1

22

T. B. Agranat

think that the researcher is “a bit odd,” or they may provide an incorrect form that does not exist in the given dialect, but is just borrowed from the linguist, believing that visiting persons must be educated and know best “as they should.” Despite the strong recommendation of N.I.  Tolstoy, one of the Polesye expedition members decided to become more “one of their own” in their society, “imitating” the dialect for this purpose. Fortunately for the field experiment, the response of consultants was the first of the two possibilities mentioned above: Consultants thought that the researcher was “a bit out of the ordinary”. By definition, the language studied in the field is not codified, so it could more appropriately be called an “idiom under study.” How many close idioms should or need a linguist who works in the field master? We know that even in the dialects of neighboring villages, there may be morphological differences. In modern conditions, with a decrease in the number of speakers of already “minor” languages, the dialect continuum turns into an “idiolect continuum and/or a mixture of codes” (Muslimov 2005: 23). In Western Ingermanland, “in the event of an idiolect continuum, the boundary between languages/dialects was blurred, and its exact definition proved impossible even on the basis of sociolinguistic criteria” (Muslimov 2005: 23). Nevertheless, the researcher M.Z.  Muslimov succeeded in “talking in free form in the language used by the consultant (italics added by the author), using leading questions,” applying it as the main method of data collection (Muslimov 2005: 4). Often, right before the eyes of a linguist, “a change in the linguistic structure occurs, and this change develops so rapidly that it is possible for representatives of different generations to simultaneously observe its different stages in the same village” (Kazakevich 2005). The author of the present chapter also recorded different stages in the transformation of postpositions into case affixes in one Vepsian village in different generations of speakers (see Agranat 1994). Thus, it becomes more and more difficult to communicate with each consultant in his idiom. And in a new situation characterized by the “spreading of the phenomenon of language shift on a global scale” (Vakhtin and Golovko 2005: 51), and the consequent emerging problem of “studying language contacts, simplification processes and changes in linguistic systems in conditions of language shift, switching and mixing of codes” (Vakhtin and Golovko 2005: 50), this task becomes completely impossible. There is one further point of interest. The linguist believes that he communicates with the consultant in his language, but what does the consultant think about this? As already mentioned earlier, the Estonian researcher conducted a long interview in my presence with the same consultant to identify the cultural values of Votic people. When she finished her interview, she asked me if I understood the dialogue. I honestly replied that I understood everything the consultant said, but I understood her badly. The researcher modestly replied that it was because she spoke Votic poorly. However, the most impressive aspect was the reaction of the consultant who pointed out that she was sure that the researcher had spoken in Estonian. (In this connection, we might recall the remark cited previously by A.E.  Kibrik that “mastery of the target language is always relative” and the consequences of an uncritical attitude to the degree of proficiency in this language).

2  Intermediary Language in Field Experiments

23

An episode which Terry Crowley describes from his field experience is worthy of note in this regard “When I first made my decision to do fieldwork in Vanuatu, I knew that I would be operating largely through the medium of Bislama, which is the name by which Melanesian Pidgin is known locally. One linguist had produced a set of language lessons with accompanying tapes for Tok Pisin, the variety of the same language that is spoken in nearby Papua New Guinea, so I began working through those. When I first arrived in Vanuatu, I planned to spend a month learning how to “convert” my knowledge of Tok Pisin into Bislama. When I finally left for my field site of Paama, while I was certainly not confident in Bislama, I felt that I at least had sufficient command of the language to explain the purpose of my visit.… And even though I had put such a lot of effort into my Bislama, something like twenty years later I was reminiscing with somebody about my early days on Paama. He commented that people at the time found it quite difficult to talk to me because I “couldn’t speak Bislama.” At the time, I thought I was speaking Bislama, but local people clearly had a somewhat different perception!” (Crowley 2007: 64–65). One further point: Since at present most of the languages studied in the field are in a “damaged state,” the question arises as to whether the modern researcher has time to spend a significant amount of effort “not directed toward the accomplishment of his direct aim”? (Kibrik 1977: 52). A.A. Burykin believes that the strategy of language learning by a linguist contributes to the growth of the prestige of the described language, since it then acquires a function as the language of interethnic communication and additionally a socially initiating function—the function of including a new user in the community. This usually works for the community’s younger generations, although in “threatened” languages it is lost (Burykin 2003). Nowadays, the prestige of disappearing languages for their speakers is more the exception than the rule. (We note an atypical case of the relationship to language in the village of Tolka Purovskaya, see (Kazakevich and Kibrik 2005). Consequently, colleagues working in the field, in completely different regions, observe that languages suddenly acquire value for their speakers when the latter sees interest in their language on the part of researchers. At the same time, attempts by linguists to dispense with an intermediary language can taint the experiment, as mentioned earlier in connection with the Polesye expedition. Apart from the abovementioned features of the strategy of socialization, Burykin (2003) also addresses the possibility of collecting linguistic material by observing spontaneous speech and of unlimited opportunities for language experiments. Language experiments are conducted not only by field linguists but also by those who are “quasi-field” (according to the terminology of A.I. Koval’), that is those not having the opportunity to communicate with consultants in the area of their compact residence and therefore not, in any way, having the opportunity to socialize. These experiments are usually reduced to the following: “a question–answer dialogue, the obtaining of texts and their joint (with the speaker) analysis and comments, a paradigmatic survey, the establishment of permissive and prohibitive conditions of realization, the verification of facts through the speaker’s reaction, including so-­called

24

T. B. Agranat

“negative” material, in function of the scaled ratings of the speaker according to the criterion of “correctness/success”, etc.” (Koval’ 2007: 72). Clearly, there are no objections to the value of observing spontaneous speech; for example, without it, the discursive subtleties of the language would turn out to be incomprehensible. Learning to understand spontaneous speech in the field is an important part of any experiment, the responsibility for the integrity of which is borne by the linguist. However, observation of spontaneous speech does not impose on the linguist the same responsibility as an attempt to communicate with the consultant in the language under study. “Orientation to the practical mastering of the language studied, supported by the corresponding traditions of ethnographers, has since become a distinguishing feature of the Saint Petersburg linguistic school and is partially preserved until now,” writes Burykin (2003). Unfortunately, ethnographers observe this tradition only partially, and many of them fall into the other extreme, completely refusing to study the language of the ethnos under study. Meanwhile, the linguistic picture of the world eludes the researcher with “no-­ language ethnography” (term coined by Olga Kazakevich) (Kazakevich 2005: 418).

2.5  Conclusion We conclude that the desirability of mastering a language under study cannot be denied, but the researcher should use it carefully in the field in modern conditions and not feed illusions.

References Agranat, T.B. 1994. “Perehod tak nazyvajemykh agglutinatov v padezhnye affixy v korvalskom dialekte vepsskogo jazyka” [The transition of so-called agglutinates to case affixes in the Korvala dialect of the Vepsian language]. In Aktualnye problemy linguistiki i literaturnoj kritiki [Current problems of linguistics and literary criticism], 46–48. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russian). Burykin, A.A. 2003. “Problemy sotsiolizatsii linguista v jazykovom soobschestve (praktika i teorija)” [Problems of socialization of a linguist in a language community (practice and theory)]. In The 1st International Symposium on Field Linguistics. Abstracts of papers, 31–32. Institute of Linguistics RAS: Moscow. (In Russian). Burykin, A.A., S.I. Sharina 2005. “Russko-natsionalnoe dvujazychie i jego rol’ v dinamike jazykovoj situatsii u malochislennykh narodov Severa RF v 20—nachale 21 v.” [Russian-national bilingualism and its role in the dynamics of the linguistic situation of the minority peoples of the North of Russian Federation in the 20th and early 21st centuries] In The 6th Congress of ethnographers and anthropologists of Russia. Abstracts of papers, 468. Saint-Petersburg. (In Russian). Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field linguistics. A beginner’s guide. Edited and prepared for publication by Nick Thieberger. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edelman, J.I. 2003. “Sbor i obrabotka svedenij po duhovnoj kulture etnosa (iz opyta zapisej na Zapadnom Pamire)” [Collection and processing of information on the spiritual culture of an

2  Intermediary Language in Field Experiments

25

ethnos (from field experience in the Western Pamir)]. In The 1st International symposium on field linguistics. Abstracts of papers, 96–98. Institute of Linguistics RAS: Moscow. (In Russian). Kazakevich, O.A. 2005. “Jazyk v sisteme rossijskogo etnologicheskogo obrazovanija (etnografia Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka)” [Language in the system of Russian ethnological education (Ethnography of Siberia and the Far East)]. The 6th Congress of ethnographers and anthropologists of Russia. Abstracts of papers, 418. Saint-Petersburg. (In Russian). ———. 2007. “Spetsifika polevoj raboty v uslovijakh jazykovogo sdviga” [Specificity of fieldwork in the conditions of language shift]. In Polevaja linguistika [Field linguistics], 82–98. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). Kazakevich, O.A., and A.E. Kibrik. 2005. “Malye jazyki na postsovetskom prostranstve” [minority languages in the post-soviet space]. In Malye jazyki i traditsii: Suschestvovanie na grani [minority languages and traditions: Existence on the edge], 13–39. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russian). Kibrik, A.E. 1977. The Methodology of field investigations in linguistics (setting up the problem). The Hague; Paris: Mouton. Koval’, A.I. 2007. Elementy meta-jazykovogo soznanija nositelej jazyka v kontekste polevoj raboty (iz zapisok afrikanista) [Elements of meta-linguistic consciousness of native speakers in the context of fieldwork (from the notes of an Africanist)]. In Polevaja linguistika [Field linguistics], 72–81. Institute of Linguistics RAS: Moscow. (In Russian). Muslimov, M.Z. 2005. “Jazykovyje kontakty v Zapadnoj Ingermanlandii (nizhnee techenije reki Lugi)” [Language contact in Western Ingermanland (the lower course of the Luga river)]. PhD diss., Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Linguistic Studies. (In Russian). Samarina, I.V. “Nekotorye osobennosti sbora leksicheskikh i foneticheskih dannykh pri polevom obsledovanii izolirujuschikh jazykov Vjetnama” [Some features of lexical and phonetic data collection in the field survey of isolating languages of Vietnam]. (in this volume). Testelets, J.G. 2003. “Rol’ grammaticheskoj teorii v polevoj rabote” [The role of grammatical theory in fieldwork]. In The 1st international symposium on field linguistics. Abstracts of papers, 89–90. Institute of Linguistics RAS: Moscow. (In Russian). Vakhtin, N.B. 2002. “Neskol’ko zamechanij ob étike polevykh issledovanij na Krajnem Severe Rossii” [Some notes on the ethics of field studies in the Far North of Russia]. In Obychaj i zakon. Issledovanija po juridicheskoj antropologii, ed. N.I.  Novikova and V.A.  Tishkov, 316–328. Moscow: Strategia. [Custom and law. Studies in legal anthropology] (In Russian). Vakhtin, N.B., and E.V. Golovko. 2005. “Ischezajuschie jazyki i zadachi lingvistov-severovedov” [Endangered languages and the tasks of Northern Studies linguists]. In Malye jazyki i traditsii: Suschestvovanie na grani [Minority languages and traditions: Existence on the edge], 40–52. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russian).

Chapter 3

Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages (A Permic Experience) Maria N. Usacheva

Abstract  This chapter summarizes the practice of carrying out dialogue-focused experiments during linguistic fieldwork with endangered Permic idioms. The aim of the chapter is to discuss the methodological aspects of designing and carrying out experiments in the field using different methods. Keywords  Experimental linguistics · Field linguistics · Permic languages · Referential communication tasks

3.1  The Series of Experiments I Conducted It is a common practice to carry out experiments with speakers of literary languages who live in cities or towns. Field linguists do it less often, despite the fact that experiments seem to be a good method of linguistic fieldwork. After a linguist has gathered grammatical material using translation and grammaticality judgment tasks (perhaps also after s/he has analyzed data from the corpus if it exists) and has formulated a hypothesis about a certain fragment of grammar, it seems logical to check the hypothesis by modeling the factors that are supposed to influence the given language phenomenon (or phenomena). If the hypothesis is correct and the experiment is well designed, the linguist will obtain texts containing a good amount of the language phenomena he or she studies. Such experiments provide an opportunity both to verify the linguist’s statements and to observe how the factors work in speech, in vivo, which is impossible when using grammaticality judgment tasks and translation.

This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic research (grant No. 16-24-17003). M. N. Usacheva (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_3

27

28

M. N. Usacheva

The experiments described here were conducted with speakers of two Permic idioms: Beserman Udmurt and Yazva Komi. Beserman Udmurt is spoken by the Beserman, a relatively small ethnic group living in the basin of Cheptsa river and the Kirov region of Russia. There are 2,201 people who have identified themselves as Beserman. The background of Besermans is not quite clear. According to the most widespread theory, they are descendants of Bulgars who spoke a Turkic dialect and then switched to Udmurt (Teplyashina 1970: 243; Nasipov 2010: 17). There is also another hypothesis offered by Vladimir Napolskikh who affirms that Besermans are southern Udmurts who have undergone intensive contacts with Bulgar Besermans and borrowed from them certain traits of material and spiritual culture together with the ethnonym (Napolskikh 1997: 53). This hypothesis is supported by analysis of nonderived Beserman words (Idrisov 2013): 48% of them are common Permic, 17% are loaned from Russian, and 14% from Turkic languages; the other 21% do not have reliable etymologies. In other words, most nonderived Beserman words are Permic, and the influence of Turkic languages can be considered only as superstrates (Idrisov 2013: 53). Beserman idiom combines features of Southern and Northern Udmurt dialects with Turkic traits (Teplyashina 1970; Lyukina 2008). It is actively used in everyday communication by people older than 30, but children and teenagers only understand Beserman, without speaking it. As for Yazva Komi, they have lived along the Yazva river in Krasnovishersk region (Perm Territory, Russian Federation) since the sixteenth century (Chagin 1993: 6). During the last census (see Russian population census 2010), Yazva Komi were registered as Zyrians, so the exact size of the Yazva population is unknown. According to Vasiliy Lytkin (Lytkin 1961), there were about 4000 of them in 1940s–1950s. The society of Yazva Komi is relatively closed; the members are united by religion (Orthodox Old Believers). The morphology of Yazva Komi is more or less close to that of Permyak with certain archaic traits. For example, the former has a quite rich, detailed deictic system that comes from Proto-Uralic (Fedyunyova 2009). As for phonetics, Yazva Komi conserved an original and quite complicated system of stress and vowels preserved in no other Permic idiom (Lytkin 1961: 24). The vocabulary is highly influenced by Russian. Yazva Komi is spoken only by people older than 40 in everyday communication; young people only understand it, children and teenagers can neither speak nor understand it. This chapter is based on the experiments conducted in 2010–2017. We carried out the first series together with Olga Biriuk in January–February 2010 in the village of Shamardan (Yukamenskoye district, Udmurtia, Russian Federation). The goal was to test hypotheses about the influence of certain factors of information structure on the choice between synonymous synthetic local case forms of nouns and phrases headed by spatial relational nouns. Spatial relational nouns are those that function as heads in spatial NPs with nominal dependents and express relationships between the figure and the ground (Starosta 1985; DeLancey 1997). The experimental series included two types of referential communication tasks1 (putting  For detailed description of referential communication tasks method see Sect. 3.4.

1

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

29

colored pictures on a large black-and-white image and moving wooden puppets through a landscape model) and retelling the plot of a mute cartoon fragment. Eleven Beserman speakers participated in the experiments: two 28-year-old women, three women under 40, and six men under 40. All of them spoke Beserman as their mother tongue, also Udmurt and Russian which they learned at school. During the experiments, we taped and transcribed more than 4.5 h of oral speech. Later, in June and July 2016, Timofey Arkhangelskiy and I repeated this series of experiments with Yazva Komi in Vankova (Krasnovishersk region, Perm Krai, Russian Federation). The goal was to gather as many different spatial language units (spatial relational nouns, deictic elements, and local case forms of nouns from different semantic classes) as possible. The cartoon fragments and pictures with the large image were the same as in 2010; the landscape model was designed to resemble the area of Vankova, and we added scenes with a plane flying above the area and a car moving along the roads. There were four participants in the experiments, two men and two women older than 50, and we obtained approximately 2 hours of oral speech. In August 2017, we also conducted a series of referential communication task experiments to check the grammatical marking of adjectives in noun phrases. We recorded three dialogues from four women and two men older than 50 (about 2 h of speech). Another series of experiments took place in Shamardan, Udmurtia, Russian Federation in January 2015. The goal was to test the hypothesis about the influence of certain factors of syntax (several types of ellipsis: comparative deletion, Ń-ellipsis, right node raising, and coordinative construction) and information structure (topic/ focus, contrast) on case compounding forms in Beserman. The tasks were to place pictures on a large colored image of Shamardan area2 and to repeat certain actions with wooden puppets, cars, and some other small toys on a model of Shamardan area. The speakers (four men and four women under 40) were also asked to retell the plot of a mute cartoon, but this experiment was unsuccessful: no forms with case compounding appeared during the retelling. As a result, we obtained about 4 hours of relevant dialogues. Experiments in case compounding with special attention to the direct object (DO) position were conducted in Shamardan in January 2016. We obtained no examples of case compounding on direct objects in January 2015, so I decided to change the design. Beserman speakers (four men and four women under 40) had to place cards on the table in front of them in a certain order. The result was about 2 hours of dialogical speech. In August 2017, we conducted two series of experiments in Shamardan. During the first of them, the participants were asked to explain to each other the words (Beserman infinitives) written on cards we gave to them. One speaker explained the words without mentioning them, and the other had to guess them. After discussing one word, the participants changed the roles. The goal was to gather new words for our Beserman-Russian dictionary and to obtain natural usage examples for the words we already had. We recorded about 6 hours of dialogues

 The photo was made by Olga Pozdnyakova.

2

30

M. N. Usacheva

from five women and one man aged under 40. In another series of experiments carried out together with Timofey Arkhangelskiy, Elena Sokur, and Tatiana Panova, we tested a hypothesis about the influence of topic/focus distinction, contrast, and interpretation of a proposition on the noncanonical grammatical marking of adjectives. In the first experiment (comprising referential communication tasks), the participants were looking at a set of pictures representing a story. They had to discuss them to find the differing pictures in their sets. The second experiment involved four participants. Two of them had a list of sentences that they were asked to translate from Russian into Beserman. The sentences from the two sets differed from each other in some small details. The translated sentences were told to the other two participants who had to discuss them to decide which of the two pictures lying in from them did fit the sentences and which did not. During this series of experiments, we transcribed three hours of speech from six women aged younger than 60. While conducting the experiments described here, we collected a number of insights and theoretical observations on the design and conduct of fieldwork experiments. We will discuss them here, starting with a brief overview of experimental methods linguists use while working in the field.

3.2  Experimental Methods in Linguistics: A Short Overview Conducting experiments is quite common in linguistics. The experiment is the main method of investigation in psycholinguistics, and experiments are also used in large typological projects as a means of gathering comparable data from different languages. However, when studying concrete grammatical phenomena in the field, experiments are seldom conducted. As a rule, they are only an optional addition to grammaticality judgment tasks; a brief description of such works will be given subsequently. In this paper, I argue that that the use of experiments as one of the main means of gathering information in the field has many advantages. In typological projects, experiments are usually conducted when one wants to study the encoding of space. Corpora of endangered languages (especially of ones without written tradition) are usually relatively small as they are gathered and annotated manually. Units with spatial meanings do not occur very often in spontaneous texts and narratives (which usually constitute the main part of such corpora), so the quantity and variety of the constructions to which they belong can be insufficient for a broad typological study. With the help of experiments, one can gather enough examples of the kind needed. As a rule, during such experiments, speakers are asked to describe what is drawn on pictures or what is happening in short video fragments. Below there are several examples of pictures used for studying topological relations (BowPed series) in Nijmegen (Bowerman and Pederson 1992) (Fig. 3.1): Linguists participating in projects aimed at the description of the grammatical encoding of narratives in situations, such as putting something somewhere and taking something out of somewhere in different languages (Bowerman et  al. 2004), encoding of trajection (Fortis et  al. 2017), and other dynamic spatial situations

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

31

Fig. 3.1  Cards used during experiments on topology. (Bowerman and Pederson 1992)

Fig. 3.2  Example of an experimental card set. (Boroditsky et al. 2008)

usually use video fragments. Such fragments represent situations such as putting a brick into a saucepan filled with water, a man pulling a suitcase from a car (Bowerman et al. 2004), a woman running through a cave (Fortis et al. 2017), and so on. In a project devoted to the expression of time in space (Boroditsky et  al. 2008), small sets of cards like these are used (Fig. 3.2): For some tasks, it is more convenient to create stimuli of different kinds—for example, sounds (see Tufvesson 2007). In some projects focusing on concrete endangered languages, three-dimensional (3D) stimuli are used instead of cards. Thus, for studying adpositions in Erzya, Heini Arjava (Arjava 2016) chose a set of Lego toys which included the following figures: a tree, a teapot, cups, a cart, a parrot, and a stewardess. The speakers were asked (in Erzya) to describe the configuration of the figures. All the experiments cited involve nonverbal stimuli—that is, figures, sounds, videos, or cards that do not contain any language units like words, sentences, etc. It is the type of experiments that constitute the focus of the present paper. In experiments of another kind, language stimuli are used. A quite recent example is the series of experiments described by Lenore Grenoble and her co-authors (Grenoble et al. 2019). The series was conducted to find out how the speakers of Kalaallisut (an Unangan-Yupik Inuit language) categorize terms of landscape and seascape. During the experiments, the speakers were given cards with Kalaallisut words and were asked to divide them into groups based on any motivation they prefer. This is an interesting example of the use of word stimuli in a study connected to spatiality because this topic is usually studied from a quite different point of view. Stimuli that

32

M. N. Usacheva

involve language units are frequently used in linguistic experiments, but I will not discuss them here. As with any method, each of the techniques based on nonverbal stimuli has its advantages and drawbacks, which I would like to discuss here.

3.3  Experiments: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Conditions All the experiments I just described have certain advantages. First, the influence of the intermediary language is minimal (in comparison to grammaticality judgment tasks). Second, such experiments are very well suited to typological investigations, as the linguist can offer the same stimuli to speakers of different languages. Third, for speakers, it is much easier to describe what they see than to translate sentences. Consequently, texts recorded during experiments are usually more natural than examples collected with the help of questionnaires, especially if the speakers seldom use their mother tongue. When my colleague asked one of the Yazva Komi speakers to translate the sentence “The shop stands in front of the house” from Russian, the speaker used a Russian word for “in front of” and insisted this was the only way to express this meaning in Komi. But during the experiment on space, the same speaker strongly tended to use a Yazva word. With advantages come disadvantages, and those of the experiments described previously can be crucial. The most important of these is the lack of context. When a linguist offers a speaker visual or audio stimuli and asks him to describe them, he never knows which interpretation the speaker would choose. But this factor can influence the choice of concrete units and even grammatical marking (at least in some languages). Thus, in Udmurt (also, for example, in Moksha, see Kozlov 2015), the choice of the local case of spatial groups attached to certain verbs depends on whether or not the speaker is empathetic toward the group, which cannot be established without context. Compare the following examples from Beserman Udmurt taken from Beserman Corpus of Oral Speech (BCOS) available at http://www. beserman.ru/corpus: saldat soldier

aź-lań front-appr naśk-o look-3pl:prs

žad́-i-z, get. tired-pst3(sg) č́ ašja-t́i forest-prol krugom, around

kušt-i-z, throw-pst-3(sg)

šə̑deč́ ik-i-z-ə̑, have.a.rest-pst-3-pl

i and

mə̑n-i-z-ə̑. go-pst-3-pl č́ ašja forest

tak, so pəl-ə̑ medium-ill

dugd-i-z-ə̑, stop-pst-3-pl aldaśk-i-z-ə̑. get.lost-pst-3-pl

ap̓at́ again

“The soldier got tired, threw [the man down], they had a rest and went straight ahead through the forest. Ok, they stopped and are looking around: they got lost in this forest!”

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

33

(Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) mə̑n-i-z-ə̑, go-pst-3-pl

mə̑n-i-z-ə̑, go-pst-3-pl

pejmə̑tč́ ik-­ə̑nə̑ get.dark-inf

kuč́ k-i-z, i begin-pst-­ and 3(sg) (aldaśk-i-­z-ə̑ č́ ašja-­jə̑n), kud-lań get. forest-loc which-appr lost-pst-3-pl

tod-o know-3pl:prs

ǯ́ ə̑t=no vu-i-z=ńi, evening=add come=pst-­ 3(sg)=already tare so-os then that-pl

i and

ug=ńi neg=already

mə̑n-ə̑nə̑? go-inf

“They were going and going, it began getting dark, and then they do not already know where to go (they got lost in the forest).” (Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) In Example (1), the speaker focuses his attention on the forest the heroes are going through and uses the illative case to highlight that the heroes have changed their state. The postpositional phrase č́ ašja pəl-ə̑ ‘forest medium-ILL, into the forestʼ is focal. In Example (2), the speaker tells us that the heroes do not know where to go. The fact that they have lost their way is interpreted as background to the situation, and the topical phrase č́ ašja-jə̑n  ̔forest-LOC, in the forestʼ bears a locative case marker. Lack of context can also result in the experiment’s failure. For most speakers with whom I worked, it was difficult to speak their mother tongue if they did not understand the situation they had to describe or if the situation was unnatural for them. Subsequently, we indicate the retelling of a fragment of a cartoon “Zlydni” (Kovalj 2005). We offered this fragment to a Beserman speaker and asked him to explain what is going on. In the text given subsequently, “S” denotes “Beserman speaker” and “L” denotes linguist. The fragments indexed by BES are in Beserman Udmurt, the speaker’s native language. The nonglossed fragments indexed by RUS are in Russian, the intermediary language of the speaker and the linguist. 1. S(peaker):

gureź hill

BES

jə̑l-ə̑n top-loc

kwaška-m ruin-ptcp.pst

korka. house

“On the top of the hill there is a ruined house.” 2. S:

korka house BES

dor-ə̑n near-loc

sə̑l-e stand-3sg:prs

ə̑robo. cart

“Near the house there is a cart.” 3. S:

ə̑robo, cart

BES

i and

bud-e grow-3sg:prs

sad. tree

34

M. N. Usacheva

“A cart, and a tree grows.” 4. S: RUSeta kak, sasna vet́? ńi znaju. “What is it, a pine? I donʼt know.” 5. L(inguist): RUSda. “Yes.” gureź… hill

6. S:

BES

korka house

dor-ə̑n near-loc

bud-e. grow-3sg:prs

pužə̑m pine

“Hill… near the house grows а pine.” 7. S: RUSa źd́eś č́o eta? “And what is it, here?” 8. L:

gid́ . cattle.shed

BES

“A cattle-shed.” 9. S:

gid́ , cattle.shed

BES

da? yes RUS

“A cattle-shed?” 10. S:

gureź hill

BES

dor-ə̑n near-loc

jə̑l-a-z=ik kə̑śpu… top-loc-p.3(sg)=emph birch gid́ . cattle-shed

t́fu, ptcl

pužə̑m pine

“On the top of the hill there is a birch… oh no, near the pine there is a cattle-shed.” 11. S: RUSa kto tam? “Who is over there?” 12. S: RUSč́ o eta vyxod́ it attuda? “What is coming out of it?” 13. L:

es, door BES

gid́ cattle.shed

es, door

gid́ cattle.shed

es. door

“Cattle-shedʼs door.” 15. S: RUSdak ńet, eta ńi paxoža na gid́ es, a kak … naśt́il kakoj-ta. gid́ … gid́ es atkryvaca dolžyn vot tak vot [showing]. “No, it is not like a cattle-shedʼs door, it is like… like a planking. Cattle-shedʼs door should open this way [showing].” 16. L: RUSnu a u ńix takaja vot.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

35

“Well, they have it this way.” gid́ -len cattle.shed-gen1

17. S:

BES

es-ez, door-p.3(sg)

gid́ … cattle.shed

“Cattle-shedʼs door, cattle-shed...” 18. S: RUSńe paxož na eta, dak č́ o… “It does not look like that, what…” 19. L: RUSnu ladna, davajt́i tagda prapuśt́im. “Well, let us skip it then.” 20. S: RUSprosta ńeč́ iva, na… kak naśt́il vot tam ved́ eta… eta ńi es… “There is just nothing to… It is like a planking there… It is not a door...” 21. L: RUSnu ladno, možno skazat́, što eto «ə̑bes», v kance kancov. “Ok, one can say that it is field gate.” 22. S:

tak. well

BES

gid́ -len cattle.shed-gen1

es-ez door-p.3(sg)

uśč́ k-ə̑mə̑n. open-res

fśo. all

“Well, cattle-shedʼs door opened. That’s it.” 23. S: RUStak. a č́ o eta mužik eta … s et́im d́elajit? “So, and what is the man doing with it?” 24. L: RUStam jiśo žeńśina byla, vid́ it́i? s kuricami, snač́ ala. “There also was a woman, do you see her? With a hen, in the beginning.” 25. S: RUSguśi? “Geese?” 26. L:

kureg-jos. hen-pl.

BES

“Hen.” 27. S: RUSdyk a č́ o takiji?! “Why are they like that?!” 28. L: RUSmuĺt́ik takoj. “The cartoon goes like that.” (Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) During the 2-min recording, the speaker provided only seven short clauses in Beserman and 14 clauses in Russian, whereas the aim of retelling was to obtain a Beserman text (with as many units denoting space as possible). The reason for this failure was the poor choice of the cartoon. The scenario of rural everyday life shown in the cartoon differed greatly from the one to which the speaker was accustomed. Therefore, he could not embed the situation he was watching in any of the contexts he knew and could not verbalize it. It should be noted that not every speaker failed to describe situations he or she could not correlate with those of everyday life. There were participants with a more abstract way of thinking. They perceived hens in cartoons, on experimental

36

M. N. Usacheva

drawings, or cards as somehow not “real” creatures but as abstract figures which did not have to act “naturally.” These two ways of thinking determined the type of texts they provided during experiments. Subsequently, we compare descriptions of the same fragments of experiments on case compounding made by two pairs of Beserman speakers.3 I. 1. D(irector):

tak. so

e-d=a neg-2=q

vala understand(sg)

ton? you

“So, did you not understand?” 2. D:

tə̑nad you.gen1 kə̑k two

śə̑res road

zək big mašina. car

və̑l-ə̑n surface-loc

sə̑l-e stand-3sg:prs

“There is a big road, you have two cars standing there.” 3. M(atcher): a? “What?” 4. D:

zək big kə̑k two

śə̑res road mašina car

və̑l-ə̑n surface-loc śed-eś. black-pl

sə̑l-e stand-3sg:prs

tə̑nad you.gen1

“There is a big road, you have two black cars standing there.” 5. M:

ben. yes

“Yes.” 6. D:

so-len that-gen1 pal-a-d side-loc-p.2(sg) sə̑l-o=a stand-3sg:prs=q

śer back sə̑l-o stay-3sg:prs ad́ami-os human-pl

pal-a-z side-ill-p.3(sg) kə̑k two ber back

[pun]... put ad́ ami-os. human-pl pal-a-z? side-locp.3(sg)

mašina śer car back

“Behind them [put]… behind your car there are two people staying. Are there any people behind it?” 3  The experiment took place in Shamardan, Udmurtia, Russian Federation in 2015. One of the participants, Director (D), explained the other participant, Matcher (M), how (s)he should move figures through a landscape model. This experiment and the method used (referential communication tasks) will be described in Sect. 3.4.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

7. M:

37

sə̑re. then

“Go on.” 8. D:

so-os-len, that-pl-gen1 pun put

mašin-en car-ins baton loaf

ad́ ami-os-ə̑n human-pl-ins bur right

vis-k-ə̑n interval-obl-loc pal-a-z. side-ill-p.3(sg)

“Between them, between the cars and the people put a loaf on the right side.” 9. D:

bur right

pal-a-z. side-ill-p.3(sg)

pun-i-d=a? put-pst-2(sg)=q

“On the right side. Did you put it?” 10. M: sə̑re. then “Go on.” 11. D:

paĺĺan left ber back

pal-a-z side-loc-p.3(sg) pal-a-z side-loc-p.3(sg)

o-t-ə̑n this-obl-loc ad́ ami-os. human-pl

mašin-ed car-p.2(sg)

sə̑l-e. stand-3sg:prs

“On your left side, your car is standing there. There are people behind it.” 12. M:

ben. yes

“Yes.” 13. D:

so-os-len that-pl-gen1

vis-k-a-z interval-obl-p.3(sg)

pun put

sakar sugar

korobka. box

“Between them put a box with sugar.” Compare the description of the same experimental fragment made by two different speakers: II. 1. D:

tare then

magaźin-ə̑ś shop-el

pot-e go.out-3sg:prs

abi, old.woman

“Then an old woman, their mother comes out of the shop.”

mama-z-ə̑. mother-p.3-pl

38

M. N. Usacheva

2. M: mh. “Yes.” 3. D:

pot-i-z go.out-pst-3(sg)

mama-z-ə̑ mother-p.3-pl

magaźin-ə̑ś. shop-el

“Their mother has come out of the shop.” 4. M:

sak[arez]...

sakar-ez sugar-p.3(sg)

wań be.3sg

so-len. that-gen1

“She has sugar.” 5. D:

sakar-ez sugarp.3(sg) mašina... car

wań, be.3sg

sakar-en sugar-ins

so, that

mašina-ja-z car-ill-p.3(sg)

pun-i-z put-pst-3(sg)

sakar-z-e, sugar-p.3(sg)acc

mašina car

puš-k-a-z, inner. space-ill-p.3(sg) śer back

ač́ -iz refl-3(sg)

mašina car

pal-a-z side-locp.3(sg)

ben. yes

sə̑l-e. stand-3sg:prs

“Yes, she has sugar, she is with sugar. She has put sugar into the car, inside the car, and she is standing behind the car.” 6. M: tak. “Well.” 7. M:

śed black

so… that

mašina-jez=uk car-p.3(sg)=emph

so-len! that-gen1

“She… It is the black car she has!” 8. D:

śed black

mašina-ez car-p.3(sg)

so-len, that-gen1

znač́ it, it.means

“It is the black car that she has, it means that she also…” 9. M: zabor dor-ə̑n. fence near-loc “Near the fence.” 10. D: a? “What?”

so that

tože... also

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

11. M:

zabor fence

39

dor-ə̑n. near-loc

“Near the fence.” 12. D:

za[bor]...

ben, yes

śə̑res road

və̑l-ə̑n. surface-loc

“Yes, on the road.” 13. M: aha. “Yes.” 14. D:

vot. sre... so then

“So, then…” 15. M:

ataj father

kə̑ĺ-i-z=na remain-pst-3(sg)=still

baton-en. long.loaf-ins

“The father still remains with a long loaf.” 16. D:

ataj-ez... father-p.3(sg) pun-i-z put-pst-3(sg) baton-z-e. long. loaf-p.3(sg)-acc

ataj-ez father-p.3(sg) kabina-ja-z, cabin-ill-p.3(sg) a аnd

tožə̑ also kabina-ja-z cabin-ill-p.3(sg) ač́ -iz... refl-3(sg)

mə̑n-i-z, go-pst-3(sg) pun-i-z put-pst-3(sg)

“The father... the father went as well, put it in the driver’s cabin, in the cabin he put the long loaf. And he…” 17. M:

kə̑k! two

“Two!” 18. M:

baton-ez long.loaf-p.3(sg)

“Two long loafs, he has two!” 19. D:

odig baton-ez! one long.loaf-p.3(sg)

kə̑k, two

kə̑k=uk two-emph

so-len! that-gen1

40

M. N. Usacheva

“One long loaf!” 20. M: odig gə̑ne? one only “Only one?” 21. D: ben.

odig-a-z

ta-os...

sonə̑l murt os... that-pl girl

yes

one-ill-p.3(sg) this-pl

baśt-i-z buy-pst-3(sg)

val=uk baton-z-e, i be.pst1=emph long.loaf-p.3(sg)-acc and

baśt-i-z buy-pst-3(sg) baton-z-e long. loaf-p.3(sg)-acc

baton. long.loaf pun-i-z put-pst-3(sg)

papa-jez fatherp.3(sg)

papa-jez father-p.3(sg) kabina-ja-z. cabin-ill-p.3(sg)

“Yes. In one of them… they… the girl bought a long loaf then, and the father bought a long loaf. The father has put his long loaf in the driverʼs cabin.” (Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) In the first fragment, the Director is using an “abstract” strategy: he is telling the Matcher what to do with figures. In the second fragment, an “enclosed” strategy is used: the Director is telling a story about a mother, a father, and their daughter. The strategy used by participants is important because it defines the type of text the linguist obtains. In the case of an “abstract” strategy, the result will be a description containing directions like “put X on Y” and constructions with the verb “to be,” such as “there is X on Y,” “X is on Y.” Directors who use an “enclosed” strategy provide narratives with verbs of position and verbs of motion: “X comes to Y,” “X is standing on Y.” Consequently, if a linguist wants to collect examples of particular constructions, it is useful to consider how to stimulate participants to use a concrete type of strategy. There are also other problems, which can be illustrated by the case involving the fragment of the cartoon “Zlydni” [“The Evils”] described previously. The realities shown in it differ greatly from those that are familiar to the speaker. The door of the cattle shed opens horizontally rather than vertically; the house is roofed by planks of wood, not slated (so the speaker does not understand what the man in the cartoon is doing); hens look like geese, and so on. We recommend that when designing his or hers experiment, the linguist should pay special attention to the stimuli he or she plans to use. They should not include objects or activities that are unfamiliar to participants. Finally, there was a problem with the material in which the cartoon was made, namely, plasticine. My experience suggests that this technique is quite difficult for rural speakers to perceive. Drawn cartoons usually cause far fewer problems as regards their description. In the same experiment on spatiality with Beserman and Yazva Komi speakers, we used a fragment of a drawn cartoon “Pyotr and Petrusha” (Pronin 2006), all the participants took it to be natural and easy to describe.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

41

The same problem concerns cards, which seem to be used in experiments more often than video stimuli or 3D figures; if the cultural code used during the creation of the stimuli is unfamiliar to speakers, they usually cannot interpret it. In this case, they begin to question the interviewer using the intermediary language instead of describing stimuli in their mother tongue. When I asked Permic speakers to describe what happened in a series of specially drawn comics, I failed. What I wanted was to obtain a coherent narrative. But it was impossible because participants absolutely could not understand that the pictures were representing different episodes of the same story. For them, it was just a set of distinct, separate pictures, as they had never seen comics before and did not know how they should be read. This observation is in line with Maria Khudyakovaʼs conclusions (Khudyakova 2016). She claims that narratives stimulated by only one picture representing a story’s culmination are significantly longer and more extended than those stimulated by a series of pictures. It seems that creating a coherent narrative is much more complicated if one has to describe a set of pictures. Another factor appeared to play an important role during our fieldwork with Permic speakers. They had problems with interpreting “real” stimuli like images and video fragments as they could not identify the people, objects, and places represented. Such problems tend to correlate with age, education, and way of life. When I worked with young well-educated people living mostly in towns, I encountered fewer problems with the interpretation of real stimuli than with older people living in the countryside who had only elementary or secondary education. For older rural speakers, the factor of the conventionality of the stimuli was so important that it led to the failure of the experiment. Beserman speakers aged more than 60 with whom I worked often could not describe images. Once an 80-year-old Beserman man brought me an umbellate plant growing near his village. I had asked him to do this to take a photo for the dictionary. When the man was taking the plant from where it had grown, he knew very well how it was called in Beserman. I took the photo of him and the plant. When I showed this photo to him about 2 weeks later and asked him to name the plant in Beserman, he could not recognize it at all. The fact that he was in the picture was of no help. He thought for a while and asked hesitantly: “Is it cranesbill?” (Fig. 3.34). This is, of course, a striking example. But it is quite common for field linguists to work with people who lead a rural life and have not attended high school. Their way of thinking is much more concrete than that of younger people who live in the city. Besides, older people quite often have bad eyesight which also makes it difficult for them to recognize an image on a photo or a video. Conventional stimuli like cartoons or specially drawn cards have certain “clues” that help recognition (if a person knows the cultural code used for making the stimuli; see subsequently). That is why it is much more useful for field linguists to use conventional stimuli than specific real ones. This helps to avoid problems that can lead to the failure of an experiment. Our observations concerning difficulties in interpreting photos and cards seem to correspond to the experience of other fieldworkers. Compare the following claims made by Chelliah and de Reuse:

 I took this photo in Shamardan (Udmurtia, Russian Federation) in 2010.

4

42

M. N. Usacheva

Fig. 3.3  The Beserman speaker with a plant

Not all speakers will be able or willing to work with drawings, printed pictures, or photographs – for example, speakers from rural areas who are not accustomed to working with printed materials. This is because the speaker might think that what is required is the name of a particular token of an item rather than the general term for that item, e.g. when shown a picture of a horse they may want to give the name of a particular horse or type of horse rather than the general term for ‘horse’. In addition, speakers may not share our conception of a picture as a representation of something or of some event which exists outside of the representation itself. However, speakers from more urban areas may be able to use visual prompts for word production (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011).

I would like to underline that the stimuli should be as concrete as possible, not abstract. Speakers with whom I worked had problems in describing the position of geometric figures or tangrams which are widely used in psycholinguistic experiments on syntactic priming. Here is a set of tangrams from an article by Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986) (Fig. 3.4): In my opinion, there are at least two reasons for these problems. First, the speakers could not imagine a situation of everyday life that would demand describing positions of geometric figures.5 Second, there are usually no words for such figures  I have the impression that rural multilingual speakers of endangered languages often have to actualize the situations with which they are familiar when speaking their mother tongue. If they cannot do this, it can be difficult for them to start speaking their mother tongue in the presence of a stranger. This may be due to the fact that in the situation of “good” multilingualism, every idiom is tied to a concrete sphere of life (everyday communication, mass media, school etc.). 5

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

[A]

[B]

[C]

[D]

[E]

[F]

[G]

[H]

[I]

[J]

[K]

[L]

43

Fig. 3.4  Tangrams. (Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986)

in endangered languages. This is why I think it is better to use pictures with “typical-­ looking” old women, children, domestic animals, and so on instead of abstract figures. Finally, it is very important to conduct a preliminary experiment before starting working in the field. If speakers of the language the linguist describes are not available at the preliminary stage (which is a normal and very common situation), one can work with speakers of any language. Such preliminary experiments help to discover and exclude accidental errors in the design and to understand how one should modify it (if necessary). Designing our first experiment with Beserman speakers in 2010, I placed small chickens on a fence. I did not notice that something was wrong, but for participants who have hens, it was an absolutely impossible situation. It was the only mistake, and the design appeared to work well, so in this case, the chickens did not spoil the results. But if there are too many such mistakes, the participants may sometimes become irritated as they think that they are being forced to describe very strange situations. If one conducts a preliminary experiment, crucial mistakes can be removed in advance. Sometimes, it happens that the design of the experiment is poor. When I conducted a preliminary experiment on case compounding which requires a fairly complicated design, it turned out that there were too many small figures the speakers had to place on a given area. The participants became tired, and some of them, who could not see well, failed to identify the figures. I decided to remove the small figures from the experimental stimuli, and the experiment was then more successful. Summarizing the observations mentioned earlier, I believe that conducting experiments is a good way to collect data in the field. It helps to gather, in a short time, a fairly large corpus of texts containing many more of the grammatical forms needed by the linguist, than a corpus of spontaneous speech. The influence of the intermediary language on such a corpus will be minimal. From my viewpoint, there are important conditions one should take into account while planning an experiment. These are as follows: (1) design of experimental stimuli should be easy and conventional (specially drawn cards instead of photos and cartoons instead of video fragments);

44

M. N. Usacheva

(2) stimuli should be concrete and typically looking; (3) cartoons and cards should be made in a technique that is familiar to participants; (4) preliminary stage of the experiment is obligatory.

3.4  S  witching from Monologues to Dialogues: Referential Communication Tasks Even if a linguist takes into account conditions described in Sect. 3.3, the problem with the lack of a common context shared by participants and the linguist remains. Besides, in many languages, there are grammatical phenomena highly influenced by their information structure (IS). Among many works devoted to such categories, we can cite Irina Nikolaevaʼs work (Nikolaeva 2003) on Uralic possessives, Natalia Slioussar for IS in Russian (Slioussar 2007), Jon Stevens (Stevens 2013), and so on. Experimental methods described earlier do not give us the possibility to collect a corpus suitable for studying IS because they are designed to collect monologues rather than dialogues. The language phenomena influenced by IS occur quite seldom in monologues. For example, when I conducted an experiment on case compounding in Beserman, there were no examples of this in eight cartoon descriptions. But from a series of dialogical experiments with the same participants, we obtained a corpus of texts containing about 70 occurrences of case compounding.6 To obtain dialogues, I primarily use the method of referential communication tasks. This method was suggested by Krauss and Weinheimer (1966) and is widely used during experiments with children (see OʼNeill 1996; Pan and Snow 1999; Girbau 2001) and with deaf people (see Zayceva 1991), in teaching foreign languages (see Yule 1997), and in the study of syntactic priming (see Yudina and Fedorova 2009). It is also perfectly suitable for linguistic fieldwork (see Fedorova 2016  for applicability of referential communication tasks method in the field). During referential communication experiments, a linguist records a dialogue between speakers who communicate by phone or through a nontransparent screen.7 One of the speakers, the Director, receives certain information which he has to verbally transfer to his or her addressee, the Matcher. There are two main types of task given to the participants: the ordering of objects from a pile and finding the right way in a maze. I illustrate these tasks subsequently by describing experiments we conducted to study case compounding and spatial categories in Beserman Udmurt and Yazva Komi.

6  Corpus of spontaneous Beserman speech, which is more than twice larger, contains only three examples of case compounding. 7  While working in the field I just ask the participants to sit in such a way that they cannot see each other but can hear each othersʼ voices.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

45

3.4.1  R  eferential Communication Tasks: Ordering Objects from a Pile In a pile ordering experiment, the linguist puts cards in front of the Director in a fixed order. These cards can be placed either in small sets of two, three, or four (as we did during our experiment on case compounding) or all together at the same time (as Timofey Arkhangelskiy did in his experiment on colors in Beserman). The Matcher has the same cards lying in front of him in a pile. The Director is asked to describe the order of cards so that the Matcher can put his or her cards in the same order. Below there is an example of the cards8 we used during our experiment on case compounding in Beserman Udmurt in 2016 (pictures of fences made of wood and bricks) (Fig. 3.5): During our experiments on space, instead of cards, we used colored figures of rural people, domestic animals, and birds cut out from the cover of a Ravensburger puzzle. The Matcher had these figures placed in front of him in a pile in random order, together with a black-and-white poster with an image of a stockyard. The poster was black-and-white and the figures colored to make it easier for participants to differentiate between the figure and the background. The Director had the same poster with the same figures glued on it. The poster for the training part of the

Fig. 3.5  The cards we used during experiments on case compounding (Shamardan, Udmurtia, Russian Federation, 2016)

 The cards for the experiment were drawn by Timofey Arkhangelskiy, the photo was taken by me.

8

46

M. N. Usacheva

Fig. 3.6  Poster and cards used in an experiment on case compounding (Shamardan, Udmurtia, Russian Federation, 2015)

experiment contained five colored figures; the poster for the main part contained 30.9 After the given set was described by the Director and placed by the Matcher, it was time for the next set. During our experiments on case compounding in Beserman in 2015, we used a different subtype of “ordering-objects-from-a-pile” experiments involving background. In experiments with putting cards on a table in front of the speaker, the table (or its parts) does not serve as the point of reference. In the experiment with glued figures described earlier, the background is very important because the point of reference is obligatory for describing spatial configurations. The experiment on case compounding we conducted in 2015 also included a special background, a large poster image of a location in Shamardan (where the experiment was conducted). Pictures with figures were placed on the poster in small portions (three or four cards at a time).10 After the given set was described by the Director and placed by the Matcher, it was time for the next set. Below is the poster with the two sets of cards we used (Fig. 3.6):

9  During the training part of experiment the participants are given a task like that they will get before the main part but much simpler. I will describe the procedure of running an experiment in Sect. 3.4.3. 10  The photo used as background was taken by Olga Pozdnyakova. The pictures placed on the poster during experiments were drawn by Tatiana Panova.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

47

3.4.2  Referential Communication Tasks: Maze During our experiments of the maze type, the Director and the Matcher receive identical three-dimensional models and identical sets of three-dimensional figures. The models represent an area of the village where the experiment takes place. This helps speakers to associate the model with the place where they live and stimulates Directors to use the “enclosed” strategy of description. Below there is a photo of the model we used in Shamardan during experiments on space in 2010. The model of the Shamardan area was made of paper and painted by Olga Biriuk. The figures were made of clay and also painted by Olga Biriuk (Fig. 3.711). During the experiment, the Director was looking at the figures the linguist was moving in front of him or her through the landscape model (the maze) and was trying to describe the route for the Matcher. The task of the Matcher was to repeat the movements of the figures on his or hers identical landscape model as precisely as possible.

3.4.3  Referential Communication Tasks: Stages Experiments we conducted include the following stages: • preliminary • training

Fig. 3.7  The model of the area in a Beserman village of Shamardan (Udmurtia, Russian Federation) which we used during experiments on space in 2010

11

 This photo was taken in Shamardan in January 2010 by me.

48

M. N. Usacheva

Fig. 3.8 Preliminary stage of a referential communication experiment (ordering objects from a pile)

• main • final. We will illustrate these with one of our experiments on case compounding. Before the experiment, we tell the participants that we are studying how well people can communicate without looking at each other. This request helps to distract attention from the main aim of the experiment (if the participants focus on the real aim, it can influence the results). During the preliminary stage, the Director and the Matcher both look at the training stimuli they have and give names to places and objects (Fig. 3.812): I recommend switching on the recorder and starting to film the experiment before the preliminary stage begins because during the experiment the participants create the “world of communication” in which they will both operate. The more we know about this world, the clearer will be the context of the dialogues the linguist will record during the main stage of the experiment. The context, as I underlined before, is very important for studying certain grammatical phenomena (especially those influenced by information structure). Then begins the training stage. Participants receive a very small set of stimuli (about four or five cards, or between two and four 3D figures). They are given the same tasks as before the main stage. The Director has to describe what the linguist is doing (or how the cards should be placed), and the Matcher tries to repeat this (or to put the figures on the right place). Photos below show the training (Fig. 3.9) and the main (Fig. 3.10) stages of the experiment on case compounding in Beserman (the maze part) which we conducted in 2015. As one can see from the pictures, the 12

 All photos here and below were taken by Olga Pozdnyakova.

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

49

Fig. 3.9  Training stage of a referential communication experiment (maze)

Fig. 3.10  Main stage of a referential communication experiment (maze)

training part of the experiment includes three figures and one car (Fig. 3.9), and the main part—13 figures and five cars (Fig. 3.10): The scenario of movement through the maze for the training stage is very short and simple. During the main part of the experiment, the participants receive “real” tasks. Again, the Director has to describe what the linguist is doing, and the Matcher has to repeat it. For this stage, participation of the second linguist is obligatory: he or

50

M. N. Usacheva

Fig. 3.11  Main stage of a referential communication experiment (ordering objects from a pile)

Fig. 3.12  Final stage of a referential communication experiment (ordering objects from a pile)

she looks at what the Matcher does and helps if something goes wrong (e.g., if the Matcher gets confused or misunderstands something, and the experiment cannot continue). He or she also keeps a check on the device recording the Matcherʼs speech. We always use two recorders during experiments—one for the Director and one for the Matcher. As a rule, one recorder cannot record the speech of two people sitting quite far from each other with sufficient quality. The camera also does not always record the sound well enough. The text produced by participants during the main stage of the experiment constitutes the main result obtained by the linguist. Below there is a photo of the main part of our experiment on case compounding (ordering objects from a pile, 2015) (Figs. 3.11 and 3.12):

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

51

During the final stage, the participants discuss what they had to do, what went right, and what went wrong:

3.4.4  R  eferential Communication Tasks: Distributing the Roles There is one important element I would like to point out. In Sect. 3.3, conditions were discussed which should be taken into account to run an experiment successfully. All of these are true for experiments comprising referential communication tasks, but the linguist should also carefully consider how to distribute the roles of Director and Matcher. Below is an excerpt from a training dialogue of the “ordering-­ from-­the-pile” type (experiment on local case forms of nouns and noun phrases headed by relational nouns, 2010). The non-glossed fragments marked by RUS are in Russian, and the glossed fragments marked by BES are in Beserman: pińaĺ-ĺos child-pl

III. 1. D:

BES

kut-iĺĺam catch-pst2.3sg

lud.keś. hare

“The children caught a hare.” a and

2. M:

BES

kə̑tč́ ə̑ where.ill

pun-iśko-d put-prs-2(sg)

pińaĺ-ĺos-s-e? child-pl-p.3(sg)-acc

“And where do you put the children?” 3. D:

mə̑n-a-m I-gen1-p.1(sg) BES

ńe not

no-mə̑re=no neg-what=add

evə̑l neg.cop

ta-t-ə̑n. this-obl-loc

“I have nothing here.” 4. M:

evə̑l=a? neg.cop=q

BES

“Nothing?” 5. D: axa. “Yes.” 6. M: RUSladna, von tut ańi gd́e-ta xad́iĺi, xad́iĺi, tut traktar... e, ńet, tut traktar... “Ok, they were walking here somewhere, here is the tractor… oh no, the tractor is here… [trying to place the figures herself]” 7. D: RUSetat… “This one…” 8. M: RUSja fśo svajo xač́u. nu vot tut ańi... našĺi. gd́e-ta tam, v ĺisu... znač́it... Valod́a?

52

M. N. Usacheva

“I just want to do it myself. Well, here are they, they found [a hare]. Somewhere in the forest, so… Volodya?” 9. D: RUSzajac. pajmaĺi eto. “A hare. Caught it.” 10. D:

pios male traktor-z-e tractor-p.3(sg)-acc BES

murt human zavod́ t-ə̑nə̑. start-inf

traktor lə̑kt-e come-prs.3sg tractor

dor-e near-ill

“The man comes to the tractor to start it.” 11. M: RUSznač́ it... Valod́ a? “So… Volodya?” 12. D: RUSa? “What?” 13. M: RUSu ńivo traktar jeśt́, što ĺi? “Does he have a tractor? [asking the linguist about the Director]” 14. D: RUSjeśt́. “I have.” 15. D: RUSa. u mińa vot... padxod́it, gd́ e etat mužik, znač́ it, mńe tože traktar pastavit́ na mesta? “Well. It passes to my [picture], where this man is, so should I also put the tractor on its place?” 16. D:

pios male traktor-z-e tractor-p.3(sg)-acc BES

murt human zavod́ t-ə̑nə̑. start-inf

traktor lə̑kt-e come-prs.3sg tractor

dor-e near-ill

“The man comes to the tractor to start it.” 17. M: RUSpadažd́ i! “Wait!” 18. D: axa. “Yes.” 19. M: Valod́ a? “Volodya?” traktor-ed tractor-p.2(sg)

20. M:

BES

“Where is your tractor?” 21. D:

traktor-ez… piśaj. tractor-p.3(sg) cat

BES

kə̑-t-ə̑n where-obl-loc

tə̑n-a-d? you-gen1-p.2(sg)

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

53

“The tractor... a cat.” 22. M: RUSńet, ńet! “No, no!” azbar-a-z=a yard-loc-p.3(sg)=q

23. M:

BES

iĺi or

ped out

pal-a-z=a? side-loc-p.3(sg)=q

“In the yard or outside?” 24. D:

ped out

BES

pal-a-z. side-loc-ps.3(sg)

“Outside.” 25. M:

ped out lə̑kt-e come-prs.3sg BES

pal-a-z, side-loc-p.3(sg) xoźain. owner

i and

so that

dor-ə̑n near-loc

“Outside, and the owner comes to it.” ben. yes

26. D:

pič́ i little

BES

pi-jen. boy-ins

“Yes, with a little boy.” daže even

27. M:

pič́ i little

BES

pi-jen-ə̑z. boy-ins-p.3(sg)

“Even with the little boy.” 28. D: axa. “Yes.” 29. M:

BES padažd́ i, a wait and pič́ i-jen-ə̑z=a? little-ins-p.3(sg)=q RUS

kud-in-ə̑z which-ins-p.3(sg)

so, that

samoj the.most

“Wait, with which [boy] is, with the smallest one?” 30. M:

wań=na be.3(sg)=still

BES

o-t-ə̑n that-obl-loc

“There is also the running [one] there, no?”

biź-iś-ez, run-ptcp.act-p.3(sg)

ńet?

RUS

54

31. D:

M. N. Usacheva

evə̑l, neg.cop

BES

gid́ -iś-ez=ńi. cattle-shed-el-p.3(sg)=already

ta-t-ə̑n… this-obl-loc

“No, it is already the one who [is] in the cattle-shed. There...” 32. M: RUSoj, jeśo tr̓i, davaj ja maĺińkava tut pastavĺu, eta vrod́e... “Oh, there are three more [children], Iʼll put the little [one] here, it could…” 33. D:

pič́ i little

pi boy

BES

parś-jos-s-e… pig-pl-p.3(sg)-acc

“The little boy the pigs...” 34. M: RUSpadažd́i! “Wait!” 35. D:

…BESśud-ə̑nə̑ feed-inf

leź-i-z let.out-pst-3(sg)

azbar-e. yard-ill

“... let out in the yard to feed [them].” 36. M:

moga, wait

moga, wait

BES

moga, wait

vot ańi bigut z d́edam. tak… ladna. “Wait, wait, wait, here are they running with the grandfather. So… well.” (Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) In this experiment, the Matcher is self-conscious and likes speaking. She tries to make a “good, right” picture that conforms to her imagination and does not want to do what the Director tells her. The Director, on the contrary, is not accustomed to speaking much. Their roles do not suit them, so we could not obtain a good Beserman dialogue. When we changed the roles, we obtained what we wanted. RUS

3.4.5  R  esults of Referential Communication Tasks Experiments Let me briefly describe the results I obtained after conducting experiments with Permic speakers comprising referential communication tasks. I consider these experiments to be successful. First, in several days, we recorded 4  hours of dialogues. The dialogues we obtained were very vivid. Many of them contained the emotional reactions of the participants. Compare the following fragments: IV. 1. M:

a and e-z=uk neg.pst-3=emph

tare then šed́-ə̑ get-sg

lə̑z blue so that

kšet-en-ez-lə̑ kerchief-ins-p.3(sg)-dat kanfet? candy

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

55

“And are there no candies got by a [girl] in a blue kerchief?” 2. D:

abi-lə̑=wa? old.woman-dat=q

“To an old woman?” 3. M:

śot́ give

“Give [candies]!” 4. M:

nə̑l girl

murt-lə̑, human-dat

lə̑z blue

korźinka-en basket-ins

otə̑n there

nə̑l-ə̑z. girl-p.3(sg)

“To a girl, there is a girl with a blue basket there.” 5. D:

nu puskaj, let.it.be korźinka-ja-z. basket-ill-p.3(sg)

so-len that-gen1

gibi-jez=no mushroom-p.3(sg)=add

“Let it be, there are mushrooms in her basket already.” 6. M:

ńič́ ivo śebe, ptcl

so that

tare after.that

kanfet-tek candy-car

kə̑ĺ-i-z! remain-pst-3(sg)

“But she was left without candies!” 7. D:

nu ladna, let.it.be śot-o-z. give-fut-p.3(sg)

so-len that-gen1

wań be.prs

ta-iz, this-p.3(sg)

pič́ i little

“Let it be, she has them [mushrooms], the little boy will give [her candies].” 8. M:

fu! ptcl

“Thatʼs unfair!” (Beserman Udmurt [BCOS]) V. 1. M: správa on.the.right

sulál-ə̑? stay-prs.3(sg)

tak so

ńič́ esna! unfair

pi boy

56

M. N. Usacheva

“Is [she] staying on the right?” 2. D:

a? ptcl

mə̑j-ə̑́n what-ins

kə̑lz-án? listen-p.2(sg)

“What? What are you listening with?” 3. M:

sĺéva? on.the.left žágə̑n-ǯik slow-cmpr

da ptcl vép-li! speak-iter

te you

i-n vép-li! údə̑la-s-ə̑ fast-3sg-acc neg.pst-2(sg) speak-iter

“On the left? Donʼt speak fast! Speak slower!” 4. D:

saabražá-j! think.fast-imp.sg

“Think faster!” 5. M:

Marúśa Ĺóńixə̑və̑j Lyonyaʼs.Maria síja that

din-ə̑́ near-ill tóže also

atprávĺ-u! send.obl-fut.1sg údə̑la fast

bájt-ə̑! talk-prs.3sg

“Iʼll send you to Lyonyaʼs [wife] Marusya! She also talks fast! [smiling]” (Yazva Komi, fieldnotes) Here, the Beserman speaker interprets the experimental scenario from the point of view of her experience and decides that leaving only one girl without candies is rather unfair. This shocks her. The Yazva woman is joking. She is comparing the rapidity of speech of her husband with that of their woman neighbor. Yazva speakers enjoy the experiment and are playing their ordinary roles of a slightly testy wife and a quite patient husband. For linguists who work with endangered idioms, this is a very good result because it is often difficult to record long vivid dialogues in the field. Speakers often refuse to speak to each other when being recorded, and even if they try, their dialogues are often short and unnatural. If a linguist conducts an experiment comprising referential communication tasks with a strong plot, he or she has a good chance of recording hours of dialogical speech—even if the experiment fails. We did not obtain a single form we needed after our experiment on noncanonical grammatical marking of adjectives in August 2017. But we obtained very strong, coherent, lengthy narratives useful for the corpus of Beserman speech and for investigations into the structure of noun phrases. Moreover, the texts we recorded contained many more instances of the language phenomena we wanted to study than the corpus of nonexperimental texts. Below are

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

57

Table 3.1  Quantity of examples with relevant language phenomena in the Beserman corpus of oral speech and in corpora collected during referential communication experiments BCOS Spatial relational nouns 695 (1.4%) Local case forms of other 2212 nouns (4.5%) Case compounding (DO 0 positions) Case compounding 3 (other positions) Corpus size (tokens) 51,000

2010 (spatiality) 1143 (8%)

2015 (case compounding) irrelevant

2016 (case compounding) irrelevant

irrelevant

irrelevant

1726 (12%) 0

0

21

1

40

9

14,000

16,000

8500

the data for Beserman Udmurt (for Yazva Komi we do not yet have an annotated corpus) (Table 3.1): The table shows that the share of relevant language phenomena in experimental corpora is much more than in the nonexperimental corpus. Thus, 8% of the corpus collected in 2010 during the experiment on spatiality are spatial relational nouns and 12% of that corpus are local case forms of other nouns; for BCOS the numbers are 1.4% and 4.5%, respectively. The texts recorded during experiments with Yazva Komi speakers contain about 800 uses of spatial postpositional phrases and noun phrases (in different forms) and 207 examples of deictic adverbs. The aim of the experiment was to collect data for studying the spatial system of Yazva Komi very quickly, and the corpus we obtained allows to do so. Referential communication tasks constitute a very good method of studying grammatical phenomena influenced by IS. A strong example can be found in possessive suffixes in Uralic languages. Linguists use experiments relatively often when they turn to this topic, but collecting quasi-spontaneous monologues (prompted by stimuli but not translations) does not lead to reliable results. Gerson Klumpp notes that when he asked Komi speakers to tell a story drawn on a series of pictures the results were controversial (Klumpp 2017). In Beserman Udmurt, the factor of the distance to the previous mention of the referent is important for choosing the third singular possessive marker (in nonpossessive meanings). Thus, the probability of possessive marking increases as the referential distance increases from nil through two (from 24% to 40%), then stays at the same level. This indicates that the third singular possessive is used to reactivate the object that was mentioned at some point earlier but lost its activation (see Arkhangelskiy and Usacheva 2016). One can easily model such reactivation in a referential communication experiment, but it is much more difficult with monologues.

58

M. N. Usacheva

Fig. 3.13  Several cards from a series of experiments on the non-canonical grammatical marking of adjectives in Beserman

3.4.6  Referential Communication Tasks: Disadvantages As with every type of linguistic work, the method of referential communication tasks has its limitations and disadvantages. The biggest of these is that results heavily depend on the quality of stimuli—how well they were designed, whether or not they were made sufficiently natural. The quality of paintings can also be crucial. In August 2017, we conducted a series of experiments on the noncanonical grammatical marking that adjectives receive when they (inter alia) are associated with verbs of emotion and perception.13 The experiments failed completely, and one reason was that the emotions on the pictures used were not sufficiently recognizable. Below are six pictures14 from one experimental set (Fig. 3.13): The right choice of participants can also be crucial. In addition, the linguist needs a hypothesis.15 To formulate this, the following sources of data can be analyzed: a corpus of the idiom under investigation and/or of genetically related idioms; descriptions of the neighboring idioms; the results of typology; and the results of grammaticality judgment tasks.

 A very rough English correlate of the constructions we wanted to obtain would sound like “The beauty of her face surprised me”. 14  The pictures used in the experiment were drawn by Tatiana Panova; the photo was taken by myself. 15  Hypothesis is a standard demand for every type of (psycho)linguistic experiment. One conducts them to prove the hypothesis H1 and to decline the opposite hypothesis H0 (or vice versa). 13

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

59

One also needs to devote considerably more time to designing the experiment and to processing the collected texts (description, correcting the transcription with native speakers, translating, and glossing). Moreover, a rather good knowledge of the idiom is required both from speakers and from experimenters. For field linguists who cannot understand quite well the fluent speech of the idiom they work with, it is impossible to regulate experiments where participants have problems with communication. If participants see that the linguist cannot help them during the experiment, they tend to switch to the intermediary language. This is undesirable. On the other hand, if the speakers themselves cannot speak fluently, it is useless to conduct referential communication experiments with them, as in this case, they are unable to produce coherent dialogues. Finally, the comparison of results of referential communication experiments on different languages is not as easy as the comparison of experiments described in Sect. 3.2 for the following reasons. First, dialogues spelled out by different pairs of speakers can differ from each other greatly. Different people pay attention to different details, use words from different semantic classes, and follow different strategies (see Sect. 3.3). Second, the stimuli used in experiments with speakers of different idioms can vary. Third, it is not a simple task to represent the results of such a comparison. It is not quite clear how to store them, how to search through them, how to represent them in a clear, and useful way. Nevertheless, I believe that such a comparison is possible and that its results can be very useful for studying the contact influence of idioms, for typology, and for experimental linguistics. Developing suitable techniques is still in progress.

3.5  D  ialogical Experimental Methods: Gathering Data for Dictionaries The main aim of the experiments discussed in this chapter was to test hypotheses concerning grammar and to collect as much grammatical material as possible needed by the linguist. In my view, nonverbal stimuli are also useful for a field lexicographer. Shobhana Chelliah and Willem de Reuse claim that the fieldworker could try a name-the-picture task for eliciting nouns, verbs, adjectives (including emotions), prepositions and adverbs. (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011: 229).

I agree that this can be a good decision in difficult cases (if the difficulties concerning the use of photos and pictures are taken into account by the fieldworker—see Sect. 3.3). My colleagues and I also have experience of successfully using dialogical experimental techniques in lexicographical fieldwork. When working on the Beserman-Russian online dictionary available at http://www.beserman.ru, Timofey Arkhangelskiy chose the method of referential communication tasks (“ordering-in-­ a-pile” type) to clarify differences among color terms. We also conducted an analog

60

M. N. Usacheva

of a Russian “hat”16 game to collect nouns and verbs for this dictionary. This is not a referential communication task because the participants sit in front of each other and can see each other, but the result is also a quasi-spontaneous (elicited) dialogue. Each speaker has a pile of cards with one Beserman word written on each card. The first speaker takes a random card from a pile and reads it to himself (or herself). His/ hers task is to explain the word on the card to the partner without using it and without using words with the same root. The second speaker tries to guess the word. Then, the participants change their roles: the second speaker explains, and the first tries to guess. Such a method enables the collection of many dictionary words, as the speaker who tries to guess uses words that are more or less semantically close to the word under discussion. Besides, the lexicographer can gather examples of word use from the cards (if (s)he changes “it”, or “doing it”, or “so” into the words needed and then checks the results with the speakers). For some words, one can collect metaphoric or taboo meanings that the linguist can rarely obtain while interviewing the speakers, being not a member of their society. Thus, during the “hat” game, one of the Beserman speakers mentioned the word zavod “thing” as a euphemism for penis.

3.6  Conclusion In this chapter, I have tried to show that conducting experiments in the field is a good way of gathering linguistic data. It is an alternative to grammaticality judgment tasks that are not always reliable enough. I prefer to use dialogical methods, primarily referential communication tasks, to obtain grammatical and lexicographic data. Such methods make it possible to very quickly gather a corpus of dialogues containing many of the units one wants to study (including those the use of which is regulated by IS). Moreover, one obtains the units not in isolation, but mostly in clear contexts. As with any method, experiments have their limitations. Their design should be planned very carefully, should be conditional, and should not contain units from a culture unfamiliar to participants, and so on. It takes considerable time to design experiments, then to transcribe, translate, and gloss them, but I believe the result is worth it.

References Arjava, Heini. 2016. Experimenting on spatiality: elicitation with three-dimensional toys in a field study of Erzya. In Mordvin languages in the field (Uralica Helsingiensia 10), ed. Ksenia Shagal and Heini Arjava, 319–338. Helsinki.

 This was the idea of Iulia Zubova, who conducted this game to obtain dialogues with focus particles.

16

3  Dialogue-Focused Experiments in the Field: Advantages and Disadvantages…

61

Arkhangelskiy, Timofey and Maria Usacheva. “Functions of the 3SG possessive in Beserman Udmurt: corpus analysis.” In The 13th conference on grammar and typology for young researchers. Book of abstracts. St-Petersburg, 24–26 November 2016, 13–15. St-Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija, 2016. Accessed November 04, 2017. http://www.youngconfspb.com/application/files/7414/7999/6755/Tezisnik_2016.pdf. Boroditsky, Lera, Alice Gaby, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2008. Time in space. In Field manual 11, ed. Asifa Majid, 52–76. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Accessed November 04, 2017. http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/2008/time-­in-­space. Bowerman, Melissa, Marianne Gullberg, Asifa Majid, and Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2004. Put Project: the cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In Field manual 9, ed. Asifa Majid, 10–24. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Accessed 04 November 2017. http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/2004/put-­project. Bowerman, Melissa, and Eric Pederson. 1992. Topological relations picture series. In Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992, ed. Stephen C.  Levinson. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Accessed November 04, 2017. http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/1992/ bowped/. Chagin, G.N. 1993. Yazvinskiye permiaki: istorija i tradicii [Yazva Komi: history and customs]. Perm: Permskij oblastnoj tvorcheskij centr. (In Russian). Chelliah, Shobhana L., and Willem J. de Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­90-­481-­9026-­3. Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-­0277(86)90010-­7. DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories. Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. In Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, ed. Joan Bybee et al., 51–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fedorova, Olga V. 2016. Psikholingvisticheskiye issledovaniya diskursa v polevoy lingvistike [Psycholinguistic investigations of discourse in field linguistics]. Socio- i psikholingvisticheskiye issledovaniya 4 (2016): 7–18. (In Russian). Fedyunyova, G.V. 2009. Pervichnyje mestoimeniya i ikh proizvodnyje v permskikh yazykakh [Primary pronouns and their derivatives in Permic languages]. PhD thesis. Izhevsk: UIIJAL UrO RAN. Fortis, Jean-Michel, Colette Grinevald, Anetta Kopecka, and Alice Vittrant. “Trajectoire”. Accessed November 05, 2017. http://www.ddl.ish-­lyon.cnrs.fr/trajectoire/TUL_TRAJ_141209.pps. Girbau, Dolors. 2001. Children’s referential communication failure: the ambiguity and abbreviation message. Journal of Language and Social-Psychology 20: 81–89. Grenoble, Lenore A., Hilary McMahan, and Alliaq Kleist Petrussen. 2019. An ontology of landscape and seascape in Greenland: The linguistic encoding of land in Kalaallisut. International Journal of American Linguistics 85 (1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/700317. Idrisov, R.I. 2013. Tyurkskie zaimstvovaniya v besermyanskom dialekte udmurtskogo yazyka [Turkic loanwords in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt]. MA thesis. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russian). Khudyakova, M.V. 2016. Odin risunok ili serija? Vlijanije tipa stimula na kharakteristiki narrativa [One picture or a series? Influence of the type of the stimulus on characteristics of narrative]. In The 7th international conference on cognitive science. Abstracts of papers. Svetlogorsk, Russia, ed. J.I.  Aleksandrov and K.V.  Anokhin, 605–607. Moscow: Institut Psikhologii RAN. (In Russian). Klumpp, Gerson. “Givenness features: between zero expression and definite encoding of NPs (based on Komi).” Paper presented at Conference on the Syntax of Uralic Languages, Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 27–28 June 2017. Accessed November 05, 2017. http://www.nytud.hu/soul2017/absz/SOUL2017_Klumpp.pdf. Kozlov, L.S. “Lativ, illativ, opredelennyj dativ: konkurenciya napravitelnykh padezhey v mokshanskom yazyke [Lative, illative, definite dative: competition among directional cases in Moksha].” In The 12th conference on grammar and typology for young researchers. Book of abstracts, 49–53. St-Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija, 2015. (In Russian). Accessed November 05, 2017. http://www.youngconfspb.com/application/files/4214/4751/5154/Tezisnik_2015.pdf.

62

M. N. Usacheva

Krauss, Robert M., and Sidney Weinheimer. 1966. Concurrent feedback, confirmation and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1–4: 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023705. Lytkin, V.I. 1961. Komi-yazvinskiy dialekt [The Yazva Komi dialect]. Moscow: Akademiya Nauk SSSR. (In Russian). Lyukina, N.M. 2008. Osobennosti yazyka balezinskikh i yukamenskikh besermian [The peculiarities of the language of Balezino and Jukamenskoje Besermans]. PhD thesis. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University. (In Russian). Napolskikh, V.V. 1997. Vvedenije v istoricheskuju uralistiku [Introduction in historical Uralic studies]. Izhevsk: UUIJal UrO RAN. (In Russian). Nasipov, I.S. 2010. Finno-ugorskije zaimstvovanija v tatarskom jazyke: synopsis i taksonomija [Finno-Ugric loans in Tatar: synopsis and taxonomia]. Doctoral thesis. Kazan: Ibragimov Institute of Language, Literature and Art, Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan. (In Russian). Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2003. Possessive affixes as markers of information structuring: evidence from Uralic. In International symposium on deictic systems and quantification in languages ­spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of papers, ed. Pirkko Suihkonen and Bernard Comrie, 130–145. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University.; Leipzig: Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology. O’Neill, Daniela K. 1996. Two-year-old childrenʼs sensitivity to a parentʼs knowledge state when making requests. Child Development 6: 659–677. Pan, Barbara A., and Catherine E. Snow. 1999. The development of conversational and discourse skills. In The development of language, ed. Martyn D. Barrett, 229–250. London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315784694. Pyotr and Petrusha, directed by Yuriy Pronin (2006; Moscow: Pilot, 2006), DVD, 13 min. Russian population census 2010. Results. Accessed November 05, 2017. http://www.gks.ru/free_ doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm. Slioussar, Natalia. 2007. Grammar and information structure. A study with reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications. Starosta, Stan. 1985. Relator nouns as a source of case inflection. In For Gordon Fairbanks, ed. Veneeta Z. Acson and Richard L. Leed, 111–133. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Stevens, Jon. 2013. Information structure, grammar and strategy in discourse. PhD thesis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Accessed November 05, 2017. http://repository. upenn.edu/edissertations/805. Teplyashina, T.I. 1970. Yazyk besermian [The language of the Beserman]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian). Tufvesson, Sylvia. 2007. Expressives. In Field Manual 10, ed. Asifa Majid, 53–58. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Accessed November 05, 2017. http://fieldmanuals.mpi. nl/volumes/2007/expressives/. Yudina, M.V., and O.V. Fedorova. 2009. Razreshenije sintaksicheskoy neodnoznachnosti: effekty prajminga i samoprajminga [Resolving of syntactic ambiguity: priming and self-priming effects].  In Computational linguistics and intelligent technologies: working papers of The International conference “Dialogue 2009” (Bekasovo, May 27th–31th), ed. Aleksandr Je. Kibrik, 554–558. Мoscow: RGGU.(In Russian). Yule, George. 1997. Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044965. Zayceva, G.  L. 1991. Daktilologiya. Zhestovaya rech [Dactilology. Gesture speech]. Prosvesheniye: Moscow. Zlydni [The Evils], directed by Stepan Kovalj (2005; Moscow: Pilot, 2006), DVD, 13 min.

Chapter 4

The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research Methodology Svetlana Moskvitcheva and Alain Viaut

Abstract  This study describes a comprehensive interdisciplinary methodology of sociolinguistic field research through the example of a minority language of the Russian Federation, namely, the Karelian language in the national districts of the Republic of Karelia (Kalevalsky, Olonetsky, and Pryazhinsky). The study also substantiates the interview method as the most relevant method for conducting this type of research. The methodology was developed to study the phenomenon of the need for minority languages from sociolinguistic and psychological perspectives. This need for minority languages is associated with the actors of language policy and glottopolitics, with the categories of language loyalty and prestige and with situations and areas of communication. The research instruments, primarily questionnaires and interview programs, were designed in such a way as to take into account and reveal the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of these categories. The study was aimed at ascertaining correlations between personality parameters (spontaneous and natural, or conscious and volitional use), situation parameters (instrumental or symbolic presence of the language), and language quality parameters (traditional dialect forms or modernized language). The study involves qualitative and quantitative methods. The questionnaire method was auxiliary to the interview method. It enabled the authors to generally assess the situation and the possible structure of the need for the language. The interview method (80 hours of recording) provided direct access to the individual’s

This publication has been prepared with the support of research project no 056113-0-000 at the Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and Migration, Faculty of Philology, RUDN University. S. Moskvitcheva (*) Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia A. Viaut French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), UMR 5478 IKER (CNRS University of Bordeaux Montaigne - UPPA), Bordeaux, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_4

63

64

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

lifeworld, to his/her basic experiences, and values. The transcribed interview records were analyzed according to “grounded theory methodology.” Keywords  Sociolinguistic research methods · Field research · Questionnaire · Survey · Research interview · Need for language · Language loyalty · Language policy actors

4.1  Introduction This chapter describes the experience of conducting field research in the Republic of Karelia, the main stage of which was carried out in 2012–2014. The project entitled “The need for mastering and using languages on the periphery of language areas: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects” was implemented with the support of the Russian Foundation of Humanities (grant 17-26-17,001 (m)) and was aimed at studying the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic parameters of the need for a minority language. The interest in the concept of “need” was associated with the development of the subject of language vitality and language shift. In the context of minority languages, psychological dimensions, for example, language representation, loyalty, and need for language, play a special or even a decisive role along with classical sociodemographic parameters. The alarmist sentiments of those sections of the society concerned about the disappearance of minority languages are certainly justified, but we also know that languages do not disappear as quickly as predicted. It is true that diglossia causes a reduction in the role and importance of the instrumental function of the minority language, an erosion of areas and situations of natural communication, and changes in the type and population of native speakers, since it is the school, and not the family, that becomes the main place of language transmission. At the same time, the transforming symbolic functions of language not only retain their positions but also increase in a number of respects. Areas and situations of communication are changing; from villages, language penetrates cities and occupies certain niches there—as a rule, in prestigious but symbolic domains. The essential characteristics of the language, such as its functions, situations and areas of communication, forms of existence, and corpus, are changing. Ordinary native speakers continue to use the language as a means of communication, as a resource for building the identity and harmony of the individual, and for the particular pleasure of speaking such a language. The authorities willingly use language as a symbol of the region’s cultural identity; a number of public organizations deal with the preservation and development of the language. With regard to the situation of the Karelian language, one can certainly speak of a language shift. However, this is a complex process taking place at different speeds in different regions, and its result is not yet obvious. Studying the need for the language can help us to answer a number of important questions regarding the

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

65

linguistic situation in general, factors of the vitality of the Karelian language, and those of its prospects. We worked inductively with field data collected through questionnaires and recorded interviews. These data were analyzed empirically by means of semantic and sociolinguistic interpretations and based on “grounded theory methodology”.

4.1.1  Research Goals Despite unfavorable external factors, the Karelian language continues to survive, thus making it possible to testify to the present needs for the language. Our task included describing these needs and identifying their structure and place among other theoretical constructs that reflect the situation of the minority language. The main question in this research was “Why do people continue to use the language?”. We prefer the word “use” to the verb “speak” because it is broader in terms of semantics and covers a wider range of situations. We were also interested in the following questions: “Who uses the language and where?”; “Who offers culture in the language, what kind of culture and in what forms?”; “Who are the main players in the field of ethnic and cultural identity?”; “What are the needs and expectations of the authorities, civil society, and various public organizations for language protection and support?”; and “What are some personal and social strategies to overcome the situation of the minority and the frustration associated with this situation?” Over recent years, various types of sociolinguistic research have been conducted in the territory of the Republic of Karelia. For example, the main task of the large-­ scale ELDIA project Karjalainen et al. 2013) was to develop a vitality barometer for the Karelian language, based on previously developed parameters. The main research method was a questionnaire (300 surveys), and interviews were used as an auxiliary method (5 interviews). First, the uniqueness of our project is due to the narrow setting of the problem (a study of the need for the language). Second, it is due to an approach that comes not “from the outside,” that is, from parameters of the situation and areas of communication predefined by the researcher but “from the inside,” that is, from the individual, his or her experiences, and representations of the situation. Third, it stems from the use of interviews as the main method of researching the situation. We did not advance any hypotheses on the nature and classification of language needs. The path of our research was empirical and inductive, with the interview method playing the leading role. We faced three tasks: 1. Identifying, researching, and structuring needs for the minority language. 2. Identifying the structure of relations and dependency of needs and other sociolinguistic theoretical constructs (e.g., loyalty, prestige, areas of communication, etc.).

66

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

3. Exploring strategies of various actors, including compensatory strategies, to create and satisfy the need for the Karelian language in the context of diglossia and the diminishing role of the instrumental function of this language. We shall show the stages of our research and the course of reasoning when conceptualizing the category of need in the minority language. We shall start with an analysis of theoretical approaches to the psychological concept of “need.”

4.1.2  Theoretical Aspect of Language Need In defining the concept of “need,” we mainly relied on works by A.N.  Leont’ev (Leont’ev 1971) and D.A.  Leont’ev (Leont’ev 2002)., R.C.  Gardner and W.E. Lambert (Gardner and Lambert 1972), E.L. Deci and R. Ryan (Deci and Ryan 1985, 2002). The work by R.C. Gardner and W.E. Lambert proposes a binary opposition that contrasts instrumental and integrative needs. The concept itself belongs to the social paradigm in science and proceeds from the priority of society over the individual. In the theory of self-determination in the context of self-paradigm by E.L.  Deci and R.  Ryan, the emphasis of research shifts toward personality. The integrative need is interpreted differently: While earlier it was understood mainly as socialization within different types of groups (family, friends, etc.), it is now the category of self-esteem that is at the center of analysis. Desi and Rain introduce the concepts of internal, leading, and external motivation. They consider self-­ actualization to be one of the main aspirations of the individual, and the needs for autonomy (acting in accordance with one’s own interests and values), competence (reacting effectively to requests from the environment), and relatedness (making contacts with a socially close environment) are deemed to be the main needs of the individual. All three needs are driven by internal motivation. The division of motivation into internal and external, and the consideration of environmental factors and personal interests, gave us a theoretical basis for conceptualizing the concept of need. Figure 4.1 is a graphic presentation of the structure of needs in accordance with the two concepts mentioned earlier. The need for language can be associated with factors external to personality, such as historically established forms of government, ideology as regards the definition of a minority, institutionalization of ethnicity, established links between people and territory, and so on. Socially affective types of needs, for example, ludic, artistic, and aesthetic needs of the individual, the need for origins and for identity structuring with the valorization of the ethnic and linguistic component, and so on, can be classified as internal types. Need and the actions aimed at the satisfaction of this need are not symmetrical. One need can give rise to a number of actions, and the same activity can serve the satisfaction of several needs. For example, singing in a folk choir in the Karelian language is at the very least connected with the need for social affinity, with

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

67

Fig. 4.1  Structure of needs according to social and cognitive approaches (Gardner & Lambert and Deci & Ryan). Figure created by the authors

experiencing pleasure from the environment, with the affective need (love of language and culture), and with the epistemological need (gaining new knowledge). The asymmetric nature of the relationship between need and actions aimed at its implementation was the object of needs analysis in works by A.N. Leont’ev, which enjoy great authority in Soviet and Russian science. Leont’ev’s concept of needs and motivation can be briefly summarized as follows: Need in its pure form cannot be fixed or described in any way because it is naturally an internal negative state, an absence, and lack of something. Need generates undirected search, which ends when the need finds its object, that is, the need becomes objectified. The objectified need becomes a motive and thus acquires shape. One motive can connect (objectify) several needs, which makes the meaning of the motive complex. The motive launches activity, directed by the goal. The goal of the activity is set by the subject (Fig. 4.2). The motive of activity and its goal are close but not equivalent concepts. The motive answers the question Why am I doing this? and the goal responds to the question What do I want to achieve? Leont’ev’s approach makes the concept of need operational because, first, it makes it possible to understand and classify needs through the identification and study of motives and specific actions, and second, it emphasizes its dynamic nature and contextual conditionality. The latter is especially important, since, in different historical, social and other contexts, need can be expressed by different motives. It is for this reason that the positive role of authorities and civil society activists is crucial in the situation of minority languages, since the former creates a certain “density” of communication networks in the minority

68

C

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut g

Need 2

Need 1

C o

o n

Object

n

t e

t

Motive

Purpose

x t

e x

Activity

t

Actions

Fig. 4.2  The structure of needs according to Leont’ev’s approach. Figure created by the authors

language discourse, which the subject relies on and which is used for selecting objects for the exercising of power. It is impossible to describe the need as such since it is not given in direct observation. The need can be reconstructed based on the analysis of certain actions, with the interview method being the most suitable action for identifying motives and the goal of the activity.

4.1.3  Research Context We shall begin by presenting some general information about the Karelian language. Karelia is a republic within the Russian Federation located in the northwest of the country and bordering on Finland. According to the 2010 census, the population of the Republic is 643,548 (Kareliâstat 2010). Of these, 45,570 (7.1% of the population) consider themselves Karelians, 19,000 people claimed to know the Karelian language (2.69% of the population of the Republic), and 12,561 (2%) consider this language to be their native language. The Karelian language belongs to the Balto-Finnic group, has no single standard, and contains three variants: Karelian proper, Livvik, and Lyudik. Since the end of the 1980s, teaching and writing have been developing in two variants: the Livvik one (southern Karelia) and the Karelian proper one (northern Karelia). Since 2014, the Lyudik variant has also been developing. In 2007, a single alphabet for all variants was adopted. Karelians live compactly in three districts: Kalevalsky (northern Karelians), Pryazhinsky, and Olonetsky (Livvik). The population of Kalevalsky district is 8321 people with the Karelian population accounting for 36%. The number of people in

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

69

Olonetsky district is 23,124, 60% of which are Karelians. In the Pryazhinsky district, 37% of 14,664 people are Karelians. In other districts of Karelia, their percentage ranges from 2% to 13%. The Kola federal highway (St. Petersburg—Murmansk) passes through the Republic as does the railway. Pryazhinsky and Olonetsky districts neighbor each other. The driving distance between Olonets and Kalevala is 697 km; the rough weather conditions persisting for most of the year, and the poor condition of roads, for example, along the Kem-Kalevala section, make natural communication between northern Karelians, native speakers of the Karelian proper dialect, and southern Karelians—Livviks—difficult. In all areas, the geographic density of the population varies considerably. The population density in Olonetsky district is 5.2 people per sq.m., in the Pryazhinsky district it amounts to 2.1 people per sq.m., and in Kalevalsky district it is 0.5 people per sq.m. The Karelian language is mainly preserved in villages that are traditionally remote from each other with no direct roads between them. In terms of studying the need for the minority language, the situation of the Karelian language is of particular interest for a number of reasons: 1. According to the UNESCO classification, the Karelian language belongs to the category of endangered languages (specially Factors 1,3) (UNESCO 2003), but at the same time, considering the fact that it is a minority language, there is still a sufficiently large number of both natural speakers and those who have recovered it. The language continues to be used for instrumental purposes as the main means of everyday communication as well as in artificially created situations, to some extent. 2. The Karelian language in the eponymous republic does not have the status of the state language, which creates a special, unique sociolinguistic configuration in the Russian Federation. The lack of state language status is partially offset by the Law on State Support of the Karelian, Vepsian, and Finnish Languages in the Republic of Karelia (Parliament of Karelia 2004). With the exception of a short period (officially 1937–1940, actually 1938–1939), Karelian has never been the state language. In Soviet times, it was Finnish that performed the role of the state language. The Karelian language in the territory of the Republic did not have a writing system (except in 1938–1939) and remained the language of domestic communication. The Republic has three so-called national districts (Kalevalsky, Pryazhinsky, and Olonetsky), where additional special protection and development mechanisms have been devised for the Karelian language, for example, libraries with special “national” status, road signs, and signs in municipal institutions in ­Karelian. The position of the Republic’s authorities toward the Karelian language is generally loyal. Despite the lack of state status, Karelian is a significant resource in the political and social strategies used by the authorities in constructing the identity and symbolic space of the Region. 3. There are ethnically oriented and well-educated local elites for whom the Karelian language is one of the main values. However, understanding of its role and place in the structure of social relations varies greatly.

70

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

4. The long state border with Finland plays a decisive role in the past, present, and, possibly, the future of the Karelian language. Karelian is similar to Finnish in its structure and is located on the periphery of the Balto-Finnic language area. In terms of political geography, it is located on the periphery of the Russian-­ speaking space. The Karelian language (Karelian proper to a greater extent than Livvik) can be considered as an Ausbausprache. However, the Karelian identity is strong and different from the Finnish identity. The economic attractiveness of Finland, the prestige of the Finnish language, and the high demand for it, considering its structural proximity to the Karelian language, create interesting sociolinguistic configurations, including those relating to the need for the language.

4.1.4  Research Methodology The empirical and inductive principle was the priority in terms of researching the need for the Karelian language. The main tool was a semi-structured research interview; a sociolinguistic questionnaire served as an additional tool. We consider interviews to be one of the most productive methods in the study of phenomena that have a socio-psychological dimension, as in this case people do not act as an object of science. Rather, they are actively involved in generating meanings, constructing, and organizing ideas and events, defining a position. To the best of our ability, we worked with people and not on people. The choice of consultants was based on our interest in the position of the authorities, in activists of public organizations supporting the Karelian language, and in ordinary native speakers. The need for language is inherent in all sectors of society. Requests for the language come “from below”; the authorities respond to them while forming them in a way that they consider acceptable. Different actors of glottopolitics (Guespin and Marcellesi 1986) can have different goals and objectives, but they are formally united by the search for strategies to overcome diglossia, both at the personal and at the social levels. We were interested in the experience of people belonging to an ethnic and linguistic minority: To what extent and how exactly this affiliation (which we consider through the prism of the need for this minority) is perceived. Being part of the authorities and belonging to the minority are by no means mutually exclusive categories, and the dichotomy power/people (minority) is too abstract and fails to describe the real situation. It is only possible to identify such aspects through an interview. A simple questionnaire seems less suitable for the following reasons: 1. A questionnaire is a readymade template with predefined parameters. Even if the answer does not imply a choice from a closed list, the wording of the question still encourages reflection in a certain direction. 2. An interview makes it possible to identify the structure of needs more accurately: their hierarchy, their connection with various groups of actors, and their place in the structure of such sociolinguistic categories as language representations, prestige, loyalty, frustration and self-rejection, and so on. This helps us

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

71

ascertain not only where and by whom but also why and for what purpose the language is used. 3. Analysis of the interview according to the Grounded Theory methods of A. Strauss and J. Corbin (Strauss and Corbin 1990) makes it possible to observe and evaluate the degree of manifestation of various types of needs and the attitude toward them. Thus, the qualitative methods and paradigm of interpretivism corresponded to the goal of this research. This approach leads not so much to the identification of a list of external factors and static parameters of the situation but more to the search for internal reasons for use of the language in relation to internal and external influences. This is mainly why the questionnaire method was auxiliary and complemented the research interview method as the main research tool. The desire of respondents to present themselves in a better light and the related factor of social desirability bias (SDB), which are factors inevitably inherent in the interview, were compensated for by the social perspective of the research. Our task was to identify not the structure of the needs of a specific individual, but the general needs in a typologically specific sociolinguistic situation. 4.1.4.1  Place and Time of the Research The main empirical part of the research was conducted in September 2012 and 2013. September is the best month for field research in Karelia; the Republic experiences rough weather conditions and short daylight hours in winter and with very variable road quality between human settlements. In September, the weather conditions were acceptable, and the vacation period had just passed, thus making it possible to organize research in schools (September 1 marks the start of the academic year in the entire Russian Federation). On the first Sunday of September, the Brendoev Readings festival, one of the most important events in the cultural life of Karelians, takes place. This is a large cultural event held in the city of Olonets, the birthplace of the outstanding Karelian poet and writer Vladimir Brendoev, and it attracts a large number of participants, native speakers of the Karelian language. Research was conducted in Petrozavodsk and in three national districts: Olonetsky (Olonets, the village of Vidlitsa, Tuksa, and Kotkozero), Pryazhinsky (Pryazha, the rural village of Essoila) and Kalevalsky (the village of Kalevala). Olonetsky and Pryazhinsky districts are an area where the Livvik variant of the Karelian language is spoken, and Kalevala is an area of Karelian proper speakers. Interviews were also carried out in Kondopoga district (the urban-type settlements of Spasskaya Guba and Konchozero). The latter two were chosen because they are places where speakers of the third major idiom of the Karelian language—Lyudik— traditionally reside. The configuration of the Lyudik idiom, which had no writing system or even minimal standardization at the time of research, was of particular interest. In the remaining districts, the questionnaire was not employed due to the very small presence of Karelian there. The local Karelian population moved to

72

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

Finland from the western districts of Karelia annexed to the USSR in 1940 after the Soviet–Finnish war. In Zaonezhie region (on the other side of Lake Onega) to the east, the population was traditionally Russian; to the north, the density of the rural population is extremely low. In the cities, where there are forestry enterprises, an overwhelming majority of residents speak Russian. 4.1.4.2  Designing the Sociolinguistic Questionnaire We used a questionnaire, but, as we have mentioned, it played a subordinate role in the research. One of the goals in designing the questionnaire was to achieve a compact format so that it should not take more than 10 min to complete it. The questionnaire included a classic set of questions of a sociodemographic nature, questions about competence in the Karelian, Vepsian, and Finnish languages, and questions about possible synonyms, including contextual ones, for names of the Karelian language. The last set of questions was dedicated to the level of prestige of the Karelian, Finnish, and Russian languages. The objective of the questionnaire was to complement the qualitative research with quantitative data and to retrieve a general comparative picture of the attitude to the language and the need for it among middle and high school students as well as adult speakers. A total of 200 questionnaires were completed correctly: 100 by students aged from 13 to 17 and 100 by adults aged from 25 to 60. In all, 60% of adult respondents were between 35 and 60 years old. The questionnaire survey was conducted equally in Petrozavodsk, Olonets and Pryazha, and Kalevala. 4.1.4.3  Designing the Interview Questions When planning the research, the guide prepared for the interview was aimed at clarifying situations, conditions, and organization of the use of the Karelian language. Its goal was also to reveal the image and place of the Karelian language in relation to Russian and standard Finnish, the attitude to various dialects and sub-­ dialects of the Karelian language (in particular, issues of the effectiveness of standardization), and the attitude to various names for the language, to identify its level of prestige as a whole and that of its individual idioms. A number of questions were directly related to the need for the language: whether it is needed in any professional areas, for everyday communication, in which regions and in what situations; if the language is learned, where and why (e.g., for the purposes of national and cultural identification, for instrumental purposes, for professional purposes); whether there are any fluctuations between learning Finnish and Karelian, and of what type; whether respondents think that measures to preserve the language are sufficient and effective; if there have been cases of non-acceptance of the language and rejection of it; what personal strategies to compensate for the situation of diglossia are used, and so on. Both main language variants (Livvik and proper Karelian) were considered.

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

73

A total of 47 interviews were conducted: 20  in the capital of the Republic, Petrozavodsk; 22 in Olonetsky and Pryazhinsky national districts; and 5 in the village of Kalevala, where the North Karelian (Karelian proper) dialect is spoken. 4.1.4.4  Target Audience Since we were interested in the need for the language, interviews and questionnaires were conducted among people who know and use the Karelian language—both those who use it spontaneously and without reflecting upon it and those who use it consciously in their professional or social activities. We planned meetings with representatives of state institutions at different levels, the scientific and academic community, public organizations involved in supporting and promoting the Karelian language, educators teaching Karelian, representatives of the national cultural elite, and with ordinary native speakers. Such a choice of consultants made it possible to assess the types of language needs among various population groups and to observe and understand to what extent and how exactly Karelian society is structured in terms of using language strategies. 4.1.4.5  Preliminary Project and Pilot Study The pilot stage of the project was conducted in Petrozavodsk in the summer 2012. Meetings were held with the following: the director and employees of the Institute for Language, Literature, and History of the Karelian Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Karelia; and the Committee on National Policy, Relations with Religious Organizations, and Public Relations of the Republic of Karelia (currently the Ministry of National and Regional Politics). A series of meetings were also organized with representatives of public organizations and ordinary native speakers. The pilot project made it possible to address a number of problems. First, it helped the authors to become acquainted with the situation of the Karelian language as a whole on-site, to clarify the structure of measures to support the Karelian language, and to identify the main actors in language policy and glottopolitics. It also allowed us to test the interview method and the prepared questionnaires. The pilot study enabled us to adjust the direction of the main work on field collection of material and to finalize the list of settlements and consultants and the time of the research. The processing of the first questionnaires showed satisfactory results, thus proving their usefulness. The pilot study showed the special role of the national departments of libraries1 as centers concentrating and attracting Karelian culture. These departments also serve as venues for native speakers to simply speak their native language. The study

1  The national departments are where literature in the Karelian language and about Karelia is collected. As a rule, the employees of these departments, are fluent in the Karelian language.

74

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

also demonstrated the outstanding role of the Faculty of Finno-Baltic Philology (Department of Karelian and Vepsian Languages) at Petrozavodsk State University in the formation of national intellectuals. Graduates from this faculty included practically all employees of the newspaper published in Karelian, employees of the television and radio editorial offices broadcasting in the Karelian and Vepsian languages, and leaders of Karelian public organizations involved in the preservation and promotion of the Karelian language. These data were taken into consideration when planning further research. After conducting the pilot study, on the other hand, we declined to meet with forestry workers. Although forestry is one of the main industries in the Republic, no priority is given to local residents in the hiring process. Moreover, the bulk of workers are recruited from other districts. The first interview coding and preliminary analysis revealed categories that can be regarded as key ones when developing the concept of the need for the language on the periphery of language areas: actors of glottopolitics, situations of language use, and language loyalty. These three categories, at the top level of an open coding procedure, are the most frequent and intense in users’ discussions about their language and language practices. We proposed the names of the categories. With the exception of representatives of the academic community, the consultants themselves rarely or never used such words outside their ordinary meanings. The categories we distinguished, and the structure they formed, which we called the strategy to overcome the situation of diglossia, became a conceptual apparatus for describing the need for the language. These are not the only categories resulting from interview coding. The concept of language vitality, auto-odi (self-rejection) (Alén Garabato and Colonna 2016), and the prestige of the language occupy an important place, along with several other concepts. These were also taken into account in our analysis. However, despite the importance of the corresponding category, vitality cannot be considered core. Vitality, as it appears in interviews, relates to situations of use and willingness to use the language (language loyalty). “Auto-odi” is a complex psychological category and, as a sociolinguistic examination is clearly not enough for its explanation, it requires at least a diagnostic psychological questionnaire.

4.1.5  C  onceptualizing the “Need for the Karelian Language” Category We indicate subsequently some approaches to the analysis of “language needs” and relevant results. 4.1.5.1  Processing the Questionnaire General statistical data about the need for language were obtained as a result of processing the questionnaire, in which the third set of questions concerned the representation of the language among native speakers, their needs, and the prestige of

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

75

the language. The questions were structured as follows: Do you think that the Karelian language (a) is important for communication with family and friends, (b) is important for communication at the local level, (c) is important for communication at district level, (d) is important for communication in the economic domain, (e) is the language you are attached to, and (f) is a prestigious language of public communication? All respondents mastered the Karelian language to some extent. The results are presented in the figure subsequently. Figure 4.3 shows that schoolchildren and adults have opposite perceptions in almost all areas of the language’s use. While in the domain of everyday communication the attitude of schoolchildren toward the language is generally neutral, in prestigious areas of communication (economy and public communication), its rates of prestige are low. The adult population, on the contrary, is loyal to the Karelian language and is ready to use it (or already uses it) in all areas except the economy. These are interesting benchmark data. However, they raise more questions than answers, since they do not tell us about the nature of prestige, need, or loyalty, in other words, about the quality of categories. Our interview method filled this gap. It is curious that the analysis of interviews sometimes leads to paradoxical results: there can be a high demand for the Karelian language in the economic domain, just not instrumentally, but symbolically, namely, in the use of the Karelian language and “Karelianness” as a regional brand aimed at the tourism business. Tourism business ranks first nowadays. If the Karelian language were used in this domain, it would become a brand for the whole of Karelia, since tourism in Karelia is based on the Karelian identity. Karelian should certainly be involved in tourism. [Interview 2011]

At the beginning of our research, this idea was emerging. It has now become virtually commonplace in conversations about the place of the Karelian language

Fig. 4.3  The image of the Karelian language among adults and schoolchildren in the Republic of Karelia

76

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

(D′jakonova and Rodionova 2018: 119–133). These questionnaires reveal the most problematic areas in the situation of the Karelian language: language shift, serious intergenerational differences in language representation, and the decline in the instrumental and symbolic functions of the language in the most significant situations and areas of communication. Analysis of the interview materials allowed us to examine these issues in more detail, observe how the adult generation reacts against the language shift, and ascertain what strategies are using to overcome diglossia. 4.1.5.2  Processing the Interviews. Basic Categories of Analysis We shall now turn to the analysis of the interview transcripts. Consultants mainly discuss where they use or could use the language or when they consider it necessary and appropriate to use it. The simplest and most objective research method is to isolate and classify the situations of language use (e.g., “I sing in a choir”, “I perform in a theater”, “I attend language courses”, “I speak with my husband at home”, “We publish books in Karelian”, “We made road signs in Karelian”, etc.). We identified these situations and described the logical modality of the utterance (deontic, alethic, boulomaic, etc.), the assessment of the situation and attitude toward it (subjective modalities, both affective and evaluative), and the intensity and significance of using the language in the given situation (through lexical and grammatical markers). The situations were further classified according to the following parameters: external/internal motivation, symbolic/instrumental, prestigious/neutral, conscious and volitional/natural, and spontaneous use of the language. Instrumental use is the use of language as a means of communication. The symbolic use of the language is understood as any use of the language other than for purely instrumental purposes. This may be artistic use (theater, singing, and reciting poetry), some minimal presence of the language in public spaces (greetings in the language during official events, signs on government institutions and schools, road signs in national districts, signs, and plaques in museums), use of names in national cuisine, tools, games, etc. The category of prestige applies to all areas of language use (public/private, high-level/everyday) and to all forms of the language. The written form and everything related to it—periodical printed materials, translations of books and especially the Bible, school and the preparation and publication of textbooks—are considered prestigious. We held meetings with Zinaida Dubinina, one of the main translators of the Bible into the Livvik dialect of the Karelian language, with Pavel, a priest in the village of Vidlitsi, where masses were held in the Karelian language as well as with school principals, newspaper editors, and television station employees. The prestigious sphere of language use lies in its being spoken during government events, and so on. Conscious and volitional use of the language is reflected, deliberate, for example, “I speak Karelian with children because I want them to know their native language.” While natural use of the language is correlated with the satisfaction of personal needs, conscious and volitional use can be addressed both to the individual and to society.

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

77

Our research showed a relationship between the structure of needs for the language on the one hand, and the actors of language policy, on the other hand. It also revealed a close relationship between the categories of prestige of the language, loyalty to it, and its situation of use. We shall demonstrate these relationships with examples. Language prestige, language loyalty, and communication situations turned out to be interdependent categories. By its nature, prestige is a static category, the result of language loyalty, but high prestige of the language in a particular area contributes to its use, thus increasing loyalty. Loyalty is a dynamic category, it is a conscious or unconscious state, aimed at the language. If we look back at the concept of need defined by Leont’ev (1971), language loyalty appears as an objectified form of satisfying the need for the language. Loyalty is not merely related to the areas of language use; it is the use or desire to use the language in certain areas for a specific purpose. Leont’ev’s dynamic concept thus helps us to grasp the concept of need through tangible phenomena of language use. The categorical apparatus proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) and Deci and Ryan (1985) makes it possible to structure the category of needs in terms of personality: value structures (need for autonomy), structures for responding to external challenges (need for competence), and the need for social affinity. Based on the criteria of natural/conscious and volitional use of the language and its symbolic/instrumental function, we propose the following types of loyalty: 1. Instrumental loyalty 1 (InstL1) corresponds to the natural use of the language in traditional situations, mainly in a communicative function; 2. Instrumental loyalty 2 (InstL2) corresponds to the conscious use of the language in extreme cases in all situations as well as to the creation of new communication situations; 3. Symbolic Loyalty (SymL) implies using the language outside the instrumental field. Actors of glottopolitics and language policy represent an abstract category that reflects the attitude to the language and ideas about where and how it can be used as well as its place in the social structure of society. The same individual can represent several types of actors. For example, an individual can be a representative of power structures, an enthusiast and expert in the Karelian language, a participant in amateur performances, and an active supporter of various actions to protect the language. The material under study helps us identify the following three main groups of actors: authorities, activists, and ordinary native speakers (users). Each group is not indifferent to the present and future of the Karelian language, but all of them have different strategies to overcome the situation of diglossia and different markers of the utterance mode. The authorities are characterized by an exclusively external type of motivation and by the main type of need for competence, symbolic loyalty (SymL), prestigious situations, and exclusively conscious use of the language.

78

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

–– The main vector of needs is the creation of a relatively acceptable environment for all residents and the construction of the region’s identity and symbolic borders. –– The way of overcoming the situation of diglossia, typical of the authorities, may conditionally be called modernized folklorization. –– The model of the authorities can be presented as follows2: Authorities 

ExtM  SymL  PresSit NeCompetence



Users are characterized by internal motivation, the loyalty of the first type (InstL1), their basic needs for autonomy and social affinity (relatedness), their use of the language mainly in everyday situations, and by natural use. –– The main vector of needs is compensation or therapy for the lack of a language environment at an individual level. –– The way of overcoming the situation of diglossia is by creating micro-situations of real communication in the language. –– The model of users: Users 

IntM  InsL1  OrdSit Neautonomy  Nerelatedness



Activists are the most complex model. They are characterized by internal and external types of motivation, instrumental loyalty of the second type (InstL2), symbolic loyalty, the use of language in all situations, and the conscious and volitional type of language use. –– The main vector of needs is compensation or therapy for the lack of a language environment in social terms. –– The way of overcoming the situation of diglossia is normalization, that is, the creation of conditions when the language is used in all areas, forms, and functions. –– The model of activists: Activists 

 ExtM  IntM    InsL2  SymL    OrdSit  Pr esSit  Neautonomy  Nerelatedness  NeCompetence



In this chapter, formulas are given only as examples of one of the results arising from the analysis of interviews and questionnaires.

2  IntM: Internal motivation; ExtM: External motivation; InsL1: Instrumental loyalty of the first type (natural use of language); InsL2: Instrumental loyalty of the second type (conscious use of language); SymL: Symbolic loyalty; OrdSit: Ordinary situations; PresSit: Prestigious situations; Ne: Needs.

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

79

4.1.5.3  Structure of Needs in the Karelian Language The structure of needs in the Karelian language can be determined based on the following parameters specified as a result of our analysis: whose need it is (actors), what type of situations are in question (social dimension, individual dimension), and what the type of loyalty is involved. In other words, who acts (actor), where the action is performed (situation), what is done, and for what purpose (loyalty) and why (need). The general context of the situation is pronounced diglossia. We will show examples of the results through the actors because they constitute the only active category and subject of needs (Viaut 2010, 2013; Viaut and Moskvitcheva 2014; Moskvitcheva and Viaut 2016). The “authorities’” need for the Karelian language is associated with external motivation under strong social pressure, which can include requirements for the preservation and protection of the language by civil society, the ideological climate of the society, the presence of past and present heritage, international pressure in the field of language ecology, Russian legislation, and so on. On the other hand, the authorities have their own interests, which consist in maintaining the status of the Republic, in constructing its own space, borders, and special territorial identity, and in the branding of the region. The authorities are interested in the language, but in the symbolic field, therefore the situations of language use and created situations are aimed, on the one hand, at maintaining the special image of the region, and, on the other hand, at meeting the requirements of language support. The authorities’ need for the language can be attributed to the need for competence. The authorities mainly support the use of the language in the following areas: the holding of conferences and conducting of scientific research related to the language, organization of courses for the population, teaching of the language in schools (though often minimal), organization of amateur concerts in the Karelian language (folk choirs, theatre), and support for publishing. The authorities use the Karelian language at some official events, mainly those related to culture, for example, in the formal greetings. All these are classical forms and areas of language use. Most interestingly, the use of language resources has recently begun in the economic domain and in the symbolic construction of regional identity. Our respondents discussed this subject during interviews, but it has now become a fact. The “Order of the Head of the Republic to Expand the Practice of Using the Karelian, Vepsic and Finnish Languages on the Territory of the Republic of Karelia”  (Government of Republic of Karelia  2018) instructs the Ministry of Economic Development and Industry to consider the possibility of marking products of Karelian enterprises and designing advertising banners in the Karelian language. It says that the Russian language shall remain mandatory but encourages local governments to work on the issue of installing facade signs with street names in Karelian. This is a very significant innovation because the language will be present in public space, albeit symbolically. Native speakers use different strategies. Their efforts are aimed at the possibility of using the Karelian language in their daily lives. Their needs are internal, and the experience of dealing with the situation of diglossia and the language shift is

80

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

painful. Strategies to overcome this situation lead to the fact that they either simply speak the language in everyday contexts, or create their own micro-situations, usually in the cultural domain, due to an acute shortage of natural communication situations. For example, they play gorodki (kyykkä), sing in a choir, and act in performances (e.g., the Tikuzet folk theater group in the town of Vidlitsa in Olonetsky district or the Čičiliusku puppet theater in Petrozavodsk). Sometimes the instrumental need (the need for competence) is satisfied, for example, in the case of knowing or learning the Karelian language for trips to Finland. In general, users aim to preserve at best the status quo of the language; instrumental oral loyalty prevails. Their attitude to the written language is rather indifferent, which means there is no need for it. It is possible that the efforts of the authorities, focused on the minimal presence of the language in public space, will cause a change in the structure of the needs of ordinary native speakers. Activists, by and large, fulfill a language normalization program. Their main type of loyalty is instrumental loyalty of the second type, which is expressed in the need for modernization of the language, full presence of the language in the most modern areas, the creation of long-term language revitalization programs, and the search for legal mechanisms for institutionalizing language practices. Activists oversee projects to create language nests, to release CDs with modern music in the Karelian language (e.g., the Anna Tulle group), and to organize non-folklorized ethnic gatherings. The language is penetrating the tourism sector. While the government to a great extent encourages everything related to traditional culture, activists make up for the lack of language in the modern world. This is not to say that they return to the language positions and functions lost in modern society, which it never had. They precisely create a new structure of language strategies and language niches as part of an open urban culture; this raises prospects for new types of needs, even symbolic ones.

4.2  Conclusion In this chapter, we have presented our experience in conducting research on the need for the Karelian language in the Republic of Karelia. Interviews constituted the main research method, and this was justified as it provides the most interesting results, since it makes it possible to conceptualize the concept of need and make it operational. Descriptive historical or sociodemographic research is important, but it is only the first stage of any work since it determines the context of the situation under study. Although we relied on all the material available to us, descriptive and quantitative methods do not allow us to see the structure of sociolinguistic concepts; they do not make it possible to forecast language development vectors, and they fail to answer questions as to why and for what purpose the language is used. The sociolinguistic questionnaire is an important auxiliary tool, but its shortcomings are widely known. For us, the main point is that, for instance, situations of language use are designed by the researcher in advance. Metaphorically speaking, the

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

81

questionnaire is a railway on a fixed track, while the research interview contains many different paths of meanings, which, however, merge into a common path. It is no coincidence that the questionnaire showed minimal prestige of the Karelian language in the economic domain, and the results of the interview analysis reveal a fundamentally different picture. Of course, one should remember that this is a minority language, and therefore, the economic need for it is of a different nature than that for a majority language. The results of our research on the need for a minority language using the example of Karelian allow us to take a slightly new look at the situation of the language as a whole and the prospects for its preservation. First, it is worth seriously addressing the problem of biculturalism and boundaries between languages and cultures. In modern society, these boundaries are not physical but symbolic. It is true that traditional Karelian villages are disappearing; the population is migrating to cities or regional centers. This leads to the disappearance of the language in traditional areas and communication situations. The boundaries between ethnic groups and ethnicity as such are blurred. Traditional values (customs, practices, and rituals) are not transmitted from generation to generation, and therefore, the language used to serve them is not transmitted either. But this does not mean that the rethought symbolic “ethnic” concept is not an important part of the identity structure. The need for origins remains of prime importance. Borders run not between individuals, across territories, but within the personality, and therefore, the role and functions of language are changed in consequence. Second, the existence of the language is changing. Language speakers are increasingly leaving villages for cities; in this way, language, from being the means of everyday communication in the primary language environment, instead turns into a symbolic means of communication in prestigious areas. The oral form certainly remains, but the written, literary, standard form is becoming increasingly important. The school becomes the place of preservation and transmission of the language, which prompts the need for competent specialists in the field of didactics and linguistics. Third, although the traditional communicative space is narrowing, at the same time the use of the language is expanding, in particular, in the prestigious areas of communication, there are internet sites, modern songs (rock, rap), and theater art; gatherings (non-folklorized) are held in the Karelian language, research articles, and reports are published in Karelian. Fourth, the structure of actors of glottopolitics and language policy has expanded. The well-educated intelligentsia and the authorities are serious players in the construction of symbolic ethnicity and territory. The vectors of their activity do not coincide in every way, but both players consciously and responsibly use the language as a resource in their activities. The work of both “activists“and “authorities“is important, since this work brings the language out of the shadow of its everyday area of use, introduces it into public discourse, creates an environment for the “presence” of the language in society, and the awareness of this presence, which, in turn, mobilizes efforts aimed to protect and preserve it. Ordinary speakers, for all the general pessimism of the linguistic situation, do not experience stigmatization and

82

S. Moskvitcheva and A. Viaut

perceive the Karelian language as the norm. All this is unlikely to help preserve the language as regards its normalization (use and presence of the language in all areas of society) and its traditional forms and situations of use. However, it can be argued that the nature and functions of the minority language are modified and that it will possibly claim its place in the structure of society; this place, of course, will be different in relation to the previous era. This does not sound as optimistic as we would like, but it is still more life-affirming than pronouncing the language dead.

References Alén Garabato, Maria Carmen, and Romain Colonna, eds. 2016. Auto-odi. La "haine de soi" en sociolinguistique. Paris: L'Harmattan. D′jakonova, M.V., and A.P. Rodionova. 2018. "Jazyk i kul′tura karel kak brend razvitija malyh territorij (na primere etno-lokal′noj gruppy karel-ljudikov)" [language and culture of the Karelians as a brand for the development of small territories (through the example of the Ethnolocal Group of Lyudik Karelians)]. Sovremennye problemy servisa i turizma 12 (4): 119–133. Deci, Edward L., and Richard M.  Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New-York: Plenum Press. ———. 2002. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Gardner, Robert C., and Wallace E. Lambert. 1959. Motivation variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266–272. Gardner, Robert, and Wallace E.  Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Government of Republic of Karelia. 2018. “Poruchenie Glavy Respubliki po rasshireniju praktiki primenenija karel′skogo , vepsskogo i finskogo jazykov na territorii Respubliki Karelija. ППГ-31/2. 16.11.2018”. [The Order of Head of Republic to Expand the Practice of Using Karelian, Veps and Finnish Languages on the Territory of the Republic of Karelia ППГ-31/2. 16.11.2018]. https://nationalkom.karelia.ru/assets/PPG-­31-­2-­ot-­16.11.2018.pdf Guespin, Louis, and Jean-Baptiste Marcellesi. 1986. Pour la glottopolitique. Langages 83: 5–34. Kareliâstat. 2010. “Vserossijskaâ perepis’ naseleniâ 2010.” [“All-Russian Population Census”]. https://krl.gks.ru/folder/60059. Karjalainen, Heine, Ulriika Puura, Riho Grünthal, and Svetlana Kovaleva. 2013. Karelian in Russia. ELDIA case-specific report. European language diversity for all. Mainz, Wien, Helsinki, Tartu, Mariehamn, Oulu, Maribor: ELDIA. https://docplayer.net/20083817-­Karelian-­in-­russia-­eldia-­ case-­specific-­report-­heini-­karjalainen-­ulriikka-­puura-­riho-­grunthal-­svetlana-­kovaleva.html Leont’ev, A.N. 1971. Potrebnosti, motivy i èmocii [needs, motives and emotions]. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta. Leont’ev, D.A., ed. 2002. Sovremennaia psikhologjia motivatsii [modern psychology of motivation]. Moscow: Smysl. Moskvitcheva, Svetlana, and Alain Viaut. 2016. Sortir de l'"autoodi" dans les situations linguistiques minoritaires. In Auto-odi. La "haine de soi" en sociolinguistique, ed. Maria Carmen Alén Garabato and Romain Colonna, 163–180. Paris: L'Harmattan. Parliament of Karelia, 2004. “Zakon O gosudarstvennoj podderžke karel’skogo, vepsskogo i finskogo jazykov v Respublike Karelija” [Law of state support for the Karelian, Veps and Finnish languages in the Republic of Karelia]. Accessed March 1, 2021. http://www.karelia-zs.ru/ zakonodatelstvo_rk/prav_akty/759-zrk/

4  The Need for Minority Languages in Borderland Conditions: Field Research…

83

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basic of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London, New Delhi: SAGE publications International Educational and Professional Publisher. UNESCO. 2003. Groupe d’experts spécial de l’UNESCO sur les langues en danger. 2003. Vitalité et disparition des langues. Paris: UNESCO. https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/00120-­FR.pdf Viaut, Alain. 2010. La notion de besoin linguistique et les langues minoritaires. In Altérité et identité, itinéraires croisés. Mélanges offerts à Christian Coulon, ed. Dominique Darbon, René Otayek, and Pierre Sadran, 401–416. Bruxelles: Bruylant. ———. 2013. La Carélie: autonomisation linguistique d'une nation. Comparaison avec l'Alsace. In L'expression de la diversité culturelle, un enjeu mondial, ed. Michel Mathien, 233–246. Bruxelles: Bruylant. Viaut, Alain, and Svetlana Moskvitcheva, eds. 2014. Langue, marge territoriale et besoin linguistique: approche comparée entre Carélie et Pays Basque. Bordeaux: MSHA. https://www.iker. cnrs.fr/langue-­marge-­territoriale-­et.html?lang=fr

Chapter 5

A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash Diaspora Group in the Moscow Region Marina V. Kutsaeva

Abstract  This chapter deals with a case study of conducting a sociolinguistic survey in an internal diaspora group. The field material was collected by the author in the Chuvash diaspora in the Moscow region for two and a half years by means of a sociolinguistic questionnaire, participant observation, direct observation, and a structured interview with the respondents. The selective sample includes 100 respondents. The questionnaire contained 30 questions. The age cohorts and the diaspora generations were taken into account in statistical data analysis. Field research resulted not only in the complete description of the functioning of the Chuvash language in the diaspora group in the Moscow region but also in the elaboration of a methodology to facilitate further studies of the functioning of other languages in the conditions of an internal diaspora. Keywords  The Chuvash language · a sociolinguistic survey · sociolinguistic research methods · a sociolinguistic questionnaire · a participant observation · a direct observation · a structured interview · Moscow region · internal diaspora

5.1  The Chuvash and the Chuvash Language As Russia is a vast, multi-ethnic state, currently incorporating 153 languages (according to the results presented in (“Jazyki Rossii”) ,1 internal diasporas exist within the country; the members of these diasporas often live far from the area where their ethnic group is based. From a linguistic point of view, they are in constant interaction with their homeland and hence make periodic use of their ethnic language. And yet as schoolchildren, they all studied Russian, the state language, which over time became their main language. 1  “Yazyki Rossii” [The Languages of Russia], accessed January 26, 2021, https://iling-ran.ru/web/ ru/jazykirf

M. V. Kutsaeva (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_5

85

86

M. V. Kutsaeva

The Chuvash are one of the largest ethnic groups in Russia (1,435,872 members (the 2010 All-Russian census),2 and the largest Turkic-speaking Orthodox religious group in the country. In the Chuvash Republic, Chuvash is an official language along with Russian; it is taught as a subject at school and used as the language of instruction in rural primary schools; higher education is available in Chuvash at the Chuvash humanities faculty. Although in more limited use than Russian, Chuvash is the language of local government and administration, local mass media, Chuvash humanities, literature, and local theater. In all, 80.8% of Chuvash in the Republic have claimed to be competent in the Chuvash language (Fomin 2016a). According to the 2010 all-Russian census, 814,750 Chuvash (comprising 56.7% of the total number of Chuvash in Russia) reside in the Chuvash Republic, located in the Middle Volga area, where they constitute a titular ethnic group. They comprise 67.7% of the total population of the Chuvash Republic (the 2010 All-Russian census).3 Due to a number of historical reasons (including the fact that administrative borders rarely coincide with the borders of indigenous ethnic territories), the remaining 43.3% are settled in either dense or dispersed groups elsewhere in Russia and thus form an internal diaspora (Mihal′chenko 2006). Outside the Chuvash Republic, Chuvash are fairly densely settled in other administrative entities of the Middle Volga region, such as the Republic of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Ulyanovsk, and Samara regions (Fomin 2016b: 557). In such areas, in conformity with Russian legislation, notably with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Art. 68) and Law on languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation (Art. 3)4 Chuvash enjoys the status of a language of a population in an area of compact residence; it is used in certain official spheres, for example, as a language of instruction and mass media. In other regions, where Chuvash are more dispersed, their language is deprived of any official status in such conditions and becomes a minority language (Kutsaeva 2019a). The main goal was to conduct field research among members of a Chuvash internal diaspora group in the Moscow region (currently 26,779 Chuvash people) (The 2010 All-Russian census)5 and to study the functioning of the Chuvash language in the conditions of an internal diaspora.

2  “Vserossijskaya perepis′ naseleniya 2010 goda” [The all-Russian census of 2010], accessed October 27, 2019, http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm 3  “Vserossijskaya perepis′ naseleniya 2010 goda” [The all-Russian census of 2010], accessed October 27, 2019, http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm 4  “Konstitutsiya Rossijskoj Federatsii” [The constitution of the Russian Federation], Article 68, accessed October 13, 2019, http://constitutionrf.ru/skachat-konstitutsiyu; “Zakon o yazykah narodov Rossijskoj Federatsii” [Law on languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation], Article 3, accessed October 13, 2019, http://www.advokat-profes.ru/2010-12-06-13-43-33/3162011-04-05-13-35-25.html 5  “Vserossijskaya perepis′ naseleniya 2010 goda” [The all-Russian census of 2010], accessed October 27, 2019, http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

87

5.2  Fieldwork Area Field research was conducted in both Moscow and the Moscow region over a period of two and a half years. The majority of the respondents were either city dwellers (58%) or residents of towns (34%) located in the vicinity of Moscow. Only 8% of the interviewees in the sample reside in rural areas in the Moscow region (see Table 5.1). It should be noted that language processes in cities and urban agglomerations, which are the focus of urban linguistics, vary greatly from those in rural agricultural areas, traditionally the object of linguistic studies. Large cities, confined to a limited area with a high concentration of non-agricultural population, attract migratory flows, which consequently leads to language diversity. Every large modern city is a kind of Babylon; this is particularly true of capital cities like Moscow, in countries well known for their imperial traditions and centralization (Kibrik 2017). Moreover, in the urban environment new migrants, especially if their migration is accompanied by a change of language environment, inevitably encounter a contradiction between the need to integrate into the host community and the need to preserve their linguistic and cultural identity. As studies reveal, the preservation and functioning of minority languages in the urban environment depend on economic, political, geographical, sociolinguistic, and even psychological factors. Depending on the situation, these factors might either contribute to the strengthening of ethnic and cultural identity or, conversely, facilitate assimilation. Moreover, the migrant generation equally matters; while first-generation migrants struggle to adapt and to consolidate in a new society, second-generation migrants, born in a new place, are likely to forge a new identity, which is often accompanied by the loss of their ethnic language (Mazurova et al. 2018). Furthermore, the dispersed settlement of respondents in a city, which undoubtedly affects their language practices, can equally pose a problem for the researcher; this will be further discussed (see Sect. 5.3.4.3).

5.3  Research Methods The methods employed in the present research include direct observation, participant observation, sociolinguistic questionnaires, and structured interviews with respondents.

Table 5.1  Respondents’ area of residence City (Moscow) 58

Town 34

Rural area 8

88

M. V. Kutsaeva

5.3.1  Direct Observation Observation is one of the basic means of collecting scientific data, especially in humanities (Belikov and Krysin 2016: 211). Ethnic cultural events, for example, the Akatui festival (celebrating the end of sowing), Savarni (Shrove) a carnival, and Ker Sari (a beer harvest festival) served as an initiation into my research. Although many Chuvash are city dwellers nowadays (55.5% of residents in the cities and towns of the Chuvash Republic are ethnic Chuvash, whereas in Cheboksary, the capital of the Republic, they constitute 62.3% of the total population), the Chuvash still comprise 84.2% of the entire rural population in the Chuvash Republic (Fomin 2016a: 826). As my research later shows, the majority of the respondents in the sample have a strong attachment toward the countryside. Therefore holidays, dating back to pagan times, are celebrated annually by Chuvash ethnic communities across Russia. Attending such festivities “without revealing scientific intentions reduces the researcher’s impact on language behaviour in groups that are being studied, and the researcher is able to record the peculiarities of language behaviour just like a hidden video camera” (Belikov and Krysin 2016: 212). These particular cases allowed me to observe, for example, that in official speeches on stage, the Chuvash language was used in its symbolic function; only a few greeting words would be pronounced in Chuvash and then the speaker would quickly switch to Russian. It goes without saying that the performances themselves (songs and poems) dedicated to the event would all be in Chuvash. The audience, comprising members of the Chuvash Moscow region diaspora, was likely to use Chuvash as well. There were many people greeting and congratulating each other on these special occasions in Chuvash, but then again, in most cases, code-switching would occur.

5.3.2  Participant Observation Participant observation implies that the researcher becomes a member of the group that is being observed. Yet, even then, while collecting sociolinguistic data, the researcher should not influence the speech behavior of the individuals in the group (Belikov and Krysin 2016: 213–215). I soon became acquainted with members of the ethnic Chuvash community, explaining my research purposes at this stage. I was eagerly accepted by members of the group and on a number of occasions was invited to their cultural gatherings. I also attended Chuvash-language classes held at the main representative office of the Chuvash Republic in Moscow. Being a member of the group, on the one hand, allowed me to meet potential respondents and thus facilitated the process of completing the sample, and, on the other hand, to clarify certain points that I was missing. Getting in touch with people who ran the events was very helpful. Anatoly Gr., the head of the ethnic Chuvash

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

89

community in Moscow, told me: “Naturally, we first communicate in Chuvash, because we invite a lot of guests. We set such conditions here and do it on purpose. Chuvash people, living in Moscow, crave the Chuvash language, Chuvash songs and Chuvash ethnic costumes. All these terms are put to performers and artists beforehand. They must sing mainly in Chuvash. Well, three songs in Chuvash and then a song in Russian, for those guests who do not speak the language. But mostly—it is all in Chuvash. The audience is happy, of course, to attend a purely Chuvash concert.”

5.3.3  Sociolinguistic Questionnaires 5.3.3.1  Preliminary Stage At a preliminary stage of the research, a basic questionnaire was prepared (partly modified from a previous model (Agranat 2016: 183)), containing general questions about the respondents’ language use, both in the past and in the present, and their language choices for the future. The initial questionnaire was composed of questions, such as where the respondents’ parents were born, what language(s) they spoke, what language(s) the respondent used to speak in childhood (and at elementary/secondary school, as well as the language of instruction and education), and what language he spoke to parents, grandparents, siblings, teachers; what language(s) the respondent might use today to speak to a spouse, children and friends; and what language(s) the respondent might find useful for children to know in future. There were equal questions about the language(s) which the respondents are likely to use in their everyday life when reading newspapers, watching TV, using new media in general, going out with friends, doing shopping, and so on. Further reading into the topic, Perotto (2010) suggested an additional set of questions regarding ethnic and cultural identity, which at the same time shed light on the Chuvash language itself (see Sect. 5.5). At the end of the questionnaire, there were linguistically less “standard” questions that still gave rise to some interesting results. For example, the majority of respondents in the sample claimed that they have dreams “without a language,” but 27% stated that they dream in Chuvash, depending on what they dream: if the dream is about a particular place in their native land, the Chuvash Republic, or in places where the Chuvash population live in the Middle Volga region, if the dream is about a person with whom they speak in Chuvash in their everyday life, or if in their dream they see a relative, especially an elderly one, a grandmother or a grandfather, who passed away and with whom they used to speak in Chuvash. Another question, fairly typical in sociolinguistic surveys of this kind, about the language of religion, led to unexpected results in this particular case. The respondents often mentioned that back in the Chuvash Republic they might hear and use Chuvash in liturgy, especially in rural areas, or that they might read religious texts in Chuvash if they need to, even in the Moscow region; a number of respondents

90

M. V. Kutsaeva

testified to the greater accessibility of Chuvash in such texts compared to old Church Slavonic used in Russian liturgy. Exploration of their answers in depth as well as the reading of additional literature on the topic resulted in the author conducting a study (within the framework of the same survey) on the involvement of the members of the Chuvash Moscow region diaspora in religious activities and the accessibility of religious texts and liturgical materials in the Chuvash language. 5.3.3.2  Final Set of Questions As a result, the questionnaire comprised 30 questions, focusing on the life, language practices, cultural, and ethnic experiences of the respondents in their native land, the Chuvash Republic, as well as in places where the Chuvash population is concentrated in the Middle Volga region (see Sect. 5.1), and where the respondents actually live in Moscow and the Moscow region. The questions were open-ended and in certain cases assumed long, detailed answers. The questions can be roughly divided into the following main sections: • A respondent’s profile, aimed at identifying his/her social characteristics: gender, age, place of birth, and education. • The first linguistic set of questions, targeted to establish the respondent’s linguistic biography: language(s) spoken in early years, language(s) taught at elementary and secondary school, language(s) spoken at home and in the neighborhood, and so on. • The second linguistic set of questions, which provides information on the respondent’s actual use of languages, for instance, what language(s) he uses at home when talking to a spouse and children, to colleagues at work, and in what language(s) he listens to radio, watches TV, reads newspapers, uses social networks, and so on. • A set of “ethnic cultural” questions focused on matters such as observing traditional ethnic customs and holidays, religious beliefs, feeling of belonging to ethnic culture, and intergenerational transmission of ethnic culture.

5.3.4  Structured Interview of the Respondents In this field research, a structured interview of the respondents entailed a balance between following the strict order of the questions in the questionnaire, on the one hand, and, on the other, making the interview resemble a normal conversational situation, thus putting the interviewee at ease.

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

91

5.3.4.1  Fieldwork Procedures All the interviews in the sample were conducted in the same way: orally, following the order of questions in the questionnaire, using a small dictation machine with subsequent transcription. The answers of the respondents were transcribed in accordance with their oral speech; the word order and other features, including hesitation pauses, were preserved. A total of 100 interviews resulted in more than 60 hours of audio recordings (see Sect. 5.3.4.3). 5.3.4.2  Pilot Interviews Three pilot interviews were conducted and revealed that some questions had to be modified and clarified. First, an additional question about the respondent’s belonging to the ethnic culture turned out to be altogether obscure and even abstract, at least in the way it was initially formulated as “Do you personally belong to Chuvash ethnic culture?” After it was simplified to “What makes you a Chuvash?”, it did not cause any further misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the interviewee. This same question gave rise to curious answers. For example, among other things (the Chuvash language, ethnic roots, ethnic traditions, etc.), some features of Chuvash ethnic mentality were named. If these were positive features (kindness, mutual help, and industry), the respondent was likely to associate himself with such characteristics, but if these traits were negative (envy, naivety, and “rustic rudeness”), the interviewee would certainly disassociate himself with them and made this clear. The general set of questions contained a question about the language(s) in which the respondent sings songs. But it became apparent that urban multilinguistic settings have a large impact not only on language choices in music but also in the way the interviewees deal with music. Some respondents do not actually sing songs in a particular language, but they merely listen to them. Therefore, the “musical” question was modified: “In what language(s) do you sing or listen to songs?” Another question about the language, as to whether the respondents find it easy to express emotions (e.g., to cry, laugh, or grieve, as the question was explained to the interviewee), had to be modified. In the Soviet educational tradition, boys were generally taught not to cry or reveal weakness under any circumstances. Consequently, a number of male interviewees in the sample were confused when asked such a question. The question was modified and a “to swear or use a bad language” option was suggested. Again, the results were surprising. Most male respondents swear (in Russian or in Chuvash), and only a few express other emotions: “I cry in Chuvash once a year on Victory Day, when I recall my Grandfather” (Vladimir M., 62). Female interviewees mostly express emotions, cry or laugh either in Russian, or in Chuvash, but only younger respondents claim to use bad language (particularly in Chuvash).

92

M. V. Kutsaeva

Table 5.2  Interview locations Interview situation Individually In a group

At home 43 7

In a public area 34 16

5.3.4.3  Interview Locations Field data with the Chuvash diaspora in the Moscow region were collected by the author over a period of two and a half years, from August 2014 to February 2017. In all, 77 interviews in the sample were conducted individually at home, in a car (43 cases), or in a public space (a café, workplace, library, or classroom); the remaining 23 interviews took place either at home with another interviewee present (7 cases, with a relative or a friend, each in turn contributing to the conversation) or in a more open public space (16 cases at a discotheque, or a concert, with other participants around and in an overall less private atmosphere) (see Table 5.2). The interview location undoubtedly influences the general flow of the conversation. Interviewing people at home with no other person intervening helps the subject relax, take time, and eventually open up. It is true that respondents, interested in history, for example, could continue talking about the great past of the Chuvash for more than half an hour; others, when, asked about songs, started singing in Chuvash, only because it gave them such great pleasure and they wanted to share it with the interviewer. But there were two cases when interviewees refused to talk and take part in the research, once the recording machine was switched on. Interviews in a public place seem to make the respondents more reserved, compared to an individual conversation at home, but the atmosphere of the place and the event (if it is a concert) may still help the interviewee to participate more actively and express thoughts and opinions in a vivid way. “I can say that I was born in Chuvashia, I love the Chuvash language and will always respect it. It is my mother tongue, and I will never betray it. For me, it is a soul. Chuvashia is soul!” (Harold S., 51). Naturally, interviews conducted at home were longer, more detailed, than at a concert; the respondents took the opportunity to recollect their early childhood and youth in their native land. The interviews in public areas (at a concert, or even individually at a workplace) tended to be shorter, and the answers were more concise and to the point. However, group interviews with several respondents also proved to be productive: participants discussed facts and came up with new ideas, suggested by the person who happened to be leading the conversation.

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

93

5.4  Sampling and Participants 5.4.1  Sample Parameters The major requirement for interviewees in field research was their ethnic belonging, their self-identification as ethnic Chuvash. The sample included 100 ethnic Chuvash, born in a family where either one or both parents are ethnic Chuvash. In all, 85 interviewees belong to the first-generation diaspora (born either in the Chuvash Republic or in places where the Chuvash population is concentrated (see Sect. 5.1)) and 15 interviewees were born in the Moscow region and thus belong to the secondgeneration diaspora. The interviewees of both generations were divided into age groups (cohorts) (see Tables 5.3 and 5.4). The two possible strategies chosen for this kind of research, in conditions of an internal diaspora and dispersed settlement of the respondents, were a so-called “snowball chain” sampling and opportunity sampling6: On the one hand, getting in contact with future research participants through a friend, acquaintance, or relative; on the other, looking for opportunities to meet old contacts and new interviewees at ethnic cultural gatherings. These two strategies are culturally appropriate, placing great importance on interpersonal relationships. There should be a friendly atmosphere between the interviewer and the interviewee, possibly with a common friend (or at least somebody they both know) mediating (Sysser 2017: 16).

5.4.2  Gender Parameters in the Sample There were 44 male interviewees and 56 female interviewees in the sample. The reason for the slight prevalence of the latter can be explained by the fact that the age group 60–84 in the first generation and the age groups 61–71 (in the second) consist mainly (in the case of participants older than 75 in the first generation) or solely (in all participants in the second generation) of female respondents, life expectancy being higher for women in general. Table 5.3  First generation of Chuvash Moscow region diaspora Age group (cohort) Number of respondents

20–30 17

31–40 23

41–50 10

51–60 21

61–84 14

51–60 1

61–71 1

Table 5.4  Second generation of Chuvash Moscow region diaspora Age group (cohort) Number of respondents

18–30 6

31–40 4

41–50 3

6  Michael Patton, Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Beverly Hills: CA, 2010), 169–186, cited in (Sysser 2017: 16).

94

M. V. Kutsaeva

Table 5.5  Respondents’ length of residence in the Moscow region Age group 61–84 51–60 41–50 31–40 20–30

1 year

10% 17%

3–5 14% 10% 13% 18%

5–10

44% 47%

10+ 7% 5% 40% 39% 18%

20+ 14% 20% 4%

30+ 7% 62% 20%

40+ 50% 5%

50+ 29%

60+ 7%

Table 5.6  The respondents’ reasons for migration to the Moscow region Reasons for migration Transfer on military service Allocation after graduation (the soviet labor system) Education Low-paid work in industrial enterprises and construction sites in Moscow (Soviet period labor system) Family circumstances The end of a contract job in the north, and subsequent migration to Moscow Employment (job search / job transfer) Career growth Search for new opportunities, self-realization

20– 30

31– 40

38%

41– 50

30%

32%

25% 6% 25%

36% 5% 27%

51– 60 14% 19% 9% 43%

61– 84 36% 36% 14% 7%

5% 10%

7%

30% 10% 20%

5.4.3  P  eriod of Residence and Reasons for Migration to the Moscow Region The length of stay of respondents in the Moscow region depends on the age group: It is obvious that the older the representatives, the earlier they moved (see Table 5.5). The purposes of their internal migration to the Moscow region, as a rule, correlate with the general historical causes of internal migration that took place in Russia in the Soviet and post-Soviet period (see Table  5.6 for the first generation interviewees). There follow some general observations about the causes of the respondents’ migration to the Moscow region. Among the older age groups in the sample, respondents usually received specialized secondary education (vocational schools, for instance) in Moscow whereas, starting with the 41–50 age group, Chuvash people were more likely to move to Moscow for higher education, with 20- and 30-year-old respondents in the sample all graduating from Moscow universities. Transfer to the Moscow region through military service was more typical for representatives of the older cohorts in the sample, while the end of an employment contract in Russia’s northern regions and the associated move to the Moscow region was more typical for middle-aged respondents.

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

95

As regards allocation to work in the Moscow region upon graduation (either in the Chuvash Republic or in places where the Chuvash population is concentrated in the Middle Volga region), the respondents repeatedly emphasized the prestige of this type of migration. This was typical for interviewees older than 50 years, since the allocation system flourished only during the Soviet era and ceased to exist after the dissolution of the USSR (as a result, no respondent mentioned this type of migration in age groups under 50). The so-called “work on limit” (low-paid work in industrial enterprises and construction sites in large cities, notably Moscow, with the benefit of holding a temporary residence permit) was again the consequence of the Soviet labor and migration policy, when the only chance of leaving the provinces and settling in the capital was to obtain low-paid, low-qualified work; however, this was not easy, since there were certain “limits” to obtaining this work. Naturally, only older interviewees spoke of this form of migration, while younger participants moved to Moscow to find a new job in accordance with their diploma, to master a new profession, or to further their career growth; in all these cases, they assumed that they would obtain skilled work. Family circumstances caused migrations in both the oldest age group (usually concerning the death of a spouse, which forced the respondent to move to the Moscow to stay with their children) and among the 30- to 40-year-olds who married and then settled with their spouse in the region. Finally, we should note that the search for new job opportunities and self-realization as a major cause for migration to Moscow was mentioned only by young and middle-aged interviewees in the sample; it was missing in older age groups for the reasons described previously.

5.5  Analysis of Results Based on the data collected in the course of the interviews, tables for age groups belonging to the first and second generations of the Chuvash Moscow region diaspora were established, covering various aspects of their linguistic life. Although space does not permit the presentation of the entire methodology in detail here, each item in the list subsequently contains a link to our previous works. • Linguistic biographies of the representatives of the Chuvash Moscow region diaspora. Their actual use of their ethnic language in the conditions of diasporic residence is determined, among other factors, by their previous language experience in their homeland. The periods and most common features of the respondents’ language biographies that were highlighted include intrafamily communication, preschool education, secondary education (both the language of instruction and the subject of instruction), further education, channels for learning Chuvash and Russian languages, and possible difficulties in mastering these languages, as well as languages of communication with neighbors in the homeland. The reconstruction of language biographies allows us to identify different

96

•

•

•

•

M. V. Kutsaeva

ways in which the respondents acquired their ethnic language. In addition, language biographies are likely to be not merely a reflection but also a consequence of the general trends of language policies implemented in the Soviet and postSoviet period, in particular, on the territory of the Chuvash Republic (Kutsaeva 2019a). Types of bilingualism and their quantitative distribution in the Chuvash Diaspora of the Moscow region. The results of the studies on the quantitative distribution of passive and active bilingualism by age cohort were presented in Kutsaeva (2017a) and Kutsaeva (2018a). Active bilingualism is typical of those respondents born in rural areas of the Chuvash Republic, who have vocational education, with the exception of younger age cohorts who almost all have higher education. Passive bilinguals in the sample are natives of cities, towns, and district centers of the Republic, regardless of their educational level. Domains of use of the Chuvash language in the Diaspora of the Moscow region (Kutsaeva 2018b). Russian is the dominant language in the Moscow region for all respondents in the sample but, unlike passive bilinguals, who retain somewhat fragmentary knowledge of the Chuvash language, active bilinguals generally use their ethnic language in everyday family and social communication with their seniors or peers, but very seldom with their own children, and almost never with their grandchildren. However, a number of factors contribute to the maintenance, functioning, and—even if somewhat partial—use of the ethnic language among the Chuvash diaspora in the Moscow region. These factors include regular meetings as a part of events organized by the Chuvash diaspora; communication with other representatives of the diaspora in their ethnic language; the use of Chuvash by younger members of the diaspora in writing; the wider scope of modern technologies; the overcoming of stereotypes regarding Chuvash as a backward, nonprestigious language compared to Russian as a majority language; and awareness-raising on the part of younger and middle-age respondents as regards the value of bilingualism. The set and distribution of functions of the Chuvash language in the Diaspora of the Moscow region. Although the domains of use of the ethnic language remain limited in the Chuvash diaspora, a significant number of language functions were identified and described. These include symbolic, phatic, empathetic, communicative, and quasi-communicative functions; a function of Chuvash as a secret language; a very special function of an ethnic Chuvash song; and a function expressing emotions or dreams. As a result, a distribution of these functions was established depending on the first or the second generation. A number of regularities and patterns were revealed, mainly dealing with the use of the language under certain circumstances by the diaspora group (Kutsaeva 2017b). Languages of religion in the Chuvash Diaspora of the Moscow region. The Chuvash are the only Turkic-speaking people in Russia who confess to Orthodoxy. The formation of the Chuvash literary language, its codification, and normalization largely became possible due to translations of the Holy Scriptures. The Chuvash people were the second after the Russians to receive a complete translation of the Bible in their native language and the first among peoples of the

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

97

Russian Federation to hold religious services in their ethnic language since the nineteenth century. The study focuses on the peculiarities of the modern translation of the Bible into the Chuvash language; it deals with the problem of accessibility of religious texts and liturgy in the Chuvash language for Chuvash representatives of the Moscow region diaspora, and highlights cases of their involvement and initiation into the religious aspects of life in Chuvash; the study also examines the level of accessibility of two types of translations: the first, dating back to the period of Yakovlev’s group at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Yakovlev being known as the patriarch of Chuvash literary language) and the second, the modern translation of the Bible published in 2009 (Kutsaeva 2017c). • Loyalty to the Chuvash language among the Diaspora group of the Moscow region (for details see Kutsaeva (2017d) and Kutsaeva (2018c)). The study covers major aspects of ethnic and language loyalty manifested in categories such as the recognition of the Chuvash as their native language; the prestige and status of Chuvash and other languages as viewed by diaspora members; and the overt wish to transmit ethnic culture and preserve the ethnic language for future generations. Due to regular contacts with their native land as well as modern telecommunications, the representatives of the first generation of diaspora largely have no anxiety about losing their ethnic language; the problem of ethnic language vitality is of more concern to second-generation members, as intergenerational transmission in the family is weak. Possible ways to maintain Chuvash in the diaspora seem to lie, on the one hand, in plunging oneself into the language environment in a Chuvash village when on holiday, and, on the other, attending Chuvash language courses in Moscow. However, despite a high level of loyalty to the Chuvash language, the efforts on the part of first-generation diaspora members are proving to be too weak for the ethnic language to be passed on to the second generation, apart from its use as an act of symbolic identification.

5.6  Conclusion Sociolinguistic field research, aimed at exploring the functioning of an ethnic language and the distribution of languages in the conditions of an internal diaspora group, residing primarily in urban areas, inevitably calls for certain modifications and adjustments in the research methodology. Such modifications have been partly introduced in the present research and can be applied to studying language use in other internal diaspora groups.

98

M. V. Kutsaeva

References Agranat, T.B. 2016. Sravnitel′nyj analiz grammaticheskih sistem pribaltijsko-finskih yazykov: Principy intrageneticheskoj tipologii [comparative analysis of grammatical systems in BalticFinnic languages: Principles of intragenetical typology]. Moscow: Yazyki narodov Mira. (In Russian). Anon. n.d.-a. “Jazyki Rossii” [The Languages of Russia]. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://ilingran.ru/web/ru/jazykirf. (In Russian). ———. n.d.-b. Konstitutsiya Rossijskoj Federatsii [The constitution of the Russian Federation]. Accessed October 13, 2019. http://constitutionrf.ru/skachat-konstitutsiyu. (In Russian). ———. n.d.-c. Vserossijskaya perepis′ naseleniya 2010 goda [The all-Russian census of 2010]. Accessed October 27, 2019. http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_ itogi1612.htm. (In Russian). ———. n.d.-d. Zakon o jazykah narodov Rossijskoj Federatsii [Law on languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation]. Accessed October 13, 2019. http://www.advokat-profes. ru/2010-12-06-13-43-33/316-2011-04-05-13-35-25.html/. (In Russian). Belikov, V.I., and L.P. Krysin. 2016. Sociolingvistika: Uchebnik dlya bakalavriata i magistratury [sociolinguistics: Textbook for bachelor’s and master’s degree]. Moscow: Izdatel′stvo Yurajt. (In Russian). Fomin, E.V. 2016a. “Jazykovaja situatsija v Chuvashii” [Language situation in Chuvashia]. In Yazyk i obtschestvo. Entsiklopediya [language and society. Encyclopedia], 824–833. Moscow: Izdatel′skij centr «Azbukovnik». (In Russian). ———. 2016b. “Chuvashskij jazyk” [the Chuvash language]. In Jazyk i obtchestvo. Entsiklopediya [language and society. Encyclopedia], 556–565. Moscow: Izdatel′skij centr «Azbukovnik». (In Russian). Kibrik, A.A. 2017. “Pochemu interesno izuchat′ jazyki Moskvy?” [why is it interesting to explore the languages of Moscow?]. Rodnoj yazyk. Lingvisticheskij zhurnal 2 (7): 8–23. [Native language. Linguistic journal] (In Russian). Kutsaeva, M.V. 2017a. “Kolichestvennoe raspredelenie akvivnyh i passivnyh bilingvov v chuvashskoj diaspore moskovskogo regiona (I)” [Quantitative distribution of active and passive bilinguals in Chuvash Moscow region diaspora group (I)]. Vestnik NGU.  Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya [Vestnik NSU, Series: History and Philology], 16(9): 156–164. (In Russian). ———. 2017b. “Funktsii chuvashskogo jazyka v diaspore moskovskogo regiona” [Functions of the Chuvash language in Moscow region diaspora]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya “Teoriya yazyka. Semiotika. Semantika” [Vestnik of the Russian university of peoples’ friendship. Series “Theory of the Language. Semiotics. Semantics”] 4:1131–1145. (In Russian). ———. 2017c. “Jazyki religii v chuvashskoj diaspore Moskovskogo regiona” [The languages of religion among the Chuvash diaspora in the Moscow region]. Rodnoj yazyk. Lingvisticheskij zhurnal [Native language. Linguistic journal] 1(6) 143–167. (In Russian). ———. 2017d. “Lojal’nost k chuvashskomu jazyku v diaspornoi gruppe moskovskogo regiona” [Loyalty to the Chuvash language in Moscow region diaspora group]. In Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya “Voprosy obrazovaniya: yazyki i spetsial’nost” [Vestnik of the Russian university of peoples’ friendship, Series «Questions of education: languages and specialty”] 1: 54–77. (In Russian). ———. 2018a. “Kolichestvennoe raspredelenie akvivnyh i passivnyh bilingvov v chuvashskoj diaspore moskovskogo regiona (II)” [Quantitative distribution of active and passive bilinguals in Chuvash Moscow region diaspora group (II)]. Vestnik NGU.  Seriya: Istoriya, Filologiya [Vestnik NSU, Series: History and Philology] 17(2): 90–98. (In Russian). ———. 2018b. “Chuvashskaja diaspora v moskovskom regione: sotsiolingvisticheskij portret” [Chuvash diaspora in Moscow region: a sociolinguistic portrait]. In Yazykovoe edinstvo i yazykovoe raznoobrazie v polietnicheskom gosudarstve [language unity and language diver-

5  A Sociolinguistic Survey of an Internal Diaspora: Field Research of a Chuvash…

99

sity in a polyethnic state: An international conference], ed. A.N. Bitkeeva, 655–661. Moscow: Yazyki Narodov Mira. (In Russian). ———. 2018c. “Problema sohranenija chuvashskogo jazyka v uslovijah diaspory moskovskogo regiona” [The problems of Chuvash language maintenance in the conditions of internal diaspora]. ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA. Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskih issledovanij RAN [ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA. Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences], XIV. Part 3.I.: 180–198. (In Russian). Kutsaeva, M. 2019a. “Jazykovye biografii predstavitelej chuvashskoj diaspory Moskovskogo regiona” [Language biographies of the representatives of the Chuvash Moscow region diaspora group]. Polilingval’nost i transkul’turnye praktiki [Polylingualism and transcultural practices] 1: 21–34. (In Russian). Mazurova, Y.V., V.V. Baranova, and Y.B. Koryakov. 2018. “Vstupitel′noye slovo” [Introduction]. ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA.  Trudy Instituta lingvisticheskih issledovanij RAN [ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA.  Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences], XIV. P. 3. I: 9–16. (In Russian). Mihal′chenko, V.Yu., ed. 2006. Slovar′ sociolingvisticheskih terminov [dictionary of sociolinguistic terms]. Moscow: Institut yazykoznaniya RAN. (In Russian). Perotto, Monika. 2010. “Migranty iz postsovetskih stran v Italii” [migrants from post-soviet countries in Italy]. Diaspory 1: 83–100. [Diasporas, a Scientific journal] (In Russian). Sysser, Elsa M. 2017. Oral or written? Language attitudes in three Inghiloi villages in Azerbaijan. Rodnoj yazyk. Lingvisticheskij zhurnal. [Native language. Linguistic journal] 1 (6): 4–46.

Part II

Case Studies from the Eastern Region of the Russian Federation

Part II includes chapters on the experience of field linguists of the Russian school in Siberia and the Far East. The chapters in this part are grouped geographically; nevertheless, their inclusion here is also dictated by the content of their authors’ research. In contrast to Part I, the authors of these chapters do not focus on general methodological problems or the detailed presentation of their methods. Nevertheless, some of their observations in their own specific fields allow us to draw conclusions that are relevant for any field linguistic work, regardless of the region. Two of these chapters, by Olga Kazakevich and Maria Pupynina, describe particular circumstances of fieldwork in the situation of language shift documented at different stages Olga Kazakevich, author of Chap. 6, “Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift”, describes her experience of field linguistic work with the endangered languages of Siberia: Ket, Selkup, Evenki, and on Sakhalin Island. She shares her experience of linguistic fieldwork in bilingual and multilingual communities that abandon their ethnic languages in favor of a functionally more powerful language. Her approaches were acquired in linguistic expeditions that she led as part of a series of projects on language documentation and description, organized by the Laboratory for Computational Lexicography of the Research Computing Centre at Lomonosov Moscow State University, between 1993 and 2017. This multifaceted chapter touches upon a broad range of field practices, beginning with a sociolinguistic survey of the community and the choice of language consultants. Kazakevich also discusses issues of language speakers’ involvement in linguistic work when documenting the language; she profiles mother-tongue speakers, from full to partial speakers, and discusses collaboration with linguistic communities. One of the techniques used by the author is a “multilingual target” approach to language documentation, which involves working with all autochthonous languages of a local community. The author considers the role of the field linguist in the transmission and preservation of traditional language and culture and the researcher’s responsibility to the community of both language speakers and scholars. The results of the author’s fieldwork include the collection of various linguistic and extralinguistic data based on the use of digital audio- and video-­recording techniques, which have relevance for all endangered languages.

102

Part II

Julia Galiamina, in Chap. 7 “Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer Expedition to Kellog, a Ket Village,” describes a phenomenon that she discovered in an expedition to the Ket people: the linguist himself, being the agent of description, affects the object of the description (i.e. the object language). The problem raised here constitutes a particular challenge and is almost certainly relevant for other fieldwork situations. In addition, the conclusions of the two authors offer markedly different perspectives from those usually identified by researchers in this area. Maria Pupynina in Chap. 8, “Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi,” explains that researchers into the Chukchi language encounter the same problems as researchers into disappearing languages, although in the Chukchi language, the shift has not progressed far. However, the author reaches a quite striking conclusion: mother-tongue speakers regard the presence of writing practice, literary, and standard language as an obstacle that negatively impacts their everyday oral communication. In Chap. 9, “Communication on the Russian-Chinese Border: Problems  in Obtaining Data,” Kapitolina Fedorova explains her experience of collecting data on nonprestigious contact language varieties; these resemble the historical so-called Kyakhta language of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or the Russian-Chinese pidgin. The author discusses specific problems encountered when endeavoring to obtain data on ungrammatical Russian expressions that appeared under the influence of the Chinese language in the contact zone. Such expressions have entered into the everyday speech of the community, but they are perceived as “vulgar language” and recognized instinctively by speakers, in a self-censoring feeling, as profane phenomena that should be kept outside “cultural” speech and should therefore be hidden from the researcher. So, for Fedorova, the main technique to obtain these data was to passively observe and record natural speech between Russian and Chinese speakers. However, as in Part III, which discusses fieldwork in the isolated language communities of Western Pamir, this type of research is time-consuming and demands profound anthropological immersion into the community as well as the establishing of confidential relations between researchers and their consultants and mastery of the sociocultural and economic situation in the region to identify potential speakers. This chapter demonstrates that fieldwork on nonstandard linguistic varieties is a sensitive topic demanding the use of anthropological and sociological approaches.

Chapter 6

Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift Olga A. Kazakevich

Abstract  The article presents some approaches to and experiences of linguistic fieldwork in bi- or multilingual communities abandoning their ethnic languages in favor of a functionally more powerful language. The approaches were developed and experiences acquired in linguistic expeditions conducted as an integral part of a series of projects on language documentation and description undertaken at the Laboratory for Computational Lexicography, Research Computing Centre, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and at the Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1993–2019. We worked mostly, but not solely, with local varieties of three Siberian languages—Selkup (as Selkup is represented with a chain of dialects, partly broken, whereby dialects geographically distant from each other are no longer mutually comprehensible, it was recently suggested that it should be regarded as two separate languages – Northern and Southern Selkup; in this chapter, I will keep to the old nomenclature) (Uralic), Ket (Yeniseic), and Evenki (Altaic) (all three severely endangered) in a vast territory in West and Central Siberia and in the Far East, including Sakhalin Island. The three languages have always been involved in intense contacts with each other, with surrounding autochthonous Siberian languages and with Russian. Crucial aspects of our approaches are considered and illustrated with examples of our field practices, among them a sociolinguistic survey of the community as a starting point in the field; the choice of language consultants (in cases where there is any choice at all) and their involvement in linguistic work, interacting not only with full speakers but also with all kinds of semi-speakers of the documented language; work with all autochthonous languages of a local community (a “multilingual target” approach to language documentation); text collection and all kinds of elicitation conducted in the field

The final version of the article was prepared in the framework of RFBS project 20-012-00520 “Dynamics of the development of the linguistic situation in a local group of indigenous minorities of Siberia and the Far East reflected in linguistic biographies”. O. A. Kazakevich (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_6

103

104

O. A. Kazakevich

side-by-­side; the use of diverse up-to-date audio- and video-recording techniques for linguistic and extralinguistic data fixation; collaboration with linguistic communities, and so on. Finally, the role of the field linguist in the transmission and preservation of language and traditional culture, and her/his responsibility in this respect, is discussed. Keywords  fieldwork · language documentation · language shift · sociolinguistic survey · linguistic data · full speakers · semi-speakers · language community

Abbreviations 2 ADJ DIM IMP LOC SBJ SG

2nd person adjectivizer diminutive imperative locative subjective declensional type singular

6.1  Introduction Since 1993, there have been 32 expeditions to the basins of the Middle and upper Taz, Middle Yenisei, Middle Ob’, Lower and Stony Tunguskas, Upper Lena, Middle Vitim, Lower Tugur, Torom and Uda, and the Sakhalin island. Their main purpose was to document the local dialects of three languages in close contact with each other: Selkup, Ket, and Evenki. Table 6.1 shows their number of speakers, based on our estimates, and the population of each ethnic group, based on the 2010 census. These languages are not genetically related: Selkup belongs to the Samoyedic branch of the Uralic languages, Evenki belongs to the Manchu-Tungusic group of the Altaic languages, and Ket is the only surviving member of Yeniseic languages. Typologically, Selkup and Evenki have much in common, while Ket differs greatly from them, especially in verb morphology. All three languages have been

Table 6.1  Population number and ethnic language competence among the Selkup, Ket and Evenki Language Selkup Ket Evenki

Ethnic group strength (Census 2010) 3649 1219 37,843

Ethnic language speakers (Census 2010) 945 199 4310

Ethnic language speakers (Expert estimation) 600 60 3000

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

105

extensively but not evenly documented1; some of their dialects have attracted considerably more attention than others. There exist several text collections in all three languages. A major part of them still remains unpublished.2 Language contacts between Selkups, Kets, and Evenkis have a long history starting in the South of Siberia and continuing after parts of the ethnic groups moved to the North to their present locations in the first and second millennium (Tugolukov 1985; Vasilevich 1969; Dybo 2005). Since the seventeenth century, all three languages have also been in contact with Russian, although in the northern part of the area, especially in the Taz basin, these contacts were mostly sporadic until the twentieth century. Starting with the mid-1920s, and especially since the 1950s, the contacts have become regular and intense. At present, all Selkups, Kets, and Evenkis are fluent in Russian; for many of them, Russian is the only language they speak, and all local groups of speakers of the three languages are undergoing a rapid language shift.

6.2  Fieldwork Areas Our fieldwork has covered: • the entire Ket area (Turukhansk and Evenki districts of the Krasnoyarsk territory), • the Northern Selkup area (Krasnoselkup and Pur districts of the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous area and Turukhansk district of the Krasnoyarsk territory), • the area of the Tomsk regional Selkup dialects (Upper-Ket’, Kolpashevo, Parabel and Kargasok districts of the Tomsk region), • the area of the Northern Evenki dialects (Turukhansk, Evenki and Taimyr districts of the Krasnoyarsk territory; Katanga district of the Irkutsk region; Krasnoselkup district of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area; and Upper-Ket’ and Kargasok districts of the Tomsk region), • the area of Southern Evenki dialects (Yeniseisk and Evenki districts of the Krasnoyarsk territory, Upper-Ket’ and Kargasok districts of the Tomsk region, Krasnoselkup district of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area), • part of the area of Eastern Evenki dialects (Katanga and Kachug districts of the Irkutsk region; Tuguro-Chumikan district of the Khabarovsk territory; Okha, Nogliki and Aleksandrovsk-Sakhalinsk districts of the Sakhalin region). We have worked in 60 settlements, with populations ranging from dozens to thousands of people. In approximately a quarter of these settlements, autochthonous 1  See, for example, Prokofiev (1935), Kuznetsova et al. (1980), Kuznetsova et al. (1993), Kazakevich et al. (2002), Helimski (1998), Kazakevich and Budianskaya (2010), Kazakevich (forthcoming), Kreinovich (1968), Werner (1997), Werner (2002), Vajda (2004), Georg (2007), Kotorova and Nefedov (2015), Vasilevich (1936), Vasilevich (1948), Vasilevich (1958), Vasilevich (1966), Konstantinova (1964), Nedjalkov (1997) and Bulatova and Grenoble (1999). 2  E.g. see descriptions of some Selkup text collections: (Kuznetsova and Helimski 1989): (Kazakevich 2010); (Tuchkova and Helimski 2010).

106

O. A. Kazakevich

Map 6.1  Fieldwork areas. Map courtesy of Yuri Koryakov

ethnic groups constitute the majority of the population. However, in all the settlements the main language of communication is Russian, which appears to be a dominant language in all communicative spheres including family life. Even among elderly people, the majority speak much more Russian than Selkup, Ket, or Evenki. Children who can speak their ethnic language are scarce among the Selkups and Evenkis and totally absent among the Kets. The youngest Ket speakers are older than 50. In some ethno-local communities (e.g., the Selkups of Napas), intergenerational language transmission was broken no less than 70 years ago; in others (the Kets of Sulomai, the Evenkis of Vershina Tutury and Mutorai, the Selkups of Farkovo), no less than 50 years ago; and in others (the Evenkis of Ekonda, Surinda, Chirinda), no more than 20–25 years ago (Map 6.1).

6.3  Data Collection Our expeditions usually count between two and nine participants (often including students of linguistics or anthropology) and last about a month. With time, we have developed a standard approach to data collection. For every community, we start with a sociolinguistic survey, which gives us an overview of the linguistic situation in the settlement as a whole and in the ethnic community within it. The survey also helps us to find language consultants and to proceed to the main task of the expedition—the recording of linguistic data and the collection of ethnocultural data.

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

107

6.3.1  Sociolinguistic Survey Our sociolinguistic surveys begin with an analysis of demographic data and lists of local households provided by the administration of the settlements. (As a rule, local authorities are cooperative). We then proceed to data collection, beginning with questionnaires. The questionnaires are completed by the expedition participants in the course of interviews with community members. We do not ask our respondents to complete the questionnaires themselves to make the process less strenuous and formal for them and to make sure we receive informative answers to all the questions. Our questionnaire contains 42 points grouped into three sections: personal data, linguistic background data, and sociocultural data. The first section contains questions about the respondent’s age, sex, educational level, profession, and occupation. The longer second section has questions about: • place of birth, places of residence, and family language(s) in childhood, • languages acquired and used in various periods of life beginning from early childhood, • language(s) used at school, both within and outside the classroom, • the native language and the language(s) used in various situations at the present time, • self-evaluation of competence in all the languages spoken or understood. The third section contains questions about: • knowledge of folklore and, • attitudes towards the ethnic language, ethnic language classes, and ethnic language preservation. To make our survey representative, we try to complete questionnaires from at least one-third of the community members, including both men and women, representing all age groups. In small communities, we try to receive answers to the questionnaire from all the elderly and middle-aged people, and from at least one-third of young people and children over 7 years old. When completing the questionnaires, we become acquainted with community members, and this helps us to choose our future linguistic consultants. We continue our survey throughout our stay in the community, in parallel with our linguistic work. In addition to completing the questionnaires, we also interview community members to collect more information about the community’s history and the use of languages in the past. The completed questionnaires provide us with subjective information on the linguistic situation in the communities, revealing what people say and how they feel about their ethnic languages. The best way of obtaining objective information is to work with community members as language consultants, video-recording their speech behavior in a variety of situations. We systematically follow this two-­ pronged approach in every settlement and every community we visit: A comprehensive text corpus and lexical data of every local variety of the documented language are supplemented with sociolinguistic data on the functioning of this local variety.

108

O. A. Kazakevich

The general sociolinguistic picture is as follows: Most communities are concerned about the loss of their language. The stated attitude of ethnic community members toward their ancestral language is mostly positive. The majority of parents say they would like their children to speak their ancestral language. However, in practice, even those parents able to speak their ancestral language choose to speak Russian with their children. Consequently, although the ancestral language is considered desirable for children, Russian is considered a requirement. In addition, most people do not really believe that anything can be done to stop the loss of their ancestral languages. Many of them state outright that their language is dying. It is a widespread belief that only by abandoning the ancestral language is it possible to learn the language of the majority, which gives access to education and employment. We have encountered this belief both inside and outside ethnic minority groups, in different social strata, and among educational authorities. Why do parents choose not to pass the ancestral language to their children? These are some explanations given by our respondents: –– parents do not think the ancestral language might be useful for their children, –– when they were children, they arrived at school speaking only their mother tongue, so at first, it was not easy to learn Russian; they now want to make their children’s life easier by teaching them “a useful language” instead of the ancestral one, –– they think the ancestral language is only necessary for those who lead a traditional way of life (hunting, fishing, and herding reindeer), and they want some other life for their children, –– they believe the ancestral language is associated solely with the past, and the future is connected with Russian and such foreign languages as English or German, –– they believe the ancestral language does not suit the modern world, –– they simply do not use the ancestral language for anything that really matters.

6.3.2  Linguistic Data With respect to linguistic data collection, three points should be emphasized: 1. All linguistic data collected in the field are audio recorded; texts are also video recorded. 2. We endeavor to work with as many language consultants as possible so that linguistic material is collected from representatives of all generations in which the language is still—at least to some extent—preserved. 3. We work not only with fluent speakers but also with semi-speakers3 of the language, which allows us to better understand the process of language shift.

 The term introduced by Nancy Dorian in (Dorian 1982).

3

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

109

Linguistic data are collected through audio recording of thematically sorted word lists and video recording of spontaneous or quasi-spontaneous speech. (An example of quasi-spontaneous speech would be the performance of folklore and ritual texts.) To get additional information on some lexical or grammatical issues, we also use linguistic questionnaires for elicitation; the process of their completion is audio recorded. 6.3.2.1  Texts Texts constitute the most valuable documentation material; all types of linguistic information can be extracted from texts, especially if they are video recorded. Texts also contain precious extra-linguistic information on the history, traditional culture, innovations, and everyday life of the communities. Working in the field, we try to record as many texts as possible irrespective of their genre or topic. We record monologues, dialogues, and polylogues, although the two latter categories are underrepresented in our corpus. One reason is that people rarely speak to each other in their ancestral language today. Sometimes our language consultants “perform” quasi-spontaneous dialogues for us, but as a rule, they sound a little unnatural and self-conscious. Another reason is that we do not record people talking to each other without their permission, and once they give us the permission, they often stop talking or stop talking naturally. Within monologues, we record all kinds of folklore texts (epics, legends, fairy-­ tales, songs, riddles, etc.), life stories (autobiographies, biographies of parents or some other relatives, childhood reminiscences, hunting stories), tales about old traditions and traditional ways of life, stories about significant events, and changes in personal lives or in the life of the community. Most of our storytellers enjoyed watching themselves on the video camera screen after recording sessions, many of them wanted their children or grandchildren to see them, or wished it were possible. We always send copies of video recordings to the storytellers as soon as we make them, and to my knowledge, these copies are preserved in family archives and shown to guests. The extralinguistic value of folkloric texts is well known and accepted, but the historical and cultural value of life stories is also significant. In a way, they document the era: In the life stories of people living in far-flung tiny villages surrounded by the taiga and tundra, a person or a family participating in community life appears to evolve against the background of events relevant for the whole country, so these stories offer a new dimension in understanding world history. They help us better understand how the decisions made in the capital of the country influence (or fail to influence) the life of ethnic communities in its remote regions. This is especially

110

O. A. Kazakevich

true in countries with strongly centralized decision-making, such as the Soviet Union and present-day Russia.4 Text recording is the first (and possibly the easiest) part of textual data collection. The second task is the transcription and translation of the recorded texts, a difficult and time-consuming task that should ideally be performed by the linguist in the field, with the help of language consultants. The consultants may be the storytellers themselves, their relatives, or other members of the community who speak the same local dialect. Even if the linguist is fluent in the language under documentation, it seems wise to work together with a language consultant, especially if the texts are in a local dialect different from that which the linguist has learned. Fortunately, many language consultants enjoy this kind of work. Frequently, these are people who spoke the language in their childhood, have since lost the ability to speak it fluently for lack of practice, but have preserved the ability to understand what is said by others. The transcription and translation of audio recordings require concentration, patience, and a willingness to work in a team on the part of both the linguist and the language consultant; it is the linguist’s task to create a cooperative atmosphere during this work. 6.3.2.2  Sounding Word Lists For each language, we use two versions of word lists: the full and the reduced version. The full version contains over 2000 lexemes with all principal grammar forms for verbs and nouns and examples of sentences illustrating the usage of the lexemes. The reduced version contains 400 lexemes with diagnostic word forms and illustrations. Both the full and the reduced word lists contain the 100-word Swadesh list (Swadesh 1971). The lexemes in the lists are sorted thematically, representing a thesaurus, in which Russian is used as the language of semantic description. We thus end up with Russian-Selkup, Russian-Ket, and Russian-Evenki thesauri. As a basis for the compilation of bilingual word lists, we used some of the existing dictionaries of Selkup, Ket, and Evenki (Kuznetsova et  al. 1993; Werner 2002; Vasilevich 1958; Boldyrev 1994; Boldyrev 2000). The word lists for the three languages differ slightly with respect to specific traditional economic, cultural features, or the landscape environment. The full versions of the word lists are used for work with fluent speakers of documented local dialects, while the reduced versions are used with semi-speakers and additionally serve as a diagnostic test to determine the level of their linguistic competence. We also use this reduced version with fluent speakers in case there is not enough time for the full word list recording. 4   For example, the collectivization (organizing kolkhozes “collective farms”) in the late 1920s–1930s, repressions of rich reindeer herders and shamans as representatives of religious cults in the 1930-s–1940s, forced transition from nomadic to sedentary lifestyle in the 1950s, “closure” of small settlements and relocation of their residents to larger settlements in 1960–1980s is often touched upon in the recorded life-stories, primarily of elderly people.

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

111

When audio recording word lists in the field, we employ the following strategy: the language consultant working with us is given a Russian word from the list and asked to pronounce its equivalent in his/her local dialect, three times with pauses, so that this material could be used in studying phonetics. If the consultant is unable to give a local equivalent of the Russian word, we then suggest a possible equivalent ourselves but not before we explain that the word might belong to another dialect and apologize for our improper pronunciation of it. Quite often this is helpful: The consultant recognizes the word, comments on the incorrect way the word has been pronounced, and then pronounces it in his or her own way, according to the norms of the local dialect. If the consultant wants to provide a synonym or an example of how the word is used, we record this information together with explanations of the word’s meaning (such explanations are usually given in Russian). We also audio record some inflexional forms for each lexeme, for example, plural forms for all Ket nouns, dual forms for Selkup nouns, and inclusive and exclusive forms of the first-person plural for Evenki personal pronouns, verbs, and nouns with possessive suffixes. When we started audio recording word lists in 2001, our plan was to audio record at least eight speakers for every local dialect: four men and four women from different age groups. However, we discovered quite early that some dialects simply did not have that range of speakers, for example, the Yelogui dialect of Selkup (Kellog) was spoken by only one person, the Northern dialect of Ket (Goroshikha) was spoken by six people, and the Sym dialect of Evenki (Sym) was spoken by six people at the time we worked in these communities. In such cases we had to satisfy ourselves with the speakers we could find. The audio recording of a full word list takes from 10 to 25 h. It is a tiring process for the consultant, as it demands concentration and accurate pronunciation. As a rule, a single session can last no more than two to two-and-a-half hours, so the entire list recording takes approximately a week. Many consultants become involved in the task and return to it between sessions: Quite often they open the next session telling us about some words that they could not recall in the preceding one but have since remembered. Frequently, they thanked us for creating a situation that has helped them to recollect their ancestral language. We have encountered elderly people whose latent knowledge of their language was deep but who had spoken solely Russian for years. At the beginning of our joint work, they could not produce a single sentence in their language without switching to Russian in the middle of it, but once they continued with the audio recording of a full word list, they regained their ability to speak the language and to tell a story in that language.

6.3.3  Working with Semi-Speakers: Why Is it Helpful? We argue that linguistic fieldwork should not confine itself exclusively to fluent speakers of the target language. Valuable material on the present-day condition of the dialect and the structural changes within it can be collected from semi-speakers,

112

O. A. Kazakevich

including those who have almost completely forgotten the language, although they continue to call it their mother tongue because they spoke it in their childhood. Semi-speakers can be of different ages and linguistic biographies. Many of them switched to Russian when they started school, especially if they attended a boarding school far away from their native village. Many stopped using their ethnic dialect with the death of older relatives, mostly grandparents. However, it would be unusual for the language of childhood to be completely lost; knowledge of that language becomes latent but can be reactivated, producing interesting data for a linguist. As an example, there follow some extracts from our word list recording (2003) of a young Selkup woman Oksana. Oksana lives in the village of Farkovo, where we worked in 1999, 2003, 2014, and 2015. Although Selkups compose the majority of the Farkovo population (in 2015, 81% of 229 residents of the village), the language is poorly preserved there. It is rapidly losing its position as a means of communication, more resembling an element of historical memory. Even elderly people told us that they spoke mostly Russian, not only with younger people but also among themselves. The youngest community members ever to speak Selkup in 1999 were 25–30 years old; they are now aged more than 45–50. Oksana was one of those for whom her ethnic language was primarily a childhood memory. In her childhood, Oksana lived in the taiga with her grandmother who spoke almost no Russian, so Oksana’s first language before school was Selkup. At school, she spoke mostly Russian, but every year she returned to her grandmother and resumed speaking Selkup during her school vacations. She was aged nine when her grandmother died, after which she practically stopped speaking her “grandmother’s tongue”. When I worked with her, she was 27 years old, and her competence in Selkup was passive. She spoke Russian with her husband and children as well as with her parents. Although her parents were competent in Selkup, they preferred to speak Russian with their daughter. Oksana was totally unable to construct a sentence in Selkup, unless it was a brief phrase, which she kept from her childhood, for example, ponæ tantæ-ʃʲ (outside go.out-IMP.2SG.SBJ) “go out!”, yt tattæ-ʃʲ (water bring- IMP.2SG. SBJ) “bring (some) water.” Oksana enjoyed our work because it prompted the recollection of her childhood memories. Our interest in her first language revived her own interest so that by the end of our joint work, which lasted over a week, she told us that she would like to teach her children to speak Selkup. Although Oksana was not a speaker, but rather a rememberer of Selkup, I used the full Selkup word list (at that time over 1500 lexemes) when working with her. Her active Selkup vocabulary was limited: Without help, she could give a Selkup equivalent for no more than 10% of the 1500 Russian words presented to her, among which she remembered more verbs than nouns. She could passively recognize about half of the words she did not remember, once a Selkup equivalent had been offered to her. Quite often, she recognized a word because it evoked a situation associated with that word. (Oksana would pronounce the Selkup word correctly, but the description of the situation would always follow in Russian). Typically, it would be a situation from her childhood when she had actively used Selkup in a Selkup-­ speaking environment. Recollection of the situation activated her linguistic

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

113

knowledge so that besides common everyday words, Oksana sometimes gave us archaic words and expressions that today are very rarely used even by elderly people. These are some examples: • Speaking about clothes, Oksana said (in Russian): “Once I had a parka5 (fur coat) made of the skin of some animal, probably hare. I had winter boots with a sɨtɨn (“a boot lace at the ankle”) at the bottom and a pɔːtɨr (“a boot lace under the knee”) at the top.” • Oksana could not remember a Selkup word for “torch made of splinters” (Russian luʧʲina), but having heard the Selkup iŋkɨra recognized it immediately: “Old people told us that in the old days they used to light iŋkɨra instead of a lamp. Granny always used splinters to light the stove quickly in the morning.” • The Selkup word aqsɨl “mushroom” produced a vivid recollection: “Grandma couldn’t pronounce my name Oksana properly, so she called me aqsɨl.” • Oksana gave the Selkup equivalent for “star”—qıʃʲqaʎa (qıʃʲqa-ʎa star-DIM “little star”) and added: “Our dog bore cubs. Granny kept one of them and called it qıʃʲqaʎa.” • The word lotɨk “horse tail (marsh plant)” was also immediately recognized: “I know this plant, geese like it; Granny kept geese, and she used to tell me to go and fetch lotɨk”. Some other words recognized by Oksana from her childhood memories are as follows: amɨrsa “a wooden basin for making bread (traditionally every family used to have such a basin)”: “I have no amɨrsa, but granny had one”; kala “ladle”: “Granny always used to talk about her ladle”; kaːnsan “pipe”: “Granny used to smoke; she always carried her kaːnsan and a small tobacco pouch (tabaʎ kota) on her.” For the Russian word kukla “doll,” Oksana promptly produced the equivalent paːrkä “idol,” followed by a very informative ethnographic commentary (in Russian), quoted here in full: “Old women used to make a doll, take it to the forest, place it under a tree, and this would become a place they would visit and make offerings. When a man died, his wife could pass the dolls to their offspring as an inheritance. For our ancestors those dolls were gods, they believed in them… I used to go to such a place with granny, she was sad, often cried there, and spoke with the dolls. They looked as if they were alive, their eyes looked bright, their lips painted. All such doll places were on a small cape, people never went there collecting wood, picking berries, or hunting, they went there only in case they had serious problems, or something went wrong, or they badly needed something. To check the weather for the next few days, Granny would take a doll, throw it up in the air, and check how it falls to the ground.

5  The word parka “fur coat” was borrowed, presumably from Nenets, into local varieties of Russian. It is a word of Samoyedic origin (cf. Selkup porqɨ).

114

O. A. Kazakevich

As a little girl I once ran to the dolls’ place alone, but the grown-ups stopped me and explained that those dolls should not be touched and played with. When I grew older I was scared to go there alone. One day an old man cut some wood on the cape because he did not want to go further into the forest, and he fell seriously ill. People believed he was punished by the idols. The dolls were usually placed under the roots of larch trees, people dug a little hole and seated the dolls there. That cape was about half a kilometer long, and people seated the dolls under one tree, then under another tree… They changed clothes on the dolls; those were traditional clothes. Little men had long-sleeved shirts and wide trousers; they were like real people, made of wood. The old man died: he cut the wood on the cape in summer, and in the autumn he was taken to hospital and died. In his storehouse on struts he had a birch-bark box. After his death some of his things were given to people. They opened the box and saw dolls there. The dolls were taken to the forest and seated under a tree. There were two or three dolls there, one little woman among them. I heard people saying the doll-woman looked angry.” Continuing with our word list, we moved on to adjectives, which Oksana always gave as part of a noun phrase, for example, not just sεntɨ “new” but sεntɨ tεttaqoj “new things” followed by a small story: “Granny would buy me something and keep it in the chest, not allowing me to wear new things in the forest; she said I could wear them qəttoːqɨt (qəttoː-qɨt settlement-LOC “in the village”).” The adjective ʧʲoːʃʲyʎ (ʧʲoːʃʲy-ʎ fat-ADJ “fatty”) was well known by Oksana: “Everybody called me ʧʲoːʃʲyʎ in my childhood: when I was eleven I weighed 70 kg”. Oksana was by no means unique: We had a number of consultants for whom their ethnic language was a childhood memory, not only among Selkups but also among Evenkis and Kets. It might seem that the linguistic data they provide is of no value: All they can articulate are linguistic forms imprinted on their mind since they heard them many years ago. However, a more detailed analysis shows that even in such a “desiccated” state language continues to develop, and there are regular trends in this development. These trends, primarily the simplification and unification of forms, are the same as in the community at large but more advanced than those found in the speech of competent language speakers. In some communities where we worked, there were no competent speakers at all, and semi-speakers were our only sources. Such was the situation in the villages of Napas and Molodezhnyi, Kargasok district, and Tomsk region, where we worked in 2010. We found what we might call “language ruins” there. Our best informant in Napas was an old woman (over 70) who used to speak Selkup in her childhood with her grandmother. After her grandmother’s death, she never used the language again: Her parents wanted her to speak only Russian. She managed to recollect about 40 Selkup words and expressions, more than anyone else in the village. We should mention that Napas was once the capital of the Tym (Selkup) ethnic district; it was formed in 1932 in the basin of the Tym river and existed until 1950. Considering that at the beginning of the 1930s Selkup was spoken all over the Tym and that the shift to Russian, fully completed today, had its precipitous start during the period when the ethnic district existed. We have to conclude that the creation of the ethnic district contributed not to the preservation of the local language but to its destruction.

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

115

In summary, working with semi-speakers (in addition to fluent speakers, if such are available) yields valuable information on the: • the current condition of the language, • process of internal development of a language that is remembered but not used, • history and traditional culture of the community.

6.3.4  “Multilingual Target” Approach to Language Documentation Many of our expeditions have more than one “target” language. The area of our fieldwork on Ket, Selkup, and Evenki borders Khanty and Forest Nenets to the West and Tundra Nenets, Enets, and Dolgan to the North. The target of our expeditions is not really a language but a location, for example, a village. We try to collect linguistic data on all autochthonous minority languages in that location as well as on their interaction and the evolving sociolinguistic conditions. This approach provides a better understanding not only of the current linguistic situation but also of the processes evolving within each particular language and their structural changes. Most of our expeditions had at least two target languages; some of them had as many as five. In 2011, we worked in the village of Potapovo, where, besides Russian and a little German, five endangered Siberian languages are spoken: Forest Enets, Evenki, Dolgan, Nganasan, and Nenets. The most endangered of the five languages is Forest Enets, with approximately 25 speakers, fewer than 10 of them fluent. Potapovo is the only village that has a compact group of Forest Enets residents, and most linguists visit Potapovo primarily for the Forest Enets data. Apparently, we were the first group to come to Potapovo to collect information on all the autochthonous languages of the village. Our interest was unexpected but welcomed by the Potapovo Evenkis, Dolgans, and Nenets and by the only Nganasan family residing there at that time.

6.3.5  Language Documentation and Local Communities Our experience shows that linguistic fieldwork on an endangered language elevates the prestige of that language in the local community. Young people unable to speak their ancestral language suddenly realize that knowledge of the language, which some of them discounted as useless, can be considered an object of interest from outside the community; moreover, it can be a source of income. For elderly people who are fluent in their ethnic language, working with linguists presents a rare communicative situation, an opportunity to use that language. Some of them are very enthusiastic about having their stories recorded, especially on video: Many say they want their knowledge to be preserved for future generations. “My children and

116

O. A. Kazakevich

grandchildren are not interested in my stories, but my great grandchildren may want to know how we lived and spoke. Let my word go further to my great grandchildren, may it remain after I am gone to the ancestors”6—these are the words of Olga Latikova (1917–2007), a great Ket language consultant who worked with several generations of linguists and ethnologists, generously sharing her knowledge of the language and traditional culture. (We were privileged to work with her in the village of Sulomai in 2004 and 2006). Today, a linguist working in communities where the chain of natural intergenerational transmission of the ancestral language and lore has been broken, (especially if it has been broken for some time so that full speakers of the language can be found only among elderly people), becomes a missing link in the broken chain. It is now his/her professional duty not only to record linguistic materials and community lore and to analyze the collected data but also to preserve it properly and keep it accessible for the community. In this way, he becomes involved in the process of language revitalization.

6.4  Language Documentation Versus Language Description In linguistics, as in any other science, analytical distinctions (e.g., between language use and language structure or between phonetics and morphology) are established to achieve a better understanding of each new analytical category and to develop a category-specific model of its structure and functioning. Subsequently, these analytical models can lead to a synthesis, a better understanding of how the new categories are related to, and interact with each other. One distinction established quite recently is the opposition of language documentation and language description.7 This distinction has been broadly accepted, but it may be helpful now to start looking for their interaction and synthesis. In our practice, language documentation and language description are closely connected, and this seems to be a fruitful approach. The richer the data we collect through fieldwork, the more precisely we can describe the language structure so that we can elaborate more precisely defined questions for a new season of fieldwork.

6.5  A  rchiving Field Material and Digitalizing Traditional Archives The new technologies of digital audio and video make it possible to collect large amounts of linguistic data in the field. However, processing the accumulated data creates a bottleneck in our work, and we try to involve students of linguistics at this

 Olga Latikova was a full speaker of Ket (its Southrn dialect). She also spoke Russian, and her words cited here were in Russian. 7  See, for example, Himmelmann (1998) and Austin (2003). 6

6  Fieldwork in the Situation of Language Shift

117

point. Our work proceeds in stages as follows: First we review, clarify, and correct the transcriptions and translations made in the field. After repeatedly listening to the recordings, we eventually arrive at specific decisions, although some opaque fragments often remain, and these we revisit at the next stage of analysis, morphological annotation. For the annotation, we mostly use Flex and to synchronize sound and text ELAN is perfectly suitable. The audio recordings of word lists are transformed into phonetic databases. Some extracts of the Selkup, Ket, and Evenki lexical sounding databases can be found on the website “Minority Languages of Siberia: our cultural heritage” (http:// siberian-­lang.srcc.msu.ru). These can be used for the instrumental analysis of the phonetics of the languages and as teaching materials at primary/secondary school and university levels.

References Austin, Peter. (ed.) 2003. Language documentation and description, Vol. 1, (The Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project). Boldyrev, B.V. 1994. Russko-evenkiiskii slovar’[Russian-Evenki Dictionary]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. ———. 2000. Evenkiisko-russkii slovar’ [Evenki-Russian Dictionary]. Novosibirsk: Academic Press, Siberian department ‘GEO’. Bulatova, N., Lenore Grenoble. 1999. Evenki. LWM 141 (Lincom Europa). Dorian, Nancy. 1982. Language loss and maintenance in language contact situations. In The loss of language skills, ed. R.D.  Lambert and B.F.  Freed, 44–59. Rowley, London, Tokio: Newbury House. Dybo, A.V. 2005. Nekotoryie ‘soyuznyie’ yavleniya na territorii Sayan  – Altaya  – Verkhnego Yeniseya – Vostochnoi chasti Ob‘-Irtyshia [some ‘Sprachbund’ phenomena in the territory of the Sayany – Altai – The upper Yenisei – The eastern part of the Ob-Irtysh area]. In Yazykovyie soyuzy Yevrazii (istoriya i sovremennost’) [Sprachbunds in Eurasia and ethno-cultural interaction (history and the contemporary situation)]. Moscow. Georg, Stefan. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak). Part 1. Folkestone, Kent: Global Oriental. Helimski, E.A. 1998. Selkup. In The_Uralic_languages, ed. D. Abondolo, 548–579. London/New York: Routledge. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36: 161–195. Kazakevich, O. forthcoming. Selkup. In Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, ed. M.  Bakro-­ Nagy, J. Laakso, and E. Skribnik. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kazakevich, O.A. 2010. Arkhiv E.D. i G.N.  Prokofievykh: Samodiiskiye yazykovyie materialy [archive of E.D. and G.N. Prokofievs: Samoyedic linguistic materials]. In Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen. Band 32/33, 257–278. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Kazakevich, O.A., and E.M. Budianskaya. 2010. Dialektologicheskii slovar’ selkupskogo yazyka (severnoye narechiye) [a dictionary of Selkup dialects (Northern Dialect Group)]. Basko: Ekaterinburg. Kazakevich, O.A., A.I. Kuznetsova, and E.A. Helimski. 2002. Ocherki po selkupskomu yazyku. Tazovskii dialect. Tom 3 [Selkup. The Taz Dialect. Vol. 3]. Moscow: Moscow University Press. Konstantinova, O.A. 1964. Evenkiiskii yazyk. Fonetika. Morfologiya [Evenki. Phonetics. Morphology]. Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka. Kotorova, E., and A. Nefedov, eds. 2015. Comprehensive Ket dictionary. Vol. 1, 2. LW/D 57, 58. Munich: Lincom Europa.

118

O. A. Kazakevich

Kreinovich, E.A. 1968. Ketskii glagol [The Ket Verb]. Moscow: Nauka. Kuznetsova, A.I., and E.A.  Helimski. 1989. Selkupskiye materialy v rukopisnom nasledii L.A. Varkovitskoi [Selkup materials in the L.A. Varkovitskaya Legacy]. In Sovetskoye finno-­ ugrovedeniye [Soviet Finno-Ugristics], vol. 25, 1. Kuznetsova, A.I., E.A.  Helimski, and E.V.  Grushkina. 1980. Ocherki po selkupskomu yazyku. Tazovskii dialect. Tom 1 [Selkup. The Taz Dialect. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Moscow University Press. Kuznetsova, A.I., O.A. Kazakevich, L.Yu. Yoffe, E.A. Helimski. 1993. Ocherki po selkupskomu yazyku. Tazovskii dialect. Tom 2. [Selkup. The Taz Dialect. Vol. 2]. Moscow. Nedjalkov, I.V. 1997. Evenki. London: Rutledge. Prokofiev, G.N. 1935. Selkupskii (Ostiako-Samoyedskii) yazyk [The Selkup (Ostiak-Samoyed) Language]. Leningrad. Swadesh, Morris. 1971. The origin and diversification of language (edited post mortem by J. Sherzer). Chicago: Aldine. Tuchkova, N.A., and E.A. Helimski. 2010. Über die selkupischen Sprachmaterialien von Angelina I. Hamburg: Kuz’mina. Tugolukov, V.A. 1985. Tungusy (Evenki i Eveny) Sredney i Zapadnoi Sibiri [The Tunguses (Evenkis and Evens) of Central and Western Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka. Vajda, Edvard. 2004. Ket. LWM 141. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Vasilevich, G.M., ed. 1936. Materialy po evenkiiskomu (tungusskomu) folkloru [Materials on the Evenki (Tungus) Folklore]. Leningrad: Institut Narodov Severa. ———. 1948. Ocherki dialektov evenkiiskogo (tungusskogo) yazyka [Sketches of Evenki (Tungus) Dialects]. Uchpedgiz: Leningrad. ———. 1958. Evenkiisko-russkii slovar’ [Evenki-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel’stvo inostrannykh I natsional’nykh slovarei. ———., ed. 1966. Istoricheskii folklor evenkov. Skazaniya i predaniya [Historical Folklore of the Evenkis. Sagas and Legends]. Moscow. Leningrad: Nauka. ———. 1969. Evenki [The Evenkis]. Leningrad: Nauka. Werner, Heinrich. 1997. Die Ketische sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ———. 2002. Vergleichendes wörterbuch der jenissej-sprachen. Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden.

Chapter 7

Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer Expedition to Kellog, a Ket Village Julia E. Galiamina

Abstract  This chapter focuses on specific speech techniques that Ket speakers used in the communicative situation of field linguistic research and that reflected their understanding of the task they were asked to perform. We sought to examine the impact of our own and our colleagues’ research efforts on the material gained and on the sociolinguistic situation in the local community. A linguist should be permanently aware of this impact and should try to minimize the effect. However, in some cases, this effect could be helpful. This is especially true in the sociolinguistic domain. Keywords  Ket language · Local community · Speech techniques

7.1  Introduction According to the physicist and philosopher Werner Heisenberg (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007), a research process necessarily changes the object of study under research. Here we will invoke the indeterminacy principle in a specific sense, namely, the fact that the very process of linguistic field research somewhat affects the speech behavior under research. By analyzing the texts recorded during an expedition to Kellog and Verkhneimbatsk (Turukhansk District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia) in 2009 (Kazakevich 2010), we sought to examine the impact of our own and our colleagues’ research efforts on the material gained and on the sociolinguistic situation in the local community (about this, see: Chelliah & de Reuse 2011: 161–195, esp. 173, 177–181, 192).

J. E. Galiamina (*) M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_7

119

120

J. E. Galiamina

In their speech, our language consultants used a range of techniques that reflected their understanding of the task they were asked to perform, including code-­switching from Ket to Russian for better performance of both communicative and connotative functions of speech; use of specific emotive elements relevant to the communicative situation; reverse code-switching to Ket, driven by the awareness that it is the language which they are expected to speak; increase or decrease in the structural complexity of their speech; grammatical hypercorrection; use of more literary versions of the precedential texts; storytelling strategy involving reiteration of memorized real-life stories; and so on. Moreover, sometimes, the speakers begin to improve their language skills for better collaboration with the researcher (Kazakevich 2005). The following map indicates the area of Kets settlements (Map 7.1).

7.2  Obtaining Data Thus, if we see the situation where the speaker generates texts in the presence of the linguist who is performing field studies as a special, distinct type of communicative practice (Kazakevich 2007), it immediately becomes apparent that the linguist can be viewed as one of the participants rather than an independent observer. So although the role of an independent observer is precisely the role that the researcher seeks to play, the very presence of the interlocutor linguist indirectly impacts the speech behavior of the consultant and is reflected in the final text. The results of this impact fall into several categories: –– Code-switching from Ket to Russian and back again (Auer 2013; Galiamina 2012; Muysken 2000). In the first case, the consultant seeks to communicate successfully, that is, to be best understood by the interviewer. In the second case, the consultant wants to perform the task of speaking his or her native language. –– Thus, Valentina Mikhajlovna Serkova from Verkhneimbatsk, with whom we worked in August 2009, permanently used code-switching in her life story, trying to achieve both of the purposes indicated previously: –– (1) My zhili We live.PST.PL

(a)

(b)

(c)

әt we

qas’aŋ there

dolin live.PST

hamgan Evenk

v in

malom small

malom small

dolin live.PST

hәna small

zakaznike || reserve.LOC

zakaznike-diŋten reserve.LOC-DATLOC

čokoro Chokoro

bat || old man

7  Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer…

121

Map 7.1.  Traditional Ket settlements. Map courtesy of Yuri Koryakov

(d)

Eto This

familija surname

etikh these.GEN

shamanov shaman.PL.GEN

–– We lived in a small reserve. We lived small, in a small reserve. –– There one Evenk lived, Chokoro, old man. This is the surname of those shamans.

122

J. E. Galiamina

–– Here, we see that during the conversation with the linguist, the woman remembers that she is expected to speak Ket and is trying to switch her code to it. But she is afraid that the linguist will not understand her properly, so she switches the code back. This example illustrates how a researcher’s presence can alter the communicative behavior of a speaker. –– Additional explanatory sentences in Ket or Russian (Auer 2013). The storyteller can supplement the structure of the text with additional explanations which he or she considers necessary. This decision may be triggered, among other causes, by the linguist’s presence. Some types of explanations that do not normally appear in other communicative situations are prompted by the difference between the backgrounds of the participants: the native speaker and the linguist. Interestingly, although explanations may be given either in Ket or in Russian, as in (1d), the very decision to use them is not motivated by the language skills of the linguist but rather by the absence of shared background knowledge. –– Russian discursive elements related to making contact (Khilkhanova, Khilkhanov 2019). Another characteristic of the communicative situation “consultant–linguist” is a specific way of exercising the connotative function. Through these discursive elements, the consultant addresses the linguist to make communication successful. –– (2) Tyganova Ul’jana Petrovna, Kellog, August 2009: (a)

e:n now

haj also

aks’ what

at I

d-t-a-b-Ø-ij- Ø S1.1-DET-T.PRS-O2.3SG.TH-PRS-LV-S1.SG?

–– Now also what I will tell? (b)

Mne I.DAT

po-ketski Ket.DAT

rasskazyvat'? tell.INF

–– Should I speak Ket? (c)

Ty You

ne NEG

ponimajesh understand.PRS.2SG

–– You don’t understand –– In (2a), we see an example of addressing in Ket, while (2b) and (2c) contain discursive elements in Russian. But their functions are equivalent. This type of speech behavior again illustrates how the presence of the linguist researcher impacts interaction with the consultant. –– Emotive comments. Texts, generated in the communicative situation of field research, may contain some discursive elements indicating that the consultant has a low opinion of the linguist’s language skills. Taking advantage of the ­linguist’s poor understanding, the consultant may make humorous comments about the linguist or about the situation in general or express negative emotions. –– (3) An anonymous consultant, Kellog, 2006–2009:

7  Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer…

123

i-b-n-qo T.PST-S2.3TH.SG-IMP-to die

–– Let all this die –– This discursive element is used by our consultant to express his feelings about what is happening in the course of the work. This feeling was prompted by the situation of the conversation with a researcher. The emotive comment is not a part of the story that the storyteller wanted to share with the researcher; it is an additional element of text, which changes the discourse because of the presence of the researcher. –– Increase or decrease in structural complexity (Galiamina 2016; Dahl 2004; Dorian 1973; Dorian 1978; Hockett 1958; Karlsson, Miestamo, Sinnemäki 2008), grammatical hypercorrection, changes in pronunciation, or use of new words. It is clear that consultants resort to increasing or reducing the structural complexity of their speech on purpose, either for better understanding or to show off their language skills. We have observed the following examples of such speech behavior.

7.2.1  Oral Texts and Grammatical Tests The use of linguistic constructions which speakers do not use normally. The case construction mentioned subsequently is too complicated for actual communication in modern Ket. Speakers customarily use the Russian conjunction “i” (“and”). The data mentioned subsequently were recorded during fieldwork in 2009: (4) Kellog 2009 Petr Ivan-as Petr Ivan-INST

d-assanno-o-n-bet- Ø S1.3M-hunting-T. PST-PST-to make-S1. SG

Petr hunted (together) with Ivan Hypercorrection (Slovar’ 2006): (5) Romanenkova, Valentina, Andreevna, Kellog, August 2009: at I d-bok-s-tet- Ø S1.3M-fire-PRS-to set-S1.SG

d- Ø-qoˀj-Ø S1.1-PST-to want-S1.SG

baat old man

qan let

I wanted the old man to set fire In this example, the speaker clearly pronounces the prefix d- which is normally dropped in spoken language (Vajda 2004). The speaker does this consciously

124

J. E. Galiamina

because she presumes that she should clearly pronounce every grammatical element, according to the deep grammatical linguistic notation which she has learned about in the course of working with linguists. Here, we see hypercorrection in the phenomenon of the pronunciation of the prefix d-, denoting the first person singular; it is not pronounced in normal speech (it is dropped), but the consultant, having worked with a linguist and been trained by him, knows that it should be present and pronounces the prefix.

7.2.2  Vocabulary Tests –– Eliciting new words from older people. It is a very widespread practice, among those consultants who have older relatives who speak Ket more fluently, to elicit from them forgotten or little-known terms. –– During these vocabulary tests, consultants pronounce each syllable clearly. –– Emphasis on tones. In the speech of present-day Kets, tones are often nearly inaudible, but for vocabulary records, good consultants are eager to pronounce tones clearly, unlike younger speakers. 7.2.2.1  Selection of Types of Text for Research –– Sometimes consultants, instead of speaking spontaneously as they are expected to do, opt to choose one of the ready, precomposed texts (Kazakevich et  al. 2008), that is, the consultant can choose whether or not to recall a remembered story. For example, some Ket consultants create special texts for recounting to researchers. Such a text is not generated spontaneously during a recording session but is rehearsed beforehand. Often, the same consultant can repeat the same story to different researchers. However, the opposite may also be the case—a consultant may be unable to reproduce the story that he or she has already told to other linguists. –– The most striking example in our practice is the reverse translation into Ket of a story told by consultants in Russian, at the request of the linguists. The result is not necessarily the complete text, but just some parts of it, with code-switching. The outcome of such a procedure is a linguistic artifact that cannot be viewed as a product of authentic speech activity. –– We can say that the factors liable to change the linguistic object of study are not limited to the intervention of a specific researcher who directly interacts with a specific consultant at the moment of obtaining linguistic material. All generations of linguists who interact with any specific community contribute substantially to influencing the sociolinguistic situation. As regards Ket, we found the following linguistic and cultural phenomena caused by the activity of recent generations of researchers:

7  Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer…

125

–– Orientation toward literary, bowdlerized versions of famous fairy tales, with much less violence than the original folkloric ones. For example, young consultants usually render the plot of the Ket fairy tale “Cuckoo” according to the school textbook version. They omit the section describing the mother’s guts entangled in thorny bushes, present in the actual folkloric story.

7.3  Sociolinguistic Aspect The linguistic phenomenon described subsequently is connected with sociolinguistic change caused by scholarly activity in the Ket communities. But while purely in terms of language data, the change in the object of study tends to have a possible negative outcome (for example, in cases where we could not document the everyday speech of native speakers but only a version of speech artificially created especially for researchers), the change in the sociolinguistic object of study may be more positive (Vakhtin 2002; Vakhtin, Golovko 2004). What does “positive” mean in this context? Sometimes, consultants begin to improve their language skills in the course of their work with a researcher (see mentioned previously). Of course, frequent linguistic and ethnographic expeditions to Siberian language communities cannot by themselves bring about crucial change in the sociolinguistic situation. However, as field linguists have observed on many occasions, ongoing interest in a minority language and community from the external (“big”) world (including from foreign researchers) raises the social status of native speakers and enhances the interest in their mother tongue both among adults and among young members of the community. As a result, a kind of language elite can emerge in the community, among whose members we may observe certain elements of competition for “purer language” and more attention from researchers. Unfortunately, all these phenomena do not translate into any actual revival or effective social activity that might potentially improve the sociolinguistic situation in the community. To improve that situation substantially, more integrated measures are necessary, including legislative, social, economical, and political initiatives.

7.4  Conclusion We have presented examples of spontaneous speech generation and changes in collected data influenced by the presence of a linguist during the very process of collecting material; we also identify changes in the Ket language community occurring under the influence of scholarly research on the Ket language. Research in field linguistics often results in consultants modifying their linguistic behavior in response to the task they are expected to perform. As a result of interest from outside and research activities, both the collected linguistic material itself

126

J. E. Galiamina

and the linguistic behavior of speakers, as well as the sociolinguistic situation in the community itself, are modified. This effect involves the speakers’ language skills and their sociolinguistic status as well as texts produced through collaboration with the linguist. We know that linguistic behavior modification is more likely to occur where the researcher deals with a text being generated spontaneously by the speaker, rather than with “ready-­ made” texts. Although in some cases—especially in the sociolinguistic domain—this modification in linguistic behavior may have positive consequences, the researcher should be permanently aware of this effect so that its negative consequences may be minimized. This task of minimizing such influence can be performed by the researcher but is not a priority, especially for linguists dealing with endangered languages, because recording truly spontaneous speech is extremely difficult under conditions where the researcher works openly (not using hidden devices). For endangered languages, for example, Ket, such a task becomes practically impossible because in practice spontaneous speech activity has ceased, and the communicative situations of working with a linguist remain almost the only areas of application of the language. In such a situation, the linguist should strive not to minimize his own influence on the speech activity of the speaker but should instead explicitly indicate the results of this influence to record them and identify them when publishing the collected field materials. In short, a linguist should be permanently aware of these issues so that their consequences may be minimized. To this end, we propose the following mitigation options: 1. The consultant could be given a recording device to work on his own and thus generate text spontaneously. 2. Alternatively, when the researcher lives in the language community and learns the language, community members become used to his presence; this enables him to monitor and observe language use and spontaneous speech generation over a period of time. It should be noted that in some cases—especially in the sociolinguistic domain— the influence of the linguist could actually be helpful. Moreover, as shown earlier, the effect of scholarly activities can positively change the sociolinguistic situation in the linguistic community. In this case, the scholar does not merely impartially document reality but instead becomes an active member of the community, performing a social function.

References Auer, Peter, ed. 2013. Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge.

7  Object Evolving in the Hands of the Researcher: Observations from a Summer…

127

Chelliah, Shobhana L., and Willem J. de Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­90-­481-­9026-­3. Galiamina, J.E. 2012. “Strukturnye tipy perekl'uchenija koda v rechi nositelej ischezajuschikh jazykov” [“Structural types of Code-Switching using endangered language speakers”]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University], no.1: 96–101. (In Russian) ———. 2016. “Reduktsija slozhnosti v ketskoj glagolnoj sisteme kak reaktsija na jazykovoq sdvig” [“Reduction of language complexity in the Ket verb system as a reaction on the language shift”]. Tipologija morfosintaksicheskikh parametrov [Typology of morphosyntactic parameters], no. 3:86–96. (In Russian) Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dorian, Nancy. 1973. Grammatical change in a dying dialect. Language 49: 413–438. ———. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from ESG. Language 54: 590–609. Hockett, Charles F. 1958. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10: 210–231. Karlsson, Fred, Matti Miestamo, and Kaius Sinnemäki, eds. 2008. Language complexity: typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kazakevich, O.A., E.M.  Budjanskaja, and J.E.  Galiamina. 2008. “Istorii zhizni avtokhtonnogo naselenija Sibiri, publikatsija glossirovannykh tekstov” [“Life stories of autochthonous population of Siberia, publication of glossed texts”]. Vestnik RGGU [Bulletin of Russian State University of Humanities], no.6: 246–285.. (In Russian) Kazakevich, O.A. 2005. “Izmenenije struktury jazyka s ogranichennoj sferoj upotreblenija” [“Structural changes in a language using in a restrict sphere”]. In Malyje jazyki i traditsii: suschestvovanie na grani [Minor languages and traditions: existing on the margins], ed. A.E. Kibrik, vol. 1, 122–134. Moscow: Moscow State University, Institut of World Cultures. (In Russian). ———. 2007. “Spetsifika polevoj raboty v uslovijakh jazykovogo sdviga” [“Specificity of field work in conditions of language shift”]. In Polevaja lingvistika [Field linguistics], ed. M.E. Alekseev, 82–98. Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija. (In Russian). ———. 2010. “Evenkijsko-ketskaja ekspeditsija 2009 g.: dokumentatsija jazykov i dialektov, kotoryje mogut ischeznut” [Evenk-Ket expedition-2009: documentation of endangered languages and dialects]. Vestnik Rossijskogo gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda [Bulletin of Russian scientific fund of Humanities] 3: 206–212. (In Russian). Khilkhanova, E.V., and D.L.  Khilkhanov. 2019. “Diskursibnye markery v dvujazychnoj rechi: voprosy tipologii i zakonomernosti funkcirovanija” [“Discursive markers in diglossia: typology and regularity of functioning”]. Filologicheskije nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Filological studies. Issues of theory and practice”], no.7: 256-260. (In Russian) Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech a typology of code mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slovar’ sociologicheskikh terminov 2006 [Dictionary of sociolinguistic terms], accessed November 21, 2007, https://iling-­ran.ru/library/sociolingva/slovar/sociolinguistics_dictionary. pdf (In Russian) Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed November 21, 2007., https://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/qt-­uncertainty/. Vajda, Edward. 2004. Ket. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Vakhtin, N.V. 2002. Jazyki narodov Severa v XX veke [North peoples’ languages in XX century]. Dmitrij Bulanin: Sankt-Peterburg. (In Russian). Vakhtin, N.V., and E.V.  Golovko. 2004. Sotsiolingvistika i sotsiologija jazyka [Sociolinguistics and sociology of language]. S-Petersburg: Gumanitarnaja akademija. (In Russian).

Chapter 8

Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi Maria Yu. Pupynina

Abstract  In this chapter, we illustrate particular features of linguistic fieldwork among the Chukchi, a relatively small ethnic group in the Far Northeast of Russia. The geographical location of Chukchi consultants, their sociolinguistic situation, ethical and ethnographical issues, and other relevant factors are discussed. We argue that the objectives of linguistic fieldwork must be taken into account when choosing the location of a field trip and when selecting consultants. This chapter can be used as a guideline for a successful field trip not only to Chukchi but also to other northern nomadic nations of Russia. At the same time, it provides information on the current stage of the civilization-affected decline in the Chukchi language and culture, which are both endangered. Keywords  the Chukchi language · Sociolinguistic situation · Linguistic fieldwork

8.1  Introduction The majority of ethnic Chukchis live in Chukotskii Autonomous District (Chukotka), a district in North-East Russia designated for them by the Soviet administration, although some groups are located in two neighboring districts, Kamchatskii Krai (Kamchatka) and Yakutia. Linguistic fieldwork among the Chukchi has an unusual history. Fieldwork by Russian linguists ceased at the end of the 1980s and resumed only in 2008, while foreign linguists face considerable obstacles even obtaining the special permit required to visit the region. Because the Chukotka peninsula is a border security zone (due to its proximity to the sea border with the United States), it was a sensitive region during the Cold War period. Living in close proximity to Alaska, Chukchi and Siberian Yupik suffered many forced relocations and other restrictions (Krupnik and Chlenov 2013). For people from other regions of Soviet Russia, special permission was needed to enter the district. The area is still not easily accessible M. Y. Pupynina (*) Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_8

129

130

M. Y. Pupynina

by visitors from other regions, and especially not by foreigners. Although some foreign researchers (e.g., cultural anthropologists and linguists) manage to obtain a permit, it is very hard for them to research in remote areas. Typically, they are allowed to work only in Anadyr’, the capital of Chukotka, and surrounding districts. At the same time, there remains an urgent need for a multifaceted study of the Chukchi language and culture, which are rapidly falling out of use. This chapter will discuss particular features of linguistic fieldwork among the Chukchi. The chapter is based on ten field trips to Chukotka, Yakutia, and Kamçhatka (2008–2019), lasting from 40 to 65 days each. I concentrate on the most important factors (sociolinguistic, ethnographic, geographic, etc.) influencing the work of scholars.

8.2  The Number, Age, and Gender of Speakers The Chukchi population, according to the All-Russian Census (2010), is approximately 16,000. The distribution of Chukchi in their native lands is shown in Table 8.1. In the 1980s, field linguists observed Chukchi children speaking Chukchi with their mothers (Alexander P. Volodin, personal communication). Michael Dunn, who conducted his fieldwork in Chukchi grammar in the 1990s, reports that he never heard Chukchi spoken by children and that their knowledge was “at best passive” (Dunn 1999: 14). Nevertheless, people aged 30 and older living in the villages were usually fluent speakers of Chukchi (Ibid.). This may be why, at the very beginning of the twenty-first century, the situation with the Chukchi language was sometimes considered to be relatively sustainable (Neroznak 2002). In the 11 villages of Chukotka, Yakutia, and Kamchatka, I did not meet a single Chukchi child who could speak or even understand fluent speech in Chukchi. Although the children who live in villages with a high Chukchi population do study Chukchi in school, they are not able to speak it, which is due to a lack of motivation and good textbooks and teacher training. Doing my fieldwork among Chukchi nomadic groups in 2008, I met a 24-year-old woman fluent in Chukchi who was the youngest consultant with whom I have ever worked. Generally, speaking Chukchi at this age and even at the age of 30–35 was atypical for the community. Usually, younger speakers live in small communities that preserve the traditional lifestyle of

Table 8.1  Chukchi population in their native land Region Chukotka autonomous region Yakutia republic Kamchatka Krai

Number of Chukchi (subjects of the Russian Federation) 12,772 670 1469

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi

131

reindeer-breeding or whale-hunting. Unfortunately, younger people use their ethnic language only to communicate with parents who are poor Russian speakers. The age of my consultants usually varied from 45 to 75 years old. Older speakers living in traditional villages view the Chukchi spoken by younger people as inaccurate and limited, while young speakers in nomadic groups generally show high competence in Chukchi. Conducting fieldwork with elderly speakers can present obvious problems: some cannot hear very well and some have problems articulating certain sounds. Unfortunately, these are usually the most knowledgeable and competent consultants. It appears that currently, female speakers outnumber male ones. The gender of speakers is a very important factor for fieldwork with Chukchi because, as we know, there are fixed differences between men’s and women’s pronunciation, sometimes called gender dialects or gender-based sociolects. Example (2) demonstrates one of the differences between the dialects: the different pronunciations of the Chukchi imperfective suffix -rkәn(male)/-ccәn(female). (2)

Iˀam a-caj-o-ka, why NEG-tea-drink-NEG Why don’t you drink tea, don’t you want (some)?

eˀnqee-ccәn/ eˀnqee-rkәn? not.want-IPFV.w/ not.want-IPFV.m

This particular sentence occurs often during interviews with elderly Chukchis (when the consultants are eager to teach the researcher their language, they often say some phrases in Chukchi). Unfortunately, the female variant is very rarely heard. The male language was standardized because reference grammar and teaching materials published by P. Ya. Skorik (Skorik 1961; Skorik 1977) were based on it; it is also the only variety taught in school. This explains why many women speakers have switched to the male variety. Nowadays, it is very difficult to find a woman speaking female dialect, which is rapidly being lost. More detailed information on the gender dialects of Chukchi can be found in the work by M. Dunn (Dunn 2000).

8.3  Education, Literacy, and the Norm In the 1920s–1930s, the Soviet Union conducted a campaign to “liquidate illiteracy” among the whole population, including adults. Since Chukotka is a remote region of the country, the campaign proceeded slowly there, with a lack of trained teachers and a shortage of housing and supplies for them. In the 1930s, several nomadic schools were opened in different districts of Chukotka (Nefedova 1967). However, at the end of the 1930s, nearly all nomadic schools were transformed into stationary ones. A boarding school system of education was established all over Chukotka and other regions with a nomadic indigenous population. All children aged from 6 to 10 were forcibly taken from their nomadic group and brought to the

132

M. Y. Pupynina

nearest boarding school. At first, Chukchi was a medium of instruction in some local schools (even maths textbooks for first-grade children were published in Chukchi), but soon Russian became the only language that pupils were encouraged to speak in class and even in boarding school bedrooms (in the presence of Russian people). This broke the chain of the natural transmission of language from parents to children. Even so, Chuchki was taught as a subject in most boarding schools, and this brought literacy in Chuchki to nearly the entire population of Chukotka. At present, the amount of time spent on Chukchi as a subject has been reduced to the minimum (two lessons a week in elementary school; one to two lessons a week in secondary school; and no Chukchi lessons at all in the last two years of secondary school). Unfortunately, some teachers of Chukchi, Chukchis themselves, do not have command of their heritage language. In Chukotka, Kamchatka, and Yakuta, there are still some Chukchi who have never attended school. Some of them are elderly people who were hidden by their parents from the school administration which was collecting children from the camps. Several people raised in the nomadic camps in the 1980s became illiterate because their parents, mainly nomads, refused to send them to school and instead wanted to ensure that they would learn the skills of reindeer breeding. Such refusal became possible when the rules of compulsory education for nomads were eased. In Yakutia, Chukchi was taught as a subject at times since the 1970s and is now taught on a regular basis. However, a lot of Yakutian Chukchi who are still fluent in the language did not have the chance to learn it at school and cannot read or write in it. In Ayanka village in Kamchatka, Chukchi was not taught at the time when there was natural language transmission, and currently, it is nearly impossible to find a consultant who can read or write in his or her ethnic language. This should be taken into account when conducting linguistic fieldwork with written stimuli. It is traditionally believed that it is better for linguists to work with illiterate consultants because literacy increases prescriptivism (Vaux and Cooper 1999: 19). However, while I agree that a consultant’s level of education should be taken into account, in many cases primary or even secondary education does not play a major role in a person’s competence. It does make sense to tell such a consultant not to worry about the “correctness” of his or her speech. Working with school teachers, trained journalists, and others involved in “cultural” work can be problematic. Educated Chukchi often try to adhere to the Chukchi reference grammar by P. Ya Skorik, which does not always describe the language correctly. We note the observation of Michael Dunn: “Schoolteachers, who had all attended the same teachers’ college in St. Petersburg, had received heavy exposure to Skorik’s Chukchi grammar, and accepted it as the prestige standard, although admitting privately that nobody they knew spoke like that” (Dunn 1999: 16). So it seems more effective to document the language by working with consultants who have an incomplete school education or no education at all. Professional teachers, however, may be helpful when parsing and translating.

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi

133

8.4  Mono- and Bilingualism As I noted earlier, only very old people are almost monolingual with poor competence in Russian. Most Chukchi speakers are bilingual, and the language of those who are fluent shows considerable Russian influence. The bilingual generation emerged from boarding schools, where they were sent between 6 and 8 years of age and where they picked up Russian. With the loss of prestige of the Chuchki language, graduates of these schools tended to teach their children only Russian or Russian as a first language. Today, the majority of Chukchi speakers are Russian-­ Chukchi bilingual. Potential consultants can be classified as follows with respect to mono- and bilingualism: 1 . Monolinguals (75 and older). 2. Chukchi-Russian bilinguals—poor Russian competence. 3. Chukchi-Russian bilinguals—strong Russian competence. 4. Russian-Chukchi bilinguals—strong Chukchi competence. 5. Russian-Chukchi bilinguals—poor Chukchi competence. Consultants from the fifth group can understand other people speaking Chukchi, know some words and common phrases, and can (sometimes) translate or put together simple sentences.

8.5  Language Shift and Code-Switching Over the last two decades, the use of Chukchi for practical purposes has significantly diminished; the language has lost its significance in everyday life and in school and pre-school education. The rapidity of language shift is typical for Russia in general (Vakhtin 1993). Nearly all speakers older than 40 perceive the change as dramatic. However, during my first field trips, the younger generation who could still speak the language tended to view their language competence as a burden rather than a benefit, but now the situation has changed for the better (at least in district centers and towns). Learning heritage languages is regarded as something valuable and fashionable. There are attempts to organize language courses for youngsters, but knowledgeable older speakers are not yet sufficiently integrated into this process. There are slight differences in the dynamics of language shift from Chukchi to Russian in the three regions where Chukchi live (Pupynina and Koryakov 2019). What is important for fieldwork organization is code-switching, a consequence of rapid language shift. At present, nearly all bilingual consultants who still occasionally use Chukchi for practical purposes (groups 3–5) tend to switch between Chukchi and Russian in most situations. Even bilinguals with poor Russian competence switch when speaking to people of poor Chukchi competence. Example (1)

134

M. Y. Pupynina

shows this group of code-switching. It comes from a dialogue between two Chukchi women, one born in 1961, bilingualism group 3, the other (who is speaking) born in 1938, bilingualism group 2. The Russian word is underlined: (1)

Nedavno tә-nәmŋәļawә-n recently 1sg.a-tell-3sg.p I told Vova (proper name) about that recently.

Wowa. Vova

Thus, when documenting conversation and even when recording monologues with biographies, legends, and so on, code-switching is almost inevitable. If necessary, it is possible to reduce it by drawing the speaker’s attention to his/her speech.

8.6  Domains of Language Use The majority of the Chukchi do not use the language on a daily basis. This is particularly true in some villages where the Chukchi population is not predominant. As often happens with minority languages, Chukchi lacks many words and expressions for new technologies, so it is rarely used either in public or at home when discussing aspects of modern life. Middle-aged people sometimes use Chukchi as a secret language. In some communications, Chukchi–Russian bilinguals tend to use some Chukchi with each other, especially (but not only) when discussing their relatives’ life in a nomadic “brigade” (collective) or a person’s hunting experience. Monolinguals and Chukchi–Russian bilinguals with poor competence in Russian (type 1 and 2) certainly use Chukchi to communicate with each other, even sometimes deliberately getting together to speak their native language. Unfortunately this is the smallest group of speakers, and their numbers are decreasing. Even among nomadic groups, whose traditional way of life itself seems to presuppose the use of Chukchi, it is still rarely used. However, in reindeer-breeding brigades, elderly people play an important role in everyday life, and some younger people (especially men) tend to speak their heritage language (Pupynina and Koryakov 2019). Chukchi is used during traditional celebrations led by the elderly when those who do not have command of the language inevitably miss some important parts of the event (Ibid.) Such communications are undoubtedly worth documenting. On the other hand, elders tend to switch to Russian—a language they can hardly speak—when communicating with their grandchildren. People aged under 50 use Chukchi only to communicate with older people. Anadyr’, along with some villages, has several cultural and folklore associations that regularly hold meetings. Discussing current affairs, participants occasionally speak Chukchi. In addition, speeches at official concerts and celebrations arranged by the Chukotka government are occasionally performed in Chukchi. An unexpected linguistic consequence has resulted from the growing penetration of Baptists in Chukotka. During their gatherings, Chukchi Baptists are encouraged

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi

135

to speak their ethnic language. One of the requirements for non-Chukchis joining the sect is to learn and sing religious songs in Chukchi. See example (3). (3a)

Ujŋe meŋin NEG who.ABS There is nobody (except you) where you are. (3b) Ɣәmnin ļin-ļin my heart-heart I gave my heart to you.

ɣәnәɣ-miŋkә (repeated 2 times). you.OBL-where tә-jәļә-n 1SG.A-give-3SG.P

ɣәnә-kә. you-LOC

(The first line and then the entire stanza are repeated again). The majority of Chukchi speakers hardly ever speak the language in everyday life. The domains in which the language can be recorded for documentation purposes are as follows: • • • •

Sacral events (Chukchi traditional holidays and Baptist gatherings). Secret language. Events and meetings of public organizations. Everyday speech (elderly people talking to each other or youths talking to the elders).

8.7  Traditional Economies and Dialectology Traditionally, there were two groups of Chukchi: nomadic Chukchi, çawçewat, reindeer breeders, and maritime Chukchi, anqalˀәt, hunters of whales, walruses, and seals. In Soviet times, people who wanted to lead a traditional way of life were given official positions as “reindeer herders” or “hunters” in kolkhozy (collective farms). Nomadic clan units were reorganized into “reindeer-breeding brigades,” and maritime village hunters were united into “hunting brigades.” These new organizational principles ruined the traditional herd system of Chukchi reindeer-breeding and intertribal connections. Currently, the kolkhozy are called “agricultural enterprises,” but their organizational principles have remained more or less intact. The traditional arts of reindeer-breeding and maritime hunting have been lost during the decades of kolkhoz life. The reasons for this are clear: First, young people do not have the necessary skills; second, after being brought up in boarding schools, they are unwilling or unable to endure the discomforts of nomadic life. Linguistic differences between the breeders and the hunters mostly concern the lexicon. The Chukchi language can be described as a dialectological continuum with minor differences in community variants occurring from the east to the west, and from the east to the south, where Chukchi live in mixed Chukchi-Even or Chukchi-Koryak villages. The Chukchi area can be divided into three large dialectal zones: southern, western, and eastern (see Pupynina 2018).

136

M. Y. Pupynina

The first purely linguistic fieldwork was done by P. Skorik in the 1940s–1960s among the Chukchi of Uelen, an old marine village. The Chukchi variant of this village was chosen as the basis for standard Chukchi and for the standard Chukchi reference grammar (Skorik 1961, 1977). Fifty years later, Michael Dunn studied the Telqep Chukchi (reindeer breeders) and collected data in Kanchalan and Alkatwaam villages and from a nomadic brigade in Tawajwaam, near Anadyr’. Three linguists of Chukchi origin (P. Inenliqej, I. Kulikova, and L. Kutgeut) collected data among nomads from the 1970s to the mid-1980s. Working with maritime hunters or nomads provides the additional advantage of documenting stories about Chukchi material culture. For a researcher, it is more convenient to work among the anqalˀәt, maritime Chukchi, as they live permanently in villages. However, nomads occasionally visit the villages where brigade headquarters are situated or where their relatives live. Fieldwork with such consultants can be prearranged, but the weather conditions or technical difficulties can considerably postpone nomads’ visits to places of civilization. At present, the number of reindeer brigades decreases every year, usually due to the lack of professional reindeer-herders. In addition to young peoples’ reluctance to lead a nomadic life, they are unenthusiastic about obtaining the education that would enable them to serve their communities as teachers, doctors, veterinarians, or construction workers—nor are they encouraged to do so. The government has to invite such specialists from other regions of the country. The majority of the population is thus unemployed or makes a living from casual poorly paid work; yet, even these disadvantaged people prefer living in villages to working in reindeer-breeding brigades. Fieldwork among people with skills in the traditional economy is becoming increasingly problematic. For a researcher who is willing to complete documentation tasks in a nomadic brigade, the best time to join the herders is in the summer or early autumn, preferably from the end of July, when the enormous number of mosquitoes and similar insects is starting to diminish. At this time, herdsmen (mostly men, sometimes joined by a woman cook) cross the tundra with their reindeer in search of food and water. This daily movement from place to place is called letovka, from the Russian word leto “summer.” During the letovka, older members of the brigade, usually parents of the herdsmen, settle in temporary dwellings (yarangas) together with herdsmen’s wives and children. A field linguist thus has two options: to work with the elders in yarangas or travel with the herdsmen on letovka. In the latter case, it would be wise for the researcher to carry with him all the necessary equipment (a tent and a sleeping bag). In winter, all the brigade members travel together in search of food for the herd. They move twice a month. Clearly, there are more opportunities to collect data in winter, but the living conditions are extreme due to the arctic cold. All the discomforts of working in a nomadic brigade are generously rewarded by the extremely warm and cordial welcome from Chukchi people who are always helpful and kind to those who share with them the hardships of their lives.

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi

137

8.8  Specific National and Psychological Barriers: Alcohol In Chukotka, attitudes toward researchers of different ethnic groups are generally positive. There are nonetheless difficulties. Despite their awareness of the decline in Chukchi culture and language, some individuals believe that Chukchi culture should pass away with them; they prefer not to work with a linguist/anthropologist who is not from their community. Tundra nomads are good at making fun of researchers and will sometimes deliberately give incorrect information. For this reason, it is always useful to recheck the data. Monolinguals, along with some Chukchi–Russian bilinguals with poor Russian competence, sometimes refuse to work with a linguist who is not competent in Chukchi. With a native Russian speaker present, they may be ashamed that their Russian is not fluent. In such cases, it is sometimes more effective if the linguist is not a native speaker of an intermediary language so that his or her competence in this language is not intimidating (see Bowern 2008: 133). When the field linguist does not have a command of Chukchi, he or she may find it difficult to record the conversation in Chukchi among a group of several consultants. Even consultants who have good competence in Russian feel uncomfortable speaking Chukchi. While studying at boarding school, they were taught that speaking Chukchi in the presence of a nonspeaker is not polite. Another problem concerns elicitation. If people see that the linguist cannot speak or understand their language, they may give inaccurate answers. In translation tasks, it is sometimes useful to have two consultants present so that they correct each other. One final problem that must be mentioned is alcohol. Alcohol, generally vodka, which is called eˀqimәļ (bad water) in Chukchi, was introduced to Chukotka in the nineteenth century by Russian merchants and American whalers. There have been recent efforts to prevent or cure alcohol dependence; in particular, Red Cross workers visit remote Chukchi villages and organize lectures and workshops there. However, these efforts are not strong enough to counter the profitable alcohol business: Vodka is the only product with which local shops are regularly supplied. If stores do run out of vodka, there are always illegal sellers ready to produce homemade vodka of very poor quality. Those who cannot afford vodka—for example, nomads—make alcohol themselves. It is not easy to conduct any type of fieldwork (especially linguistic!) in villages for several days or even weeks after payday. Even the most competent consultants are unable to work. It is thus useful to find out in advance when payday will occur. Paying consultants is best done when all work has been concluded, as those who drink may immediately spend the money on vodka. Presents like food, clothes, and household goods are often preferable to money, as there is often not much to buy in poorly supplied villages and in nomadic camps. Most of my consultants were content with presents instead of money; some even told me that they were better off without the temptation of ready cash. Consultants usually understand the tragedy of their addiction and respect a field linguist who does not drink, although that attitude can vary depending on the researcher’s gender.

138

M. Y. Pupynina

8.9  Accessibility Chukotka is not an easy place to travel around. There are no roads or railways, so the only way to travel to, and within, Chukotka is by air. It is not difficult to buy a ticket to Anadyr, the capital of the region, from Moscow or Alaska (Nome and Anchorage), but plane/helicopter tickets from Anadyr to the villages are very hard to come by because the demand is much greater than supply. Tickets are sometimes sold out within a day or two of being put on sale. Flights are often delayed because small planes and helicopters cannot fly in bad weather. Villagers who need tickets to return home sometimes have to wait for weeks at the airport hotel. Some villages (Lavrentiia, Egvekinot, and Provideniia) can be reached by boat that travels the route three or four times every summer. Kolymskoye, a Chukchi village in Yakutia, is accessible from the local center only by boat with no fixed schedule in summer and by private car in winter. Those Kamchatkan villages having a Chukchi population are the least accessible, and flights there are the most expensive. Two plane flights and a helicopter are needed to get there, and the tickets for the helicopter are sold only in the regional center of the district. Nomadic groups are the least accessible. There are no regular connections between the brigades and their headquarters village, so a linguist has to take advantage of any opportunities. For the researcher, reaching his destination in Chukotka is a long-term effort, with most of his time spent waiting for transportation. Nomadic camps can be reached by all-terrain vehicle (vezdekhod) or by helicopter, but there are no scheduled flights. In winter, some brigades can be reached by snowmobile or truck. Some nomads have their own snowmobiles, and a few still have harnessed reindeer and traditional sledges, which they use to travel to the nearest village for supplies.

8.10  Planning a Documentation Trip to Chukotka The kind of linguistic data a linguist seeks to document will determine the choice of a consultant with respect to age, gender, and education. (a) Recording dialogues. Spontaneous speech is best documented in nomadic brigades, especially in the summer when there are mainly elderly people in the yaranga settlements (see mentioned previously, Sect. 8.7) and the weather is warm. When members of a brigade become used to a researcher, it is easy to record ongoing conversations. Example (4) shows a dialogue recorded in a yaranga. The participants are an elderly Chukchi woman, named Tutәŋe (T.), and a younger man named Kerginkau: (K.), who has just got a job as a herd veterinarian. T.:

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi (4a)

Andrei-nte Andrei-pl

139

wanewan neg.nfut

n-iļu-tku-net? imp.3pl-move-iter-imp.3pl

Andrey’s family, aren’t they doing anything? K.: (4b)

Itək part

ɣənməl recently

ewən part

ɣe-jew-ļin. pf-wake.up-3sg

He has woken up recently. T.: (4c)

Miŋkəçi where.w

ŋotqe-n? that-abs.sg

n-açən-ɣˀa-n inv-invite-pfv-3sg.p

Where was he invited? (4d)

Qoo, intj.unawar

ɣəttap-traktorə-tko-ļˀə-n wise-tractor-vb-pred3-3sg

meŋin, who

aŋəka-ɣtə ?-all

jetə-ļˀən go-pred3-3sg

K.: No idea, the tractor man, this guy, went to (?). (4e)

Jureq=ˀm maybe

itək part

prak-o-çqek-wˀa-t alcohol-drink-purp-pf-3pl

So maybe they went to drink alcohol... (4f) Etanə prak-o-çqek-wˀa-t. probably alcohol-drink-purp-pf-3pl

T.: It is likely that they went to drink self-made alcohol. (4g) Muri we.abs

ļoŋ-ta-pra-ŋ-a. neg-constr-alcohol-constr-neg

We didn’t make alcohol (this time). (4g)

Çama=ˀm also=emph

ipe truly

ļəɣen part

kemak-wərɣən obstacle-AN

itək=ˀm so=emph

waj deict

ruļe-k. weaken-cvb

140

M. Y. Pupynina

(Alcohol) is really an additional obstacle—(because of) becoming weak. Spontaneous dialogues sometimes occur between elders in old Chukchi villages, but speakers are unlikely to produce such dialogues in the presence of a field linguist. Working with monolinguals, it is useful to have a bilingual translator or interviewer to pose questions to the consultant. In a village, it is also possible to get people together and ask them to speak on a specific topic, but with some consultants, this does not always work. The same method can be applied during letovka, when the majority of adults can speak the language but do not ordinarily use it. Young speakers are not used to speaking Chukhi with each other, so they are able to keep the conversation going for 5–7 min, after which they switch to Russian. (b) Recording texts. Although retired Chukchi in villages can be good storytellers, this art is quickly fading away. In a nomadic brigade, it is worth working with two individuals in one’s own tent (if it is big enough) because there are a lot of additional noises in yarangas. In Anadyr’, it is a little harder to find people able to produce coherent oral texts in Chukchi, especially without a conversation partner.

8.11  Conclusion It is impossible to describe all the difficulties that can arise while working with Chukchi consultants. The main point I want to emphasize is that sociolinguistic conditions for collecting linguistic data in Chukotka are quite favorable, especially when compared to the situation with the neighboring Yupik or Yukaghir languages. Many consultants are still fluent in Chukchi and use it; there are even monolinguals or people with poor competence in Russian. Unfortunately, the remoteness of the region, and difficulties in reaching the most interesting groups in Chukotka and other regions where Chukchi live, constrain linguistic fieldwork. Many linguistic issues await further close study, hopefully by a research team.

Appendix: List of Abbreviations in Glosses

A ABS AN CONSTR CVB DEICT EMPH

agent-like argument of canonical transitive verb absolutive case action noun constructive converb deictic emphatic

8  Linguistic Fieldwork among the Chukchi IMP INTJ.unawar INV IPFV ITER LOC NEG NFUT OBL P PART PF PFV PL PRED3 PURP SG VB w m

141

imperative mood interjection meaning unawareness inverse imperfective aspect iterative aspect locative case negation non-future oblique case patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb particle perfect perfective aspect plural predicative type 3 purposive singular verbalizer women’s variant men’s variant

References Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork. A practical guide. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dunn, Michael. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Dissertation, Australian National University. Canberra: Australian National University. ———. 2000. Chukchi Women’s Language: A Historical-Comparative Perspective. Anthropological Linguistics 42 (3): 305–328. Krupnik, I., and M.  Chlenov. 2013. Yupik transitions: Change and survival at Bering Strait, 1900–1960. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Nefedova, S.P. 1967. “Kocheve shkoly Chukotka (1931–1950)” (“Nomadic schools of Chukotka (1931–1950)”). In Istorja i kultura narodov Severa Dal’nego vostoka (History and culture of peoples of the North of the Far East), ed. A.I. Krushanov, 137–140. Moscow: Prosvescheniye. Neroznak, V.P., ed. 2002. Jazyki narodov Rossii: Krasnaja Kniga (A red book of languages of Russia). Moscow: Academia. Pupynina, M.Yu. 2018. “Osobennosti kolymskogo varianta chukotskogo iazyka.” (“Peculiarities of Kolyma variety of Chukchi”.). Voprosy Iazykoznanija 3: 112–127. Pupynina, M.Yu., and Yu B.  Koryakov. 2019. Chukchi-speaking communities in three Russian Regions. A 120-year story of language shift. Sibirica 18 (2): 114–117. Skorik, P.Ya. 1961. Grammatika chukotskogo jazyka. Chast’ 1. Fonetika, morfologija imennykh chastej rechi (A Grammar of Chukchi. Part 1. Phonetics, morphology of nominal parts of speech). Moscow–Leningrad: Academy of Sciences publishing. ———. 1977. Grammatika chukotskogo jazyka. Chast’ 2. Glagol, narechije, funktsional’nye chasti rechi (A Grammar of Chukchi: Part 2. Verb, adverb, functional parts of speech). Leningrad: Academy of Sciences publishing.

142

M. Y. Pupynina

Vakhtin, N.B. 1993. Korennoe naselenie Krajnego Severa Rossijskoj Federatsii (Indigenous population of the Arctic North of the Russian Federation). St. Petersburg: The European House publishing. Vaux, Bert, and Justin Cooper. 1999. Introduction to linguistic field methods. München: Lincom Europa.

Chapter 9

Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data Kapitolina S. Fedorova

Abstract  The chapter deals with the language situation in the Russian–Chinese border area and addresses the issues of obtaining linguistic data on communication between Russian and Chinese speakers. It starts with a brief overview of the history of interethnic communication in the border area; then describes the contemporary socioeconomic situation, with cross-border migration influencing communication patterns in border cities; finally, problems faced by researchers in the field are discussed, with the focus on language attitudes preventing consultants from admitting to their usage of nonstandard linguistic forms and possible strategies helping to minimize researchers’ influence on consultants’ verbal behavior. The chapter is based on the author’s fieldwork in the Zabaikalsky Territory in Russia and in Inner Mongolia Province in China in 2008–2010. Keywords  the Russian–Chinese border · Cross-border migration · Usage of nonstandard linguistic forms

9.1  Introduction Language contacts, sometimes resulting in the rise of new language varieties, are usually hidden in the remote past. When studying contact-induced language changes, researchers often have to deal not with contacts as such but with some

This research was supported by the German Research Foundation grant “Russian-Chinese Language Contacts and Border Trade: the Past and the Present” (GZ: 436 RUS 113/960/0-1). I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the other researchers involved in the project, my German colleagues Christian Voss (Humboldt University, Berlin) and Dieter Stern (University of Bonn); my colleagues from Chita State University Dina Sundueva and Nadezhda Likhanova helped me enormously during my fieldwork in the Zabaikalskii territory. K. S. Fedorova (*) Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_9

143

144

K. S. Fedorova

“traces” of contacts that took place dozens, or even hundreds, of years ago. This explains why interpretations of language changes by different scholars can contradict each other: Some see a given feature as a result of internal linguistic system development, while others believe some other language to be responsible for its origin. Languages are historically documented, but language contacts are not. Certainly, we know about the fact of contact, but usually little is known about its process, about the everyday reality of communication between people speaking different languages. However, it is this process of communication that determines the future trajectories of language changes. Studying the genesis of pidgin and creole languages, therefore, becomes difficult in at least two aspects. First, sometimes there is not that much reliable information on the social context of the contacts that gave birth to the new languages. Second, the data we can use in such studies are usually far from sufficient. Early recordings of dialogues in pidgin are accidental and not always precise: some curious travelers or authors wrote down certain “funny words” used in interethnic communication; trying to amuse their readers, they perhaps exaggerated some pidgin features and omitted the ones that did not suit this purpose. Native speakers of the dominant language tend to treat the pidgin based on it as a “broken language,” an imperfect, comic, or even “disgusting” imitation of their speech by non-natives (Todd 2004: 1). Because of these negative attitudes and the traditional orientation toward studying normative speech, pidgins were “discovered” by linguists relatively late (see Meijer and Muysken 1977), and any systematic observations of the contact phenomenon often emerged only in the later stages of the process or sometimes even after the pidgin in question has passed out of use. In the latter case, the only evidence we can turn to, apart from written sources, are some reminiscences of its former users (and human memory is not always reliable). At the same time, language contacts can be studied in “real time” in any situation when speakers of different languages have to communicate with each other. In this case, it is impossible to predict whether these contacts would result in the creation of some new language variety or trigger serious linguistic changes in the contacting languages. On the other hand, the study of this kind reveals various aspects of the contact process: How non-native speakers of language A (or dominant language)1 learn it through their communication with its native speakers; how the native speakers of the same language accommodate it to the contact situation; whether the contacting languages exert any influence on each other; what language attitudes and stereotypes determine the speech behavior of speakers; and so on. And sometimes, as in the case I am describing in this article, it is possible to compare the historical data taken from written sources with new material gathered from fieldwork.

1  Of course, in some cases there are no clear-cut dominant and subdominant languages. For example, Russenorsk, the pidgin used in the eighteenth and nineteenth century by Russians and Norwegians trading with each other, cannot be described as based either on Russian or Norwegian. About 50% of its lexicon stems from the Norwegian language, 30% came from Russian, and the rest of it was taken from other languages—see Broch and Jahr (1984). Presumably this almost even distribution can be explained by the relative social equality of the communicating sides. Russenorsk is very untypical in this aspect.

9  Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data

145

9.2  I nterethnic Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Historical Background A case in point is the situation with interethnic contacts on the Russian–Chinese border. Historically, this was a place of intensive language and cultural contacts and interethnic communication not only between the Russians and the Chinese; several ethnic groups (Mongolians, Koreans, Tungus, Udege, and others) were involved in the process. Since 1727, when the treaty of Kyakhta was concluded, this small frontier town became the only place where Russian and Chinese merchants could perform trade deals (Stern 2005). Strict regulations on trade continued for 133 years (to 1860), and the situation turned out to be ideal for the emergence of a new language, the so-called “Kyakhta language” or Russian–Chinese pidgin. Later it spread along the border all the way to Russia’s Far East and gradually became the main tool for interethnic communication in the region, with a great number (around one million by some calculations) of speakers belonging to at least eight ethnic and linguistic groups (Belikov 1994: 297−298).2 The pidgin was documented by travelers and amateur linguists (Cherepanov 1853; Maksimov 1864); it was also used in some books of fiction to depict the way the Chinese and aboriginal people of the Far East spoke Russian. The most famous examples are the books by Vladimir Arsenjev “Po Ussurijskomu krayu” and “Dersu Uzala” (later made into a movie by Akira Kurosawa). The Russian-Chinese pidgin is based mainly on the Russian lexicon but has grammatical features typical for contact languages: no declination and conjugation; the use of possessive pronouns moja (my) and tvoia (your) instead of the personal ones (ya (I) and ty (you) respectively); and the use of adverbs for marking tense. The basic verb form is imperative; it can be used in any temporal context: (1) A schasa toka kartoshka sadi, sio magazina kupi, a lan’she ne. (Belikov and Perekhvalskaia 1990) And now only potato put-IMP all shop buy-IMP but before no “Now people plant only potatoes and buy everything in the shop; this was not the case before”

(2) Za moya Mikita skazyvaj budu. (Cherepanov 1853: 375). For my Mikita tell-IMP will “I will tell Mikita”

(3) Moya segodnya kushaj netu. (Arsenjev 1987). My today eat-IMP no “I haven’t eaten today”  It should be noted that there are different theoretical approaches to these variants among linguists. Some of them consider the Kyakhta language and the Far East pidgin to be the same language; others believe them to be separate—see Perekhvalskaya (2008). 2

146

K. S. Fedorova

(4) Moya gevali esi tibe shibuka lan’che perishola esi. (Shprintsin 1968)3 My tell-IMP COP you-DAT very earlier come-PAST COP “I told you to come much earlier”

For most Russian native speakers, this language was no more than just “broken Russian,” a grammatically incorrect version of the “true language.” It lacked social prestige and was used by Russians to communicate with underprivileged social groups—aboriginal people (Tungus, Udege), Chinese seasonal workers, and street vendors. The attitudes toward both “Chinese Russian” and its speakers were condescending: neither were liked but had to be tolerated.4 The Russian–Chinese pidgin existed and developed for almost two centuries as the language of interethnic communication. But in the late 1930s, with repression in the Soviet Union and a falling off in relations with China, the border between the two countries was closed; the Chinese were deported (Perekhvalskaia 2007), and any communication across the border became impossible. Gradually, a strong Russification policy has played its part, and most aboriginal people shifted from “broken” to normative Russian. As a result, the Russian–Chinese pidgin passed out of use and soon was forgotten. It should be mentioned that Russian–Chinese pidgin never attracted much attention from linguists. Some language material was gathered by Soviet linguists in the 1930s (Vrubel 1931; Shprintsin 1968), and nineteenth-century sources were later analyzed in several Western publications (Neumann 1966; Nichols 1980), but basically, it was on the periphery of linguistics. The most recent recordings of Russian– Chinese pidgin date from the early 1990s, when Vladimir Belikov and Elena Perekhvalskaya discovered an elderly Chinese man who had escaped deportation and spent all his life in the Khabarovsk territory but never fully mastered Russian, and so used pidgin to communicate with his Russian family and neighbors.

9.3  I nterethnic Contacts on the Russian–Chinese Border: Modern Situation At the very end of the 1980s, serious changes in the Soviet Union resulted in the loosening of border regulations. It became possible for people from the Russian– Chinese border regions (Amur and Chita regions,5 Khabarovsk Territory, the Jewish 3  This last example demonstrates another feature unique for the Russian-Chinese pidgin—the use of the copula est’ (“is”) in combination with the verb (which is impossible in modern Russian) to mark aspect meaning. See Fedorova (2000). 4  For more detailed analysis of Russian-Chinese grammar, and the social context of its use, see Fedorova (2018). 5  Since 2008, Chita region has been merged with Aginskii Buryat autonomous district into the Zabaikalskii territory.

9  Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data

147

Autonomous Region, and Primorye) to cross the border without prearranged visas, instead of obtaining entry permits at the check-points themselves. At the beginning of the 1990s, cross-border trade became the main source of income for many Russians, and cheap Chinese goods invaded the region. The opening of the Russian market for the Chinese stimulated substantial migration between the two countries and transformed Chinese settlements near the border (e.g., Heihe and Manchuria). In fewer than 10 years, small frontier posts were transformed into cities populated by hundreds of thousands of people. The urban landscape of cities and towns on the Russian side of the border underwent serious changes as well: Chinese markets became an indispensable part of these cities’ everyday life. There is a common belief among Russians (especially those in the European part of the country) that Siberia and the Far East are literally flooded by millions of Chinese immigrants, most of them illegal. The so-called “yellow peril” phenomenon has a long history in Russian society (see, e.g., Siegelbaum 1978), and modern mass media actively depict the Chinese as a serious threat to Russia and its cultural values (Lukin 1998). However, sociological studies show that in fact Chinese immigration is kept under strict control and legislation continues to become tougher all the time. There are very few illegal migrants from China in Chita or Blagoveschensk, and the total number of immigrants tends to be stable because of the seasonal character of these migrations (Sharmashkeeva 2007). Most of the immigrants do not aim to stay in Russia, and their cultural and linguistic adaptation, therefore, can be minimal. Thus, there is a new contact situation on the Russian–Chinese border, nowadays, similar in some aspects to the situation in the same region in the nineteenth century. The fact that the same languages are “meeting” for the second time gives us a unique possibility to study their contacts simultaneously from two perspectives—using historical data and in real time. However, as my personal fieldwork experience in the Zabaikalskii territory demonstrates when gathering data on interethnic communication, linguists have to confront serious problems with finding and recording the language material in which they are interested.

9.4  S  tudying Interethnic Communication: Strategies of Field Research The first question we have to answer before starting fieldwork is: What type of data should we look for? Pidgin, that is, a contact language used by native speakers of different languages when communicating with each other, can develop gradually, but during the earlier stages of contact, we are dealing with different language variants used by contacting groups. The most evident object of study, which easily attracts the attention of native speakers of Russian, is the way the Chinese speak (and write) Russian, that is, interlanguage, the linguistic system created by non-­ native speakers during the second language acquisition process (Selinker 1972).

148

K. S. Fedorova

Very few Chinese immigrants, especially those employed in manual labor, receive any formal language instruction; the overwhelming majority of them learn Russian during their communication with Russians in everyday situations or pick up some words from their linguistically more competent fellow countrymen. One of my consultants, a Chinese businessman who owns a construction firm, teaches his employees some Russian words and expressions essential to communicate with their Russian clients (e.g., brick, water, spade, where, when, how much, etc.). To do this, he writes down the words in Chinese hieroglyphs, trying to reflect the pronunciation with similar syllables. As a result, his “pupils” from the start learn these words in the form adapted to the Chinese phonological system: [ka-ga-da] instead of [ka-­ gda] (kogda, “when”) or [zy-de-si] instead of [z’des’] (zdes’ “here”). Acquired in this form, words become conventionalized. Considering that most Chinese do not aim to learn the “full version” of Russian and are content with the restricted form of the language, the gradual emergence of a conventionalized ethnolect of Russian is possible, like, for example, Gastarbeiterdeutsch in Germany or Moroccan Dutch in the Netherlands (Gilbert and Pavlou 1994; Cornips 2008). Some words used by the Chinese trying to speak Russian become popular with Russian native speakers, turning into local jargon, a restricted set of lexemes used in interethnic communication, or, metaphorically, to refer to the contact situation. Words of this type are called “Shuttles language” or “Shuttles’ jargon” by Russian speakers in the region (“shuttle” is a name for people doing business by transporting some goods across the border and selling them for a higher price). The most frequently used elements of this jargon are: • kapitana—chief, master or anyone in higher position than the speaker [from the Russian kapitan “captain”] • druga—address to a man [from Russian drug “friend”] • kunia—address to a woman [from Chinese word meaning “girl,” but not used as an address in Standard Chinese (see Tsze 2007: 67−74). • kemel—person going to China to bring goods for someone and getting paid for it [from the English camel] • super-minimum—best price • pamagajka—person helping a Russian tourist or kemel with buying goods, packing, transporting etc. [from Russian pomogaj − imperative form of “to help”] These words are used by both Russian and Chinese speakers: (5) R: Druga, chego stoit? Friend what-GEN cost-3SG Friend, what does it cost? Ch: Pisiat. Fifty Fifty R: A super-minimum dash? Ustupi, a? And super-minimal give-2SG abate-IMP And will you give me minimal price? Please, go a bit lower

9  Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data

149

Ch: Sorok piat’. Forty five Forty five R: Davaj sorok! Give-IMP forty Let it be forty Ch: Ne. Sorok piat’ super-minimum. No Forty five super-minimal No. forty five is minimum price (Field records 2008, Chita)6

The third possible object of study could be the speech behavior of Russian native speakers when communicating with Chinese speakers or so-called foreigner talk (Ferguson 1981: 9–18). Various studies based on several European languages showed that, when talking to foreigners, native speakers try to simplify their utterances to make them easier to perceive and understand. Various means of grammar simplification and sense clarification are employed, some of which are universal while others are unique to a particular language. Universal means include slower and louder speech, frequent repetitions, and grammar simplification. In general, it can be said that foreigner talk tends to show higher redundancy of speech against lower redundancy of language means. The use of ungrammatical utterances (e.g., “I not see men you speak” instead of “I haven’t seen the man you are talking about”) occurs more often when the speaker feels she or he is “talking down” and considers the interlocutor socially inferior (Long 1981). As my previous study on Russian foreigner talk in St. Petersburg shows (Fedorova 2006), there is a strong prohibition in Russian culture against using ungrammatical utterances (so-called broken language) in real communication with non-native speakers (although these forms are numerous in stereotypes of this communication). The question is if the same applies to border-region people actively involved in interethnic communication. Elena Oglezneva (2007), who collected her data in the Amur region, found no examples of the use of ungrammatical speech. However, my records and those of my colleagues done in the Zabaikalskii territory in 2006, 2008, and 2009 demonstrate the reverse: (6) R: [talking about a mobile phone that is not working] Novyi, megafon. Ne mogu, antenna ne rabotaj, meniaj. New, Megafon, NEGcan-1SG, antenna NEGwork-IMP, change-IMP It’s new, its Megafon [name of mobile company], it doesn’t work, change it Ch: A-a, davaj ia delaj. Aha, give-IMP I do-IMP Ok, let me do it (Field records 2006, Chita)

6  Here and henceforth, I use the abbreviation ‘R’ for speakers with Russian as a dominant language and ‘Ch’ for the speakers of Chinese. It should be underlined that this does not always indicate the ethnic origin of the consultants, for example, some ‘R’s (as well as some ‘Ch’s) are Buryats.

150

K. S. Fedorova

(7) Ch: [talking about long-distance calls bill] Eto chio? This what What’s this? R: A, eto ia, ia Oksana pozvoni. Oh, that I I Oksana-NOM call-IMP That’s me, I called Oksana (Field records 2008, Chita)

Using imperatives as the main verb form in these examples appears fascinating and returns us to the most prominent grammatical feature of Russian–Chinese pidgin. The question remains though: Why did Oglezneva not discover similar examples? And what does the answer to this question mean as regards fieldwork strategies for obtaining data of this kind? When studying actual speech behavior, and not just its reflection in some written sources or in the minds of consultants (as in interviews or in experiments), the only method of obtaining data is to observe and record dialogues between consultants when they do not know, or do not mind, that they are being observed. Most “visible” contacts between Russian and Chinese speakers occur in the marketplace, where Russian-speaking customers communicate with Chinese-speaking salesmen who usually have some knowledge of colloquial Russian. Communication of this type is open to any observer, spontaneous, informal, restricted to certain topics, and presupposes no personal relations between interlocutors. It is this type of communication that Oglezneva studied, and there are almost no grammatical modifications resembling pidgin traits. However, another type of communication can be found (with much more effort, I should add) in everyday conversations between Chinese and Russians involved in some business relationship or in personal relations. They may be spouses, business partners, each other’s employers or employees, and so on. The main difference is that they are not just strangers to each other; their communication is not accidental, but they communicate with each other on a regular basis. In this case, grammatical simplification is not uncommon: (8) R: Ty chto khochu? You what want-1SG What do you want? Ch: Tsentr. Ia govori. Odin zemlia kupi. Ty khochu smotri? Ia khochu Lena. Centre I say-IMP.  One land_NOM buy-IMP.  You want-1SG see-IMP I want-1SG Lena-NOM It’s centre. I said. One can buy a plot. Do you want to have a look? I want [to invite] Lena (Field records 2006, Aginskoe)

(9) R: Zavtra esche odin gost’ budet. Chita-gost’. Tozhe chifan vari. Tomorrow more one guest FUT Chita-NOM-guest-NOM also food [Chinese] cook-IMP Another guest will come tomorrow. From Chita. Cook the food again. (Field records 2009, Mogojtuj)

9  Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data

151

(10) R: А-a, eto Chita-firma! Da, ia pisala, tam bumaga ia est’. Aha, this Chita-NOM-company-NOM yes I write-PAST there paper-NOM I COP Aha, this is the company from Chita! Yes, I wrote [to them], I have a document Ch: Takoj den’ga net. Such money-SG NEG I don’t have enough money R: On bumaga tebe pishi Potomu chto on govorit, esli ty tovar pokupaj He paper-NOM you-DAT write-IMP because he say-3SG if you goods-NOM buy-IMP ty den’gi netu. Ia tebe schet daet. Ia den’gi zaplati. you money NEG I you-DAT invoice-NOM give-3SG I money pay-IMP He will write a document for you Because, as he says, if you buy the goods, you won’t have money. I’ll give you an invoice. And I will pay the money (Field records 2006, Aginskoe)

Some of the forms used by consultants, therefore, resemble pidgin forms from the past: imperatives for all purposes, using nominative forms of nouns and pronouns instead of indirect cases, and nouns used as adjectives (Chita-firma and Kitai-­ chelovek). Certainly, we cannot call this new variety a pidgin, at least not now. Creating a new language demands more time, but surely something is happening here; we should exploit the possibility of observing language contacts in real time. To do this, however, one needs to obtain data that are not “in the open” and not just by recording dialogues that occur in the marketplace. It is important to gain access to the private communication of those people who are “professional” in interethnic communication. Such consultants can be found among tourist agents, drivers, salespersons, the personnel of joint firms, and so on. However, it is not enough just to find consultants; the most difficult problem is to make them speak the way they do when not observed. And here again, we have to deal with cultural norms and attitudes. Speakers of Russian are strongly oriented toward standard language and are usually embarrassed to admit they can use a “broken language.” In most cases, they try to avoid speaking this way in the presence of a witness, especially a researcher, who is treated as an educated and “cultured” person. Any reference to the “broken language” is accompanied by explanations such as the following: Nu, my tut s nimi sami uzhe russkij yazyk zabyli. Oni zhe ne ponimayut inache, vot i prikhoditsya yazyk lomat’. Uzhas, konechno. (Well here, with them, we have forgotten Russian ourselves. Otherwise they wouldn’t understand, so we have to break the language. It’s terrible, of course) (Field records 2008, Aginskoe)

Interestingly, people of older generations tend to be more tolerant than young people. The same is true for people with a lower educational level. Finally, consultants living in a multilingual environment (e.g., in Aginskii district, where the Buryat language is regularly used) are also less critical of ungrammatical speech. These empirical observations can help identify those consultants who do use the contact variety in question and can be more open about the fact.

152

K. S. Fedorova

9.5  Conclusion Obtaining data on interethnic communication in the Russian–Chinese border region is difficult in several aspects. First, to obtain the most interesting material for language-­contact studies, we need access to speech situations that are normally closed to an outsider. Observations in public places, for example, on the street or in the marketplace, cannot provide us with enough language material—it is possible to come across some utterances only by chance. Therefore, we need to look for “promising” situations in which speakers of Russian and Chinese are involved in regular and intensive contact. Second, the language attitudes and normative orientations of Russian speakers impede the process of obtaining data—people do not like to be observed when they “lose face” by speaking in “broken” language. As a result, gaining sufficient language material demands many hours of preparatory work—establishing contacts with people, interviewing them, making them feel relaxed, and free to talk the way they do when not being observed. But at the same time, all this work is not just a necessary condition for successful fieldwork; it is fieldwork itself and provides the researcher with a great deal of information on the context of interethnic communication. Social and economical factors, discourse strategies, language attitudes, and ethnic and linguistic stereotypes can be studied during this stage. And for anyone who is, like myself, interested not only in linguistic but anthropological matters as well, this preliminary process of fieldwork becomes a source of knowledge and inspiration.

References Arsenjev, V.K. 1987. Po Ussurijskomu krayu; Dersu Uzala [Along Ussuri Krai. Dersu Uzala]. Moscow: Mysl’. (In Russian) https://royallib.com/read/arsenev_vladimir/po_ussuriyskomu_ krayu.html#0. Belikov, V.I. 1994. “Russko-kitajskij pidzhin.” [Russian-Chinese pidgin]. In Kontaktologicheskij entsiklopedicheskij spravochnik. Vypusk 1. Severnyj region. Yazyki narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka v kontaktakh s russkim yazykom, 294–298. Moscow: Az. [Contact Encyclopaedic Reference Book. Issue 1. Northern Region. Languages of people from the North, Siberia and Far East in contacts with Russian] (In Russian). Belikov, V.I, and E.V.  Perekhvalskaia Polevye materialy 1990 goda [Field data from 1990]. Manuscript. (In Russian) Broch, Ingvild, and Ernst H. Jahr. 1984. Russenorsk: a new look at the Russo-Norwegian pidgin in Northern Norway. In Scandinavian language contacts, ed. P. Sture Ureland and Iain Clarkson, 21–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cherepanov, S.N. “Kyakhtinskoe kitajskoe narecie russkogo yazyka.” [Kyakhta Chinese dialect of Russian]. Izvestiya Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk Po Otdeleniyu Russkogo Yazyka i Slovesnosti [Proceedings of Imperial Academy of Sciences, Department of Russian Language and Literature] 2 (1853): 230−236. (In Russian) Cornips, Leonie. 2008. Losing grammatical gender in Dutch: The result of bilingual acquisition and/or an act of identity? International Journal of Bilingualism 12 (1&2): 105–124. Fedorova, K.S. 2000. “Spetsifika upotrebleniya svyazki est’ i protsessy uproscheniya v russkom yazyke.” [On specifics of copula est’ and simplification processes in Russian]. Problemy

9  Communication on the Russian–Chinese Border: Problems in Obtaining Data

153

Social’nogo i Gumanitarnogo Znaniya 2: 334–348. [Problems of social and humanitarian knowledge] (In Russian). ———. 2006. Russian foreigner talk: stereotype and reality. In Marginal linguistic identities. Studies in slavic contact and borderland varieties, ed. Dieter Stern and Christian Voss, 177–190. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Publ. ———. 2018. The Russian-Chinese pidgin: An attempt at the sociology of grammar. Language Ecology 2 (1&2): 112–127. Ferguson, Charles. 1981. ‘Foreigner talk’ as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 28: 9–18. Gilbert, Glenn G., and Pavlos Pavlou. 1994. Gastarbeiterdeutsch, ‘foreign workers’ German’: an industrial pidgin. In The Germanic Mosaic: Cultural and linguistic diversity in society, ed. Carol Blackshire-Belay, 147–154. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Long, Michael. 1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition, ed. Harris Winitz, 259–278. New York. Lukin, Alexander. 1998. The image of China in Russian border regions. Asian Survey 38 (9): 821–835. Maksimov, S. Na Vostoke. Poezdka na Amur (v 1860−1861 godakh). Dorozhnye zametki i vospominaniya S. Maksimova [In the East. A trip to the Amur (in 1860–1861). Road notes and reminiscences by S. Maksimov]. St. Petersburg, 1864. (In Russian). Meijer, Guus, and Pieter Muysken. 1977. On the beginnings of pidgin and Creole studies: Schuchardt and Hesseling. In Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, ed. Albert Valdman, 21–45. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Neumann, Günther. 1966. Zur chinesisch-russischen Behelfssprache von Kjachta. Die Sprache 12: 237–251. Nichols, Johanna. 1980. Pidginization and foreigner talk: Chinese pidgin Russian. In Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Rebecca Labrum, and Susan C. Shepherd, 397–407. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Oglezneva, E. A. 2007. Russko-Kitaiskii Pidzhin: Opyt Sotsiolingvisticheskogo Opisaniia [Russian-­ Chinese pidgin: an attempt of sociolinguistic description]. Blagoveschensk (In Russian). Perekhvalskaia, E.V. 2007. “Dialektnye razlichiia kak rezultat iazykovogo sdviga (bikinskii dilaekt udegejskogo iazyka).” [Dialect differences as a result of language shift (Bikin dialect of Udege)]. In Iazykovye Izmeneniia v Usloviiakh Iazykovogo Sdviga [Language changes in the process of language shift], ed. Nikolai Vakhtin, 252–281. St. Petersburg: (In Russian). Perekhvalskaya, E.V. 2008. Russkie Pidzhiny [Russian pidgins]. St. Petersburg: Aleteia. (In Russian). Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–231. Sharmashkeeva, N.  Zh. 2007. Sotsiokulturnaia Adaptatsiia Kitajskikh Migrantov v Buriatii. Avtoreferat diss. … kand. filol. nauk [Sociocultural adaptation of Chinese migrants in Buryatia. Abstract of a candidate of science in philology thesis]. Moscow (In Russian) Shprintsin, A.G. 1968. “O russko-kitajskom dialekte na Dal’nem Vostoke.” [On Russian-Chinese dialect in the Far East]. In Strany i Narody Vostoka [Countries and People of the East], vol. VI, 68–82. Moscow: (In Russian). Siegelbaum, Lewis H. 1978. Another 'Yellow Peril': Chinese migrants in the Russian Far East and the Russian reaction before 1917. Modern Asian Studies 12 (2): 307–330. Stern, Dieter. 2005. Myths and facts about the Kyakhta trade pidgin. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 20 (1): 175–187. Todd, Loreto. 2004. Pidgins and Creoles. London. New York: Routledge. Tsze, Ian. 2007. “Zabaikalsko-manchzhurskii prepidzhin. Opyt sotsiolingvisticheskogo issledovaniia.” [Zabaikalsk-Manchurian pre-pidgin. An attempt of sociolinguistic description]. Voprosy Iazykoznaniia 2: 67–74. [Topics in the study of language] (In Russian). Vrubel, S.A. 1931. “Russko-kitajskie iazykovye skreshsceniia.” [Russian-Chinese language crossings]. In Kultura i Pismennost Vostoka [Culture and literacies of the East], vol. VII–VIII, 131–140. Moscow: (In Russian).

Part III

Post-Soviet Space: Fieldwork in the Western Pamir

Part III contains three chapters devoted to the languages of Eastern Iranian origin located in Central Asia. These include a group of related Pamir languages and also Yaghnobi—a remnant vernacular related to the medieval Soghdian language. This language area is distinctive in that its speakers are spread over four areas, in four separate countries: the Mountainous Badakhshan Autonomous Region in Tajikistan (formerly part of the Soviet Union); Badakhshan Province in Afghanistan; Gilgit-­ Baltistan, a region administered by Pakistan; and Taxkorgan, Tajik Autonomous County, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. Speakers of Yaghnobi live in central Tajikistan. This part is specifically devoted to the problems of documenting and preserving the original ethnocultural heritage of these minority languages. The authors of these chapters all work in this multilingual region, where an intermediary language is involved in fieldwork and language documentation: This intermediary language may be Tajik, Persian, or an additional regional language—most commonly one of the Pamir languages, usually the regional language Shughnani. Consequently, the authors do not specifically address the problem of the relationship between an intermediary language and the target language in the process of fieldwork and language documentation. (This relationship is complicated by the use of Russian as a language of description). The Russian school of Pamir studies has been highly regarded among specialists in Iranian studies for several centuries now, and represents a distinctive branch of Russian ethnolinguistic and field research. The traditions of linguistic fieldwork in this area were established by the famous Russian anthropologist and linguist Ivan Zarubin early in the twentieth century when fieldwork among remote and isolated mountain communities belonging to the marginalized branch of Shia Islam—Ismailism—was a complex mission due to the survival strategies of these communities, whereby they concealed information from outsiders. Zarubin’s experience of his first field trip to the Western Pamir established guidelines for further fieldwork and research. He spent almost two years in the area, deeply immersing himself in the community, and describing all the Pamir languages. Consequently, this experience has given rise to the practice of lengthy expeditions to the field, and close socialization with the local community of up to a year or more. Zarubin served as a role model for many of his pupils and followers, including the authors of these chapters.

156

Part III

A key concern of the authors in Part III focuses to some extent on the relations between members of the traditional Pamir community and the researcher. In various degrees of detail, they consider the profile of the “model” language consultant, examining schemes, such as gender distribution, “elders,” “youngsters,” and “trusted language speakers” as well as the issue of identifying language consultants and establishing working relations with them. The focus of the first chapter “Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern Iranian Languages” by Leyli R.  Dodykhudoeva and Vladimir B. Ivanov is on specific fieldwork techniques of collecting, interpreting, and storing the language data of these unwritten languages, enabling the compilation of an archive of audio language materials. The authors elaborate a particular methodology of data collection employed to provide data for research and analysis, including detailed profiles of language consultants participating in the fieldwork, and a set of their own specific original techniques and strategies for data elicitation and collection. Joy Edelman’s experience in what is today Tajikistan dates from the 1950s, a time when it was impossible for researchers to travel outside the Soviet Union. In Chap. 11, “Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief (from the Experience of Fieldwork in the Western Pamir),” she focuses on her fieldwork in the Yazghulam valley in Tajikistan between 1950s and 1970s, when the area was extremely isolated. The author examines the issues she encountered in collecting and processing little-known materials reflecting a people’s worldview and in danger of being lost forever. Having spent a lifetime collecting valuable data and field materials of oral undocumented languages, Professor Edelman was able to make significant additions to the history and origin of Iranian vocabulary when compiling a complete “Etymological dictionary of Iranian languages” (the first 3 volumes with V.S. Rastorgueva) (Rastorgueva, Edelman 2000, 2003, 2007). She has added a further three volumes since 2011 (Edelman 2011, 2015, 2020). In Chap. 12, Boghsho B. Lashkarbekov emphasizes that “‘The East is a Delicate Matter’: Ethnopsychological Factors in the Outcomes of Fieldwork.” He offers a particularly revealing insight; as a trained linguist whose mother tongue is Wakhi, he draws specifically on his own experience conducting fieldwork in the Wakhan valley in Tajikistan, on the border with Afghanistan. His approach integrates two perspectives, that of a researcher-linguist and that of a native speaker trained in linguistics. Lashkarbekov’s findings, illuminating the need for sensitivity in relationships with consultants, are expressed in terms of field practice, rather than theoretically. His insights are no less precious for that: The most perfect application of field theory can be undermined by ignorance of the interpersonal considerations he describes.

References Edelman D.I. 2011. 2015. 2020. Etimologicheskij slovar’ iranskikh jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Iranian Languages]. Moscow: Vostochnaja literature. Vol. 4, 5, 6. (In Russian). Rastorgueva V.S., Edelman D.I. 2000. 2003. 2007. Etimologicheskij slovar’ iranskikh jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Iranian Languages]. Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura, Vol. 4, 5, 6. (In Russian).

Chapter 10

Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern Iranian Languages Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva and Vladimir B. Ivanov

Abstract  This chapter concentrates on field research methodologies concerning documentation of the language data of Eastern Iranian languages, notably a group of Pamir languages and Yaghnobi. It focuses on specific fieldwork techniques for the collection and elicitation of language data, as well as on the interpretation, presentation, and storage of the language data of these unwritten languages, enabling the compilation of an archive of audio language materials. The authors analyze part of their field data on Pamir languages, collected between 2006 and 2016. They examine issues surrounding data on enumeration and counting, as well as the traditional system of colour terms and how these are perceived, and selected terminology of traditional span-measurement and units of value in commodities exchange. They also categorize the profile of language consultants participating in fieldwork and present their methodology of data collection. These techniques allow the authors to reveal the worldview of mother-tongue speakers, and the symbols and values significant in their tradition, through the elicitation of ethnolinguistic language data. To achieve these results, the authors stress the importance of a community-based methodology, placing primacy on the relationship with mother-tongue speakers throughout the research process, reinforced through integration into their communities, and thorough understanding of their culture: The authors conclude that although the collection, presentation, and storage of data on unwritten Eastern Iranian languages are valuable assets in themselves, the most important task of the researcher is to interpret and help elucidate speakers’ own intrinsic knowledge, making that knowledge available to their community. Keywords  Western Pamir · Tajikistan · Afghanistan · Pakistan · China · Minority ethnic groups · Fieldwork · Fieldwork techniques · Worldview · Colour terms ·

L. R. Dodykhudoeva (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] V. B. Ivanov Institute of Asian and African Countries, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_10

157

158

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

Numerals · Span-measurement · Ethnolinguistics · Vocabulary · Iranian languages · Pamir languages · Sanglichi · Sarykoli · Yaghnobi

10.1  Introduction: Techniques and Strategies of Data Collection For the project under study, the authors employed the methodology of field research pioneered by I.I. Zarubin, an influential specialist in Iranian language studies in the early twentieth century and one of the key figures in the evolution of Iranian field linguistics in Russia (for general information on Pamir languages see: Edelman and Dodykhudoeva 2009). His method, subsequently adopted by his students and by the younger generation of Russian researchers, involves close collaboration with language consultants and deep integration with the local community over a period of months. In this approach, the key elements consist in the process of socialization through living for long periods within the language community or with a local family; the observation and recording of the customs and verbal expression of the community in natural settings; and the deployment of a broad set of specific data collection techniques (questionnaires, interviews, tests, and observation). This strategy entails competence in the native language, enabling the researcher to conduct direct dialogue with speakers and enhancing the process of observation and spontaneous communication during a long stay. The approach was supported by a range of modern data collection technologies, including video and audio recording. This research was conducted in the area of the spread of Pamir languages, see (Map 10.1).

Map 10.1  Geographical distribution of Pamir languages. Map courtesy of Yuri Koryakov

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

159

10.2  Project Methodology: Profile of Language Consultants The project in question aimed to document the language data of a group of unwritten Pamir languages and Yaghnobi in Central Asia. The focus was the collection and elicitation of language data, with a view to the interpretation, presentation, and storage of this data, enabling the compilation of an archive of audio language materials (Dodykhudoeva and Ivanov 2008; 2009a, b, c). The fieldwork was executed in an open and transparent way. All language consultants were informed regarding the identity and academic status of the researchers, the data they were seeking to collect, and the process they were employing to achieve this objective, through digital recording of audio (and video) data; in the case of the student-consultants, they showed interest in technological procedures and the technical audio and video devices, and attempted to use these themselves. As a rule, consultants were enthusiastic in their approval of the authors’ interest in their community; they shared their knowledge willingly and gave their advice and expertise while providing their mother-tongue data. A preliminary introductory stage took place in classes and meetings with the community. The work was carried out with different types of speakers who can be classified as follows (this topic was represented in: (Grinevald and Bert 2011; Chelliah and de Reuse 2011: 165–167)): 1. language consultants who provided spontaneous speech (monologues, dialogues, group chats, or discussions), 2. individuals with specialized skills/knowledge who completed various experimental tasks, 3. language consultants with deep traditional knowledge, that is, community “elders” (recounting of historical situations, life stories, narrations, and also formal and informal interviews).

10.2.1  L  anguage Consultants who provided Spontaneous Speech (Monologues, Dialogues, Group Chats, or Discussions) The first category includes speakers of a particular language (of different gender and age groups) giving spontaneous descriptions of various situations or narrations, taking part in a group chat or discussion, or otherwise participating in a communal gathering on a specific topic, or at a social event. Here spontaneous speech was recorded without interruption or guiding questions, although the authors’ aims and interests were explained in the introductory talk. Usually, information was gathered in the process of general conversation on various worldview perspectives or topics of interest for the audience. This could occur while participants were performing their everyday duties, or while they were involved in a colloquial conversation in a

160

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

gathering, or in a mutual discussion during a meal. In these situations, both authors partially participated in the interaction (i.e., they were simultaneously participants and observers). At the same time, they did not take full part in the conversation; they were so-called “outside observers,” without taking sides. They watched (and recorded) speech generation, having an indirect impact on the participants of the conversation just by their presence, their own interests, and goals.

10.2.2  I ndividuals with Specialized Skills/Knowledge who completed various Experimental Tasks The second category included individuals with some specialized knowledge or skills, mainly educated young people: high school and university students, boys and girls up to 25 years. It also included some middle-aged language consultants who had received higher education or graduated from high school; in a few cases, older language consultants were illiterate. This group consisted of more than 50 language consultants, speakers of Pamir and Yaghnobi languages. The survey conducted with this group was based on a number of particular tasks, such as counting, naming colours, and so on.

10.2.3  L  anguage Consultants with deep Traditional Knowledge, i.e., Community “Elders” (recounting of Historical Situations, Life Stories, Narrations, and also formal and informal Interviews) The third category included native speakers (men and women). In this case, the work involved mostly intellectuals, teachers, religious authorities, formal and informal group leaders, and specialists in various fields; in general, these were all respected elders. Work in this category related mostly to the recounting of historical situations, life-stories, narrations, and also formal and informal interviews dealing with ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic information. The categories mentioned above were interchangeable, and a single consultant could fall into several of these groups. Generally, as regards the research team itself, in the process of collecting data, both native and outside researchers have advantages and weaknesses. The former, as bearers of local culture, should be properly trained in linguistics so that they can deepen their knowledge through observation and discourse with other people, especially elders. Here, we should bear in mind that Pamir languages are a group of closely related languages that are not fully understandable between one another, and that different communities in Badakhshan are quite distinctive and self-contained. The latter type of researcher—the “outsider”—needs extended language and

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

161

cultural competence, and time for adaptation to the situation in the field. Outside researchers also need contacts with native (usually bilingual) residents and most important of all, they need to gain their trust. A team consisting of several scholars working on one technique, or several similar techniques, with diverse cultural backgrounds (both native and international) is the most appropriate. This type of team structure makes it possible to take into consideration most cultural aspects and collect data in the most productive way.

10.3  Project Methodology employed for Data Collection According to the researchers’ principle of “necessary information,” first were collected and recorded in writing all possible personal data connected with language consultants. This was completed usually before audio-recording of the material. However, the full scope of the consultant’s “life cycle” information could easily be considered key information for the project. This information included date and place of birth of the consultant and his/her parents, his/her own and parents’ residence details (where, how long they have lived there, etc.), professional skills, and occupation. As a rule, the following information is especially important: origin, religion/faith, diet, spatial configuration of the home, and so on. Along with the personal data of consultants, the authors documented the date and place of work or study, and gave a description of the research location. It is important to precisely detail the province, region, district, village and the estimated population of the settlement. A strategy of observation was employed with the first category of speakers (language consultants working closely with the researchers). The authors observed fragments of conversations and colloquial discussions (various types of conversation, dialogues, monologues, short stories, etc.) in an everyday environment. Spontaneous speech also included stories on a given topic or the performance of folklore and epic texts. Introductory remarks served to create cooperation and a friendly atmosphere, with the aim of strengthening the trust and confidence of the audience. These remarks also served as a trigger to give the speakers an idea of the researchers’ objectives. At the same time, the speakers themselves sought to “surprise” the researchers, by demonstrating their skills on topics like “My language and culture,” “Pamir—Roof of the World,” “What I know about ...,” “Story of My Life,” “My teachers,” “Remarkable people,” and so on. During the main part of the sessions, the posing of only a few leading questions on key topics could receive an answer in a form of a phrase or a story. The researchers employed a range of practical discourse strategies. For instance, they set up discussions based on news transmitted through social communication or “word of mouth.” These concerned the latest news about welcome or feared events, or about popular local role models, and the circulation of this news in the community. In the past, such news was brought into the community by newcomers who were received with great interest. Today, although newcomers are still considered

162

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

interesting, they are not viewed as a source of news. The news is now disseminated remotely and in a less personalized way through social media and other forms of personal and group internet communication—in which case the source of information is identifiable. A specific strategy is employed when a researcher taking part in a social gathering, and observing verbal communication of the participants, “uses the situation” and puts his own filter questions or other “uncomfortable” questions. A different strategy is based on a “mediating” method. This could be used when a researcher himself observes a meeting, but in this case, he involves a mediator— usually a local person who puts “naive” or “enthusiastic” questions as if he were an apprentice, craving for knowledge. Or the mediator may remark on the story, triggering an adverse reaction toward himself, thus directing the conversation toward the required topic and provoking the most direct answers. This elicitation of a response by the triggering of emotional involvement through a mediator has proved to be particularly effective. (The technique of employing a mediator is widely used by “outside” researchers working in closed communities, see, for instance (Skyhawk 2003; Edelman 2007a)). When working with the second category of language consultants (specialists, mostly students), the procedure is entirely formalized. Different types of tests, tasks, and surveys are used to record audio (and sometimes video) data. For the particular research in question, the authors also involved diverse field experiments to obtain phonetic data. The data were recorded on a digital recorder. Speakers spoke at a different pace: slowly, in a measured way. Their speech was later transcribed and glossed by researchers, in some cases working together with speakers in the field; later, the resulting texts were analyzed and interpreted for various purposes. Before the start of their work with consultants, students completed a special form containing the following information: sociodemographic characteristics of the individual (name, gender, age, address); place of education (school, university, year); language of education; mother/father, grandmother/grandfather; mother tongue; set of known languages; most commonly used language; location and date of the survey. The form included specific questions to screen some of the respondents, in order, for instance, to distinguish between various categories of residents and native speakers, and to identify the circumstances in which they acquired the language, etc.

10.3.1  Specific Tasks –– To count from 1 to 10, in tens to one hundred, and in hundreds to one thousand; to read numerals printed in random order (written in Western-style Arabic numerals in Tajik Badakhshan, and in Arabic-Uyghur script in China and Pakistan); to describe a given picture numbered from 1 to 120 or 1 to 200; –– To conjugate the verbs “to go,” “to become,” “to be,” and others in the present and past tense.

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

163

–– To answer particular questions (reproducing a small text or phrase) on a number of topics, such as “What I know about the terms for colours,” “Kinship,” “How do we greet each other,” “My teacher,” “Remarkable people in our village,” etc.

10.3.2  Recording of the Corpus of Spoken (Micro)Texts With the development of modern audio and video technologies, the authors employed in their work new techniques enabling them to collect more information of various types and to obtain it more rapidly. The methodology used makes it possible to stimulate speech by showing language consultants a series of numbered visual images in printed form (from 50 to 120). In this set, several topics were grouped, such as “Colour”; “Plants, fruits, and vegetables”; “Animals”; “The human being: The body and human activity”; “Local food and drink”; and “Local occupations and perspectives of employment.”1 The task was to give the number of the picture and to explain what is depicted. This gave language consultants the opportunity to spontaneously describe the situation portrayed in the picture and to provide a verbal response as a result. It was thus possible to avoid an intermediary language (Tajik, Persian, Dari; or one of the Pamir languages, usually Shughnani or Rushani) in communication with language consultants. Visual aids—all sorts of numbered images—are commonly used by psychologists to assess the development of language skills in children, to determine their IQ, and so on. This method is well established and provides a wealth of material for research. Not all Pamir languages have a written tradition or generally accepted standards for the graphic recording of speech. Therefore, images become one of the few means by which to encourage language consultants to speak on a given topic without resorting to language. So, for this study, the authors employed this methodology, previously tested by V.B.  Ivanov, which he implemented while teaching Persian at Moscow State University, and in fieldwork among the Zoroastrian minorities of Iran (Ivanov 1983; Dodykhudoeva and Ivanov 2014). In the expeditions that took place between 2006 and 2016, this methodology was instrumental for the collection of data on the current state of Pamir and Yaghnobi languages. Before working with student-consultants, an introductory conversation took place (in advance of recording) during which they were inducted in practical skills. Most of the speakers were students of the Philological Department of Khorogh State University who had skills in storytelling based on the description of images, and therefore they could easily cope with this task. Working with the third category of consultants, the authors focused on obtaining information on their ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic traditions. The emphasis here is on a methodology designed to obtain information through informal interviews based on personal history forms and questionnaires. The authors first prepared a

 One approach to this area is represented in (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011: 413–415).

1

164

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

comprehensive wide-ranging questionnaire that in general covered these areas of interest. They then applied the questionnaire (usually a particular part of it) to the specific area connected with the specialist’s interests and knowledge, setting up an interview on a particular, well-defined topic. The interview was a “face-to-face” discussion in close contact with the respondent. This methodology enabled the researchers to ascertain the respondent’s worldview and lifestyle. This means of study allowed them to combine methods of direct participation, survey, and close observation. The basis of these interviews was a conversation, but here the role of participants was fixed, and the objectives were closely associated with the objectives of the main study. In terms of this methodology, the selection of language consultants should be made during preparatory work before the actual interview, and in addition, the consultant should be convinced of the importance of the information collected. The following efforts to achieve understanding should be treated as an introductory part of the work: the establishment of a favorable environment for communication, focusing on the subject, reducing tension, and creating an encouraging situation (a specific place and time) for the interview. Working with the consultants, the researchers used various techniques for creating natural situations where the atmosphere was “environmentally friendly,” thus enabling the establishment of the right conditions for spontaneous conversation. Since, in the context of this methodology, all recordings were carried out in the field, in areas of languages spread throughout Badakhshan, the researchers sought to carry out surveys in places where people felt most freely and naturally “at home.” Therefore, they located their discussions with language consultants in a natural environment. Thus, to study the traditional crafts, skills, practices, and instruments of labour, they attempted to situate their discussion in the real conditions of the workshop of a craftsman, for example, in a blacksmith’s workshop or in a mill; or, for instance, they talked with a peasant in the field or with a shepherd in the mountains. In the same way, the authors visited holy places, because holding discussions in the mazars, sacred groves or tombs, and places of worship or pilgrimage gives a special insight into conversations on matters of spiritual culture or faith. Where a survey of functions of language and education is concerned, the best location to conduct an interview is at a school. In the same way, where the task was to identify the role of the woman inside the family and traditional household, the authors attempted to set their discussion within the internal domestic unit: they visited the woman’s home (the traditional house, known in Shughnani as čīd). If the discussion concerned matters outside the internal domestic unit, such as working outside the household on the summer pastures or making a pilgrimage, they endeavoured to situate their discussions on the premises of a women’s NGO or at the location of women-only events. If it proved difficult to visit an actual location, an attempt was made to “set a scene,” evoking a particular situation (such as the situation of an earthquake or landslide, or an event from the past). Or if this was not possible, objects were brought to the site; for instance, in the case of a blacksmith, a horseshoe was shown to trigger discussion of the work of the blacksmith. As a rule, the authors try to elicit a life-­ story by means of a number of leading questions or to provide some

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

165

prompt—usually a story or visual image—to launch a narration. Recently, with more technological possibilities, video presentation on related topics has been introduced to clarify the authors’ message. Photo images and videos, and PowerPoint presentations on topics of mutual interest have been deployed. The authors present a “visual journey” across space and time, portraying the following: the lifestyle of the region in the past; rituals and procedures reflecting traditions of communal life; or an account of a recent pilgrimage to holy sites. In this way, they also demonstrate the life of different Ismaili communities in different countries (mainly Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China). Similarly, they use their previous photographic accounts of their visits and contacts with the community and its representatives. These illustrate Ismaili communities’ events worldwide, demonstrating the cultural diversity of these communities (especially in Russia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) and at the same time underlining the religious continuity that unites Ismailis. Generally, the quality of the information received, i.e., the success of the interviews, depends on the researcher’s preliminary knowledge of local behaviour and proficiency in posing questions. On the other hand, the quality of information also depends on his or her background work, and on understanding of the situation and the person with whom he or she is dealing. The researcher’s ability to establish and maintain contact in the process of the interview is also crucial, as is skill in maintaining a friendly attitude and achieving the full intellectual cooperation of the consultant. Showing respect for the knowledge of the consultant through his opinion is the best way to ensure that the consultant feels important and involved. Interviews in the form of an everyday conversation contribute to a relaxed, high-quality communication with honest answers. This makes it possible to modify the actual form or sequence of questions. During the recording of interviews, it is possible to verify the results of the preliminary study and to reconstruct the core of the consultant’s opinions. In the course of recording, we can also perceive in a more profound way his reflection and his understanding of ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic matters as well as his perception of the world. On this basis, we can refine the previous information, give a new interpretation to known data, and build new hypotheses. In short, we have the necessary data to conduct an in-depth study. The questionnaires constituted qualitative research, and each interview was uniquely valuable. Nevertheless, while working with consultants, the authors used comprehensive techniques and strategic approaches. For instance, to lessen the influence of the interviewer on the opinion of the respondent, an “assimilation” approach was employed. As an example, some interviewers wore local dress. This was usually the case for a native interviewer or a person who had lived in the area for a long time. On the other hand, contrasting “dissimilation” techniques were also used to stress cultural, language, or other distinctive features, for instance, “we youngsters” as opposed to “those elders.” This underlined differences and triggered emotions and deeply-held opinions with regard to cultural, ethnic, or linguistic identity. The process of the interview was usually monitored by a third party (i.e., assistant) who simultaneously recorded in writing first-hand impressions of the interview. This person summarized the talk in general, and the quality of replies to

166

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

a range of questions, and also gave his comments. Such information was valuable for the further analysis of methods and practices in preparing interviews and for an analysis of specific communication strategies. In their work with a particular ethnolinguistic and ethnocultural focus, the authors concentrated on strategies such as the elaboration of interviews with consultants, focusing on the following: ethnic and religious identity problems; worldview and lifestyle; spatial orientation; time perception; value systems; and family and community structures and relationships, in particular language and culture, even as they related to a specific valley or village. Data of an ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic nature addressed the ethical, spiritual, and religious beliefs of a particular culture, experience, or view that people obtained during their lives. Usually, the most knowledgeable consultants reflected on these matters within the context of their professional work. However, in some cases, native speakers had this innate professional competence intuitively, as their natural inclination, without expressly formulating it. Other native speakers represented a specific type of culture and conduct. It follows that in collecting data on cultural traditions, these distinct features should be taken into account. The consultant may have retrospective or introspective perspectives, demonstrating his attitude to traditional life in the past and the diversity of options in the present. This attitude is particularly important: It is what we aim to document and analyze. The purpose of the interviews is to elicit the consultant’s particular knowledge, insight, and ability to perceive and understand multifaceted situations. We are seeking to ascertain his unique perceptiveness, his apprehension of complex circumstances, and his ability to interpret these. Our objective is to make these perceptions available to others—inside and outside the culture. Occasionally, in the process of an interview, the researchers’ discussions triggered in the consultants a flash of sudden intuition, a breakthrough in understanding the situation as a whole. This was the most valuable moment of the work—the moment which revealed previously unknown knowledge. In the case of Badakhshani community life, the authors attempted to concentrate on particular traditions that regulate the lifestyle of the whole society and to draw on these traditions to modulate the course and tenor of an interview. A key guideline was the custom of mentoring by senior figures (pir). This concerns respect for community elders, the high status of teachers and religious figures, and the striving for personal knowledge and education. Scrutiny of the means of discourse uncovered a preference for instructional speech, similar to that used in the classroom. Detailed study revealed that this was connected with a historically designated role of discourse: the relationship between Teacher (Master) and Apprentice. This is at the core of Ismaili religious practice (being a parallel to the better-known relationship of Sufi pir and apprentice), and still exists between teacher (whether schoolteacher or university professor) and student, whether religious or secular. In the religious and cultural understanding of the Ismaili community, the roots of this concept can be found in the role of mentor, gradually initiating and guiding the novice into the spiritual life of the community. This model is supported by the role of elders in society and in the family and ensures the relevance of a knowledgeable person as a mentor who is fully sure of his competence. The demographic profile of the region

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

167

as a whole demonstrates that every family has a significant number of younger people, enhancing the status of older people as elders. This Master–Apprentice construct provides one more platform on which to build an interview: Occasionally, especially when interviewing an elder, the researcher may take the role of an apprentice, asking basic questions of the speaker (the “Master”), craving for his knowledge, as in the case of the local mediator mentioned previously. At other times, he may assume the “Master” role to impress speakers, especially young people, that their input is requested by a prestigious or authoritative entity or organization. Within the same construct, the starting point for an interview could also be a “Peer-­ to-­Peer mentoring” relationship, where members of a peer group (fellow workers, colleagues) meet on an equal basis. It can be helpful to combine the different approaches: Master–Apprentice and Peer-to-Peer, and to modulate the relationship depending on the circumstances of the interview. It is also occasionally useful to work with several consultants simultaneously so that they can correct each other, or to use the Master–Apprentice scheme where the researcher is the knowledge-seeking Apprentice, along with other scholar-­ apprentices. This helps provide a more complete picture, as one opinion may not suffice. The authors covered topics ranging from traditional settlement to tourism and environmental change, examining the transition from more isolated traditional life in the past to modern lifestyles, highlighting the ongoing dialogue between past and present. They drew on sociolinguistic focal points to obtain information on specific groups distributed by age, gender, religion and occupation or on minor marginal groups. For example, this focus proved to be fruitful for the collection of data on the tradition of communal male gatherings (gap) or on the community practice of taking turns, one household after another, in “keeping an eye” (poc) on cattle in Pamir summer pastures. The focus also enabled the researchers to collect data on the traditional Badakhshani viewpoint with regard to guilds of professional craftsmen: These included data on the status of the privileged skilled craftsmen of the village (master-usto), such as a blacksmith, builder, and miller, or on attitudes to the local healer (tabib). In the same way, if the objective was to define the role of women, the authors attempted to participate in events designed uniquely for women, connected with the life cycle. These included events where the woman was the main actor, such as pregnancy and labour, celebrations on the occasion of a child’s birthday, and ceremonies related to weddings and marriages. Today, women’s role extends outside the household, involving, for example, paid seasonal work outside the region in large Russian or Tajik cities. To highlight the psycholinguistic aspect of data, the authors focused on information concerning the system of colours, its terminology, and the specific perception of colours in tradition. This was also applicable to the historical linguistic division of the landscape—size perception, traditional means of calculating area, distance, and size— still in use among older generations. (Examples, for instance, include the Shughnani wiδêd, sê/er, ambůn; Ishkashimi waǰab “span between thumb and small finger,” čor-angǝšt “four fingers,” qǝloč, and Sanglichi qǝlāč “span between palms of the horizontally outstretched hands”). Other traditional measures of amount and

168

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

volume were also the subject of the authors’ interviews. These included units of value prevalent in commodities exchange and taxation in the past (such as woollen stockings-ǰurab, salt, dry fruits (mulberries, apricots), dry dairy product-qurut, or tax payment-boǰ) (Dodykhudoeva 2014). All this vocabulary, and its understanding and perception, is declining in younger urbanized generations due to the cultural consequences of language shift. For more on this matter, see: (Michael 2011: 120–140, esp. 136). One remarkable finding was the lack of a name for the fourth finger, which was not known to respondents, whatever their age; this finger is known in English as ring finger and in many Indo-European languages “(finger) without name,” as in the Persian binām, the Russian bezymannyj or the Sanskrit ánāmā, ánāmikā. During the project, we devoted special attention to documenting traditional knowledge expressed in language, and its specific structure during communication among speakers of Pamir languages (Dodykhudoeva 2004; 2007). So one object of our research was to see how well this system of knowledge is preserved in these languages, and in the case of preservation, to document the relevant lexical terms and their context (Rice 2012: 425–426). We have worked for some time on dictionaries of Pamir languages based on a thematic approach; see similar lexicographic work done by Ulrike Mosel (2011: 337 and following). Consequently, we know that in Pamir languages, the ancient Indo-European system of triple Deixis has survived (Yusufbekov 1998) as has a traditional topological up-down orientation, the reference point of which is the Panj River. In this context, spatial orientation in communication is expressed through a specific strategy from the speaker’s viewpoint. (For very interesting results on this topic see: (Chelliah and de Reuse 2011: 416–417; Levinson 1983)). The same is true for the verbal expression of specific traditional measures of volume, dimension, and distance. Another object of research was whether the speaker used the recently introduced 2nd Plural form of politeness borrowed from Tajik-Dari or the traditional 2nd Singular form of the personal pronoun. The researchers also focused on discourse and behaviour when studying traditional forms of greeting members of the community (depending on their status) and outsiders, each according to a precise cultural protocol. Through interviews, comprehensive information was collected on the profile of the language, its area and borders, and its functions and usage in the community. In the process of interviewing, the authors identified names of local speech varieties and whether residents of this territory used other varieties as well. In this way, they came across specific names given by local people themselves to designate their own speech. Similarly, the authors documented how their neighbours call them (endonyms and exonyms). They also obtained data on newcomers to the community, those whom speakers consider “others,” for instance, because they settled in the area later, even if that settlement happened two or three centuries ago. In a single interview, the speaker could switch from one code to another: He or she could begin with everyday colloquial speech and then switch to the recitation of sacred texts relating to religious service or to the language of folk tales. Sometimes the authors determined information on “secret” languages (especially on ways in which

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

169

speakers talk when they conceal information from “others”), or they observed fragments of unconscious gestures and signs within the conversation. All these elements provided authors with data for research and analysis.

10.4  Brief Description of Research As an illustration, the authors analyze below part of their field data on the current state of the Pamir languages, collected between 2006 and 2021. Previously, there had been no digitally recorded data on the Pamir and Yaghnobi vernaculars, compiled as an archive that can be systematically analyzed by modern computerized technology. In most Pamir languages, only the first ten numerals are indigenous; in the Ishkashimi language, this is true of the first eight numerals, and in Wakhi, the first 20 numerals. The remaining numerals were borrowed from Tajik. In Sarykoli and Wakhi-speaking areas of China, they were taken from Uyghur or Chinese. The results demonstrate a modification in phonetic data in comparison to data of previous research.2 The data in Table 10.1 show the first 10 numerals of the Rushani language according to two previous works on Rushani (Fayzov 1966; Edelman and Yusufbekov 1999) in comparison with our own data obtained in the field from young native Rushani speakers in 2006 and 2008, and verified in 2018. In comparison to data previously published in the twentieth century, new data on Rushani numerals showed that in the numeral īw “1” the prothetic y- was absent in all Rushani examples (and also Bartangi and even some of Shughnani). The Table 10.1  First ten numerals in the Rushani language Fayzov Translation 1966 1 yīw 2 δaw 3 aray 4 cavū̊r 5 pīnʒ 6 xū̊w 7 wūvd 8 vax̌ t 9 nāw 10 δos

Edelman and Yusufbekov 1999 yīw, yi δaw aray cavůr pīnʒ xůw wūvd wax̌ t nōw δos

Consultant 1 īw δaw aray cavör pīnc xůw ūvd wax̌ nāw δos

Consultant 2 īw δaw aray cavör pīnc xεw ūv wax̌ nāw δost

Consultant 3 īw δaw aray cavör pīnc xεw ūv wax̌ nāw δost

Consultant 4 īw δaw aray cavör pīnc xůw ūv wax̌ nāw δos

2  These recordings were made on a laptop computer in a classroom of the Khorog State University with relatively low background noise. To further improve the signal/noise ratio we used AKG 420C head- mounted microphones. Raw recordings were edited with Adobe Audition 2.0 and Adobe Soundbooth CS3. Segmentation and acoustical analyses were conducted using Praat.

170

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

established dictionary form of all the Shughnani-Rushani language group pīnʒ (except for Sarikoli pinʒ) “5,” was pronounced in half of the cases as pīnc, pinc. The Rushani wūvd “7,” as pronounced by speakers, lost the final -d in most cases, and also dropped the initial glide [w]—ūv. In all cases, the numeral wax̌t “8” lost the last -t. In the case of the Rushani word δos “10,” the authors observed an additional final -t: δost in pronunciation of two of the speakers. This addition of the consonant [t] in the numeral could be explained by analogy with the final [t] in the numeral wax̌t “8,” which is no longer used. All simplifications were to a large extent due to elision. Here one may suggest that the first survey of Rushani language data with specific focus on phonetics was carried out over 50 years ago (Fayzov1966: 85). Further collection of data was conducted to focus on other aspects of language, primarily based on dictionary phonological forms (Edelman and Yusufbekov 1999: 248). During this time (approximately two generations), the language may have undergone a change in phonetic profile, especially bearing in mind the change in the main dialect of literary Tajik language—the language of education, administration, and media—which took place in the 1990s. Other numerals were borrowed from the Tajik language; (in Sarykoli and Wakhi-­ speaking areas of China, they were borrowed from Uyghur and/or Chinese). The system of numerals in general underwent a major transformation, as the vigesimal system of counting was replaced by the decimal system. However, some constructions of this secondary decimal system in Pamir languages still bore a residue of the substrate language. In this case, two distinct types were distinguished (Edelman 2007b: 212). 1. “From larger to smaller” model: “ten-(and)-two” = 12 We observe this order in the Wakhi language; in the languages of the Shughnani-­Rushani group, including Sarykoli; and in Yazghulami and Yidgha; as well as in some Dardic languages; and Indo-Aryan Romani (whose speakers crossed the region). This order is derived from the substrate language— Burushaski (Table 10.2). 2. “From smaller to larger” model—This is the conventional order in Old Iranian and Indo-Iranian languages, as in Tajik and Dari: “two-(and)-ten”  =  12. But among Pamir languages, it is used only in the Sanglichi language and Ishkashimi, as well as in Munji, which borrowed the Persian-Tajik counting system (Table 10.3). These two tables show the configuration of regions in terms of the way in which the language speakers count numerals. It is noteworthy that in the southeastern area of Pamir languages, vernaculars such as Sanglichi together with Ishkashimi (Pakhalina 1959) and Munji (yozdāh, duwozdāh, sizdā(h), čordā(h), ponzdā(h), šonzdā(h), av/ fdā(h), aždā(h), nuzdā(h)) (Grunberg 1972) have adhered to the Iranian system of counting, although most Pamir languages adopted a model common to the PamirHindukush region. Apart from these examples, we observed that Tajik numerals as pronounced by Pamir speakers have a number of specific features: (a) there is no sound [h] in

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

171

Table 10.2  “From larger to smaller” model Wakhi (Tajikistan) Pakhalina 1975 11 δas-(әt)-yiw 12 δas-(әt)bu(y) 13 δas-(әt)tru(y) 14 δas-(әt)cыbыr 15 δas-(әt)panʒ

Wakhi (Navabad, Xinjiang) Field data 2010 das-iv das-buy das-truy das-cәbůr das-panʒ

16 δas-(әt)-šad

das-šad

17 δas-(әt)-ыb

das-ůb

18 δas-(әt)-at

das-hat

Yazghulami Edelman 1999 (wu) δůs-at wůg (wu)  δůs-at δow (wu)  δůs-at-­ cůy  (wu) δůs-at-čer (wu) δůs-at penǰ

19 δas-(әt)-naw das-nav

Shughnani Field data 2009 (yi) δīs-at-yīw δīs-at-­ δiyůn δīs-at-arāy

Sarykoli Pakhalina 1966 δes-a(t)i(w) δes-a(t)-δa

Sarykoli Field data 2007, 2010 δәs-at-i

Yidgha Decker 1992 los-yū

δәs-δa

los-loh

δәs-(at)aroy δәs-cavor

los-šuroy

δes-a(t)aroy δes-a(t)cavur δes-a(t)pinʒ

δǝs-(at)panʒ

los-panč

δes-a(t)xel δes-a(t)δīs-at-­ wūv(d) ыvd δīs-at-wax̌t δes-a(t)wox̌t δīs-at-now δes-a(t)new

δәs-(at)xǝl δәs-a(t)uvd δәs-a(t)wovd δәs-a(t)new/ɛw

los-oxšo

δīs-at-­ cavor δīs-at-pīnʒ δīs-at-xoɣ̌

los-čir

los-afdo los-oščo los-no

Table 10.3  “From smaller to larger” model

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ishkashimi Field data 2009 (< T) yozda dʷozda sezda čorda ponzda šonzda avda ažda nuzda

Sanglichi Morgenstierne 1938 ko-δos dī-δus sēz-da (< T) čār-da (< T) pōnzә-δō̆s xuāḷ(ә)-δō̆s ōvdә-δō̆s hō̆tә-δō̆s nowә-δos

Sanglichi Yusufbekov Field data 1996 kә-dōs dī-dus sez-dā(h) (< T) čōr-dā(h) (< T) pōnzә-dos xāḷa-dos ōvda-dos ota-dos nōwa-dos

Sanglichi Dodykhudoeva, Yusufbekov Field data 2009 kә-dōs dī-dus sez-dā (< T) čōr-dā (< T) pōnz(ә)-dos x(ʷ)āḷ/l(ә)-dos ōvd(ә)-dos ot(ә)-dos now-dos

numerals haft “7,” hašt “8,” and their derivatives; (b) the vowel in numerals 15 and 16 is shifted to the front row: pönzdah, šönzdah respectively; (c) in compound numerals, like 2345 or 3456, etc. the names of thousands are produced using indigenous words. The tendency to neglect the vowel [ů] requires a separate profound study, especially since it was detected in all Pamir languages and can be attributed to a change

172

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

in the 1990s in the basic dialect of the state Tajik language—the medium of instruction in secondary and high school. Literary Tajik language changed its main dialect from a northern one which included [ů], to a southern one from which that vowel is absent. The task of conjugating any verb in the mother tongue proved difficult for the consultants, despite the fact that the students, who were in the majority philologists, easily conjugated verbs in the (European) languages that they were studying. Some images, illustrating specific features of the different regions, evoked difficulties. Thus, images of bananas and oranges that are rare in Badakhshan were hard to identify. Strawberries—known in the form of preserves and jams—were recognized with difficulty, as they are not grown in the region, and when language consultants saw this picture, they required help. Plums also caused problems: They were identified as apples, which have many local varieties. Some of the language consultants had difficulties finding the right word for mushroom, although mushrooms are grown in the area, and are quite common. When they received a clue word, the image was identified; this could be due to the fact that in Badakhshan, fungi are not collected and used for eating. Another example was the word for carrot: We mostly registered the variant sab/vӡi “(something) green,” a new Tajik borrowing, though there is an older word zardak “(something) yellow,” an old Tajik borrowing, which was replaced in the Shughnani-Rushani group but still remains in the Ishkashimi and Sanglichi zardǝk. Recurring inconsistency was observed in the designation of colours ranging from “green” to “(dark-)blue” (Dodykhudoeva 2011), although in modern languages of the Shughnani-Rushani group, the first colour is called sāvz and the second, as a rule, − nīli / nīlay (Alamshoev and Zoolshoeva 2005). Both colours were defined by both words. The other difficulty was in selecting the right word for the tones of “(dark-)blue”− kabut and loǰwar. In general, it was difficult to define this colour spectrum when it came to selecting the correct word for subtle shades and subdued colours. In this context, it should be borne in mind that the traditional colour spectrum represented in Iranian languages has its own cultural features. From the mnemonic formula, well-known to Russians since school, “Every hunter wants to know where the pheasant sits” (in Russian: Kazhdyj okhotnik zhelaet znat’ gde sidit fazan: red – orange – yellow – green – blue – dark-blue – violet), Iranian languages have the following names for the following basic colours: red – yellow – green – (dark-)blue. Other colour terms are given descriptively, for instance: sap zard lit. “very yellow, orange,” osmon(i) “sky-blue,” banafš(i) “(colour of) violet flower, purple.” In general, the distinction of the spectrum between “yellow – green” and “green – (dark-) blue” in modern Iranian languages is not strictly defined. Some parts of the spectrum between “green – (dark-)blue” and even “violet” provide clusters that are not strictly separated. There exists also another traditional colour cluster, which again lacks a strict division: “(dove-)blue” – “(dove-)dark-blue – gray – (dark-)gray”. When dealing with colours, we come across an interesting transfer of traditional visual perceptions of the colour of different objects. Certain colours tend to have specific names in the spectrum, but their perception and transmission is not standard. For example, “green tea” is conveyed as kabut čoy lit. “blue tea,” cf. Uzbek

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

173

qoq choy, or the place name Koktebel (Qoqtebel), which in the language of the Crimean Tatars means “the land of blue hills” (kök “greyish-blue”). The exception here is the language of Wakhan, where “green tea” is green – savz čoy. The “green” spectrum is represented in Shughnani language mainly by the term sāvӡ “green”3 and nīlow indefinite “blue-green colour, between green and blue.” For “green” with an uncertain hue, there is Rushani šarθōb “yellowish-green” and x̌īn “grayish-green.” The traditional colour terms of primary and complementary colours are based on the history of the language and culture and are rooted in prototypical objects. Thus, the colour of bright deep-blue sky in the Shughnani language today is designated by the term kabut (“blue”), although half a century ago it was documented as “grayish-­ blue” by Zarubin. This word is probably borrowed from Tajik, cf. for instance the Badakhshani Tajik form kabutak “greenish-bluish.” At the same time, modern Yaghnobi keeps the kab/wud form with the meaning “(dark-)blue, green, gray.” In the middle of the twentieth century in Yaghnob valley, an older form kuputa “green” was documented by Mikhail N. Bogoljubov (1956). This form is presumably older and closer to the Soghdian kp’wt “(dark-)blue,” which was widespread in the neighbourhood and of which Yaghnobi is the only live vernacular. It is remarkable that this word, in its original meaning, contains the notion of “of dove (colour)”, cf. Old Persian kapauta “dove.” For dark tones of blue, the following terms are used: loǰwar(-rāng) “the colour of lapis lazuli, dark blue, ” or nīli “the colour of the indigo plant, a deep blue-purple colour between blue and violet,” and x̌īn “dark blue, the colour of the dark sky on a cloudy, overcast day, the gray colour of ash, gray” (cf. Old Persian axšaina ‘dark blue’). Another fixed compound that is worth mentioning is the colour of eyes: Apart from the most widespread dark brownish eyes, some people in the Western Pamir have greyish-blue or greenish eyes. In Ishkashimi, this colour is designated by the word sur and in Shughnani by the somewhat greenish-grey x̌īn. Thus, by identifying specific difficulties, irregularities or by noting the regular introduction of certain specific sounds or terms, we can identify particular processes that take place in the language and thus postulate new trends or the elimination of old ones.

10.5  Findings and Conclusion The recorded digital data allowed the authors to assemble an archive of audio language materials. On this basis, they identified the main vocabulary of each vernacular and produced a comparative dictionary (Dodykhudoeva 2014), which allowed further investigation of the phonetic system, grammar, and lexis of the language.

3  This form is supported by derivatives, the Sarykoli savzīӡ or savzeyӡ “whey/serum, the milk byproduct in cheese production, the liquid remaining after collapse of the milk,” lit. “(of) greenish (colour),” and sifāč “(colour of) green walnut.”

174

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

Throughout the project, these results were made possible through the researchers’ community-based approach, at the core of which lay close working relationships with language consultants, a knowledge and understanding of their culture and environment, and the desire and ability to adapt to it. The tests and interviews were not merely tools to obtain data of an ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic nature; they were associated with the elicitation of conceptual knowledge concerning worldview, uniqueness of the culture, significant traditional symbols, and values. The researchers’ methodology showed that a native speaker can possess this knowledge implicitly, without being aware of it, intuitively providing information on language, material culture, traditions, and spiritual practices in his/her mother tongue. In this case, the means and specific techniques of the collection, presentation, and storage of such data concerning unwritten Eastern Iranian languages were not the only assets of value. The most important task of the researcher lies in the interpretation of data, as well as in identifying speakers’ own knowledge of which they themselves are unaware, and in making this knowledge available for the community and scholars.

References Alamshoev, M.M., Sh.F. Zoolshoeva. 2005. “K voprosu ob étnolingvisticheskom izuchenii leksiki tsvetooboznachenija shugnanskogo jazyka” [On the question of ethnolinguistic study of colour terms in Shughnani language]. Vestnik Khorogskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the University of Khorogh]. Series 2. Humanities 6: 3–4. Khorogh. (In Russian). Bogoljubov, M.N. 1956. Jagnobskij jazyk [Yaghnobi language]. Synopsis of the Doctor of Philology Thesis. Leningrad. (In Russian). Chelliah, Shobhana L., and Willem J. de Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­90-­481-­9026-­3. Decker, K.D. 1992. Languages of Chitral (Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan, 5). Publisher: National Institute of Pakistani Studies. Dodykhudoeva, L.R. 2004. Ethno-cultural heritage of the peoples of the West Pamir: Reflection of traditional religious beliefs in language. In Collegium Antropologium 28, 1: 147–159. ———. 2007. Revitalization of minority languages: Comparative dictionary of key cultural terms in the languages and dialects of the Shughni-Rushani group of the Pamir languages. In Collection of proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory (75 years of Linguistics at SOAS: 5 years of the Endangered Languages Project). 7-8 December 2007, SOAS, London. London. ———. 2011. “Tsveta v iranskikh jazykakh Tadzhikistana” [Colours in the Iranian languages of Tajikistan]: 154–155. In Voprosy filologii. Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii «Jazyk, kul’tura, obshchestvo» [Bulletin of Philology. Special issue. Proceedings of the VI International scientific conference “Language, culture and society”]. 1. Moscow. (In Russian). ———. 2014. In “Slovar’ material’noj i dukhovnoj leksiki pamirskikh jazykov” [Dictionary of material and spiritual vocabulary of the Pamir languages]. In Nauchnye ekspeditsii RGNF [Research expeditions of the Russian State Foundation for Humanities], ed. R.  Kazakova, 418–420. Moscow: Rossijskij gumanitarnyj nauchnyj fond. (In Russian).

10  Methodology for Collection of Data and Elicitation of Knowledge on Eastern…

175

Dodykhudoeva, Leyli R., and Vladimir B.  Ivanov. 2008. “Language immersion in endangered Pamiri communities: elicitation strategies in tutorial work”. In Proceedings of the FEL XII conference. Endangered Languages and Language Learning. Fryske Academy in Ljouwert / Leeuwarden. 24–28 September 2008, 101–08. Leeuwarden. Dodykhudoeva, L.R., and V.B.  Ivanov. 2009a. “Problemy issledovanija v polevykh uslovijakh malykh i ischezajushchikh iranskikh jazykov (na materiale bespis’mennykh pamirskikh jazykov Kitaja i Tadzhikistana)” [Problems of research in the field of minority endangered Iranian languages (the case of the unwritten Pamir languages of Tajikistan and China)]. In Sbornik statej po itogam kruglogo stola «Minoritarnye jazyki» 2007 [Collection of articles on the results of the Round Table on minority languages 2007] / Ed. I.I. Chelysheva, 89–112. Moscow. (In Russian). ——— 2009b. “Metody sbora, predstavlenija i obrabotki étnolingvisticheskogo i étnokul'turnogo materiala po vostochnoiranskim jazykam” [Methods of collection, representation and storage of Ethnolinguistic and Ethnocultural data of the Eastern Iranian languages]. In III Mezhdunarodnaja konferentsija po polevoj lingvistike. Tezisy i materialy. Institut jazykoznanija RAN. [The 3d International conference on Field linguistics. Abstracts and Materials], 71–2. Moscow. (In Russian). ———. 2009c. “Data Elicitation in Endangered Pamiri communities: Interdependence of Language and History”. In Endangered Languages and History. Proceedings of the FEL XIII conference. 24–26 September 2009, 33–40. London; Dushanbe: Izdatel’stvo Donish. ———. 2014. “Jazyk ritual’noj sluzhby u zoroastrijtsev Irana” [The language of the ritual service of the Zoroastrians of Iran]. In Jazykovaja politika i jazykovye konflikty v sovremennom mire. Mezhdunarodnaja konferentsija. Doklady i soobshchenija [“Language policy and language conflicts in the modern world”. International conference. Reports and presentations] (Moscow, September 16–19, 2014), 437–443. Moscow. (In Russian). Edelman, D.I. 1999. “Jazguljamskij jazyk” [Yazghulami language]. In Jazyki mira. Iranskie jazyki III. Vostochnoiranskie jazyki [Languages of the world. Iranian languages III. Eastern Iranian languages], 274–290. Moscow. (In Russian). ———. 2007a. “Polevye sbory leksiki dukhovnoj kul’tury étnosa (iz opyta zapisej na Zapadnom Pamire)” [Collecting and processing information about the spiritual culture of the ethnic group (from field experience in the Western Pamir]. In Polevaja lingvistika [Field linguistics. Collection of articles of the 2nd International conference on Field linguistics], 61–72. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS. (In Russian). ———. 2007b. “K istorii dvuosnovnykh chislitel'nykh v iranskikh jazykakh” [Towards the history of two-stems in numerals in Iranian languages]. In Pamjati V.S. Rastorguevoj [Collection of articles in memory of Vera S. Rastorgueva], 204–217. Moscow: Izdatel’skij dom “Kljuch”. (In Russian). Edelman, Joy I., and Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva. 2009. Pamir languages. In The Iranian languages, ed. G. Windfuhr, 773–787. London: Routledge. Edelman, D.I., and Sh.P.  Yusufbekov. 1999. “Rushanskij jazyk” [Rushani language]. In Jazyki mira. Iranskie jazyki III. Vostochnoiranskie jazyki [Languages of the world. Iranian languages III. East Iranian languages], 242–254. Moscow: Indrik. (In Russian). Fayzov, M. 1966. Jazyk rushantsev sovetskogo Pamira [The language of Rushanis of the Soviet Pamirs]. Dushanbe. (In Russian). Grinevald, Colette, and Michel Bert. 2011. Speakers and communities. In The handbook of endangered languages, ed. Peter Austin and Julia Sallabank, 45–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grunberg, A.L. 1972. Jazyki Vostochnogo Gindukusha: Mundzhanskij jazyk [Languages of the Eastern Hindu Kush: Munji language]. Leningrad: Nauka LO. (In Russian). Ivanov, V.B. 1983. “Russkie i persidskie glasnye v proiznoshenii bilingvov” [Russian and Persian pronunciation of the vowels of the bilingual speakers]. Vestnik MGU [Bulletin of the Moscow State University. Series. Oriental Studies], 2: 48–56. (In Russian). Levinson, Steven. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

176

L. R. Dodykhudoeva and V. B. Ivanov

Michael, Lev. 2011. Language and culture. In The handbook of endangered languages, ed. Peter Austin and Julia Sallabank, 120–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgenstierne, G. 1938. Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Iranian Pamir Languages: Yidgha-­ Munji, Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi. II. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsö. Mosel, Ulrike. 2011. Lexicography in endangered language communities. In The handbook of endangered languages, ed. Peter Austin and Julia Sallabank, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pakhalina, T.M. 1959. Ishkashimskij jazyk [Ishkashimi language]. Moscow: Leningrad. (In Russian). ———. 1966. Sarykol'skij jazyk [Sarykoli language]. Moscow. (In Russian). ———. 1975. Vakhanskij jazyk [Wakhi language]. Moscow. (In Russian). Rice, Keren. 2012. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, ed. Nicholas Thieberger, 407–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skyhawk, Hugh van. 2003. Burushaski-Texte aus Hispar. Wiesbaden. Yusufbekov, Sh.P.  1998.  Dejktichnost’ v jazykakh shugnano-rushanskoj gruppy: semantiko-­ pragmaticheskie aspekty [Deictic system in the languages of the Shughnani-Rushani group: semantic-pragmatic aspects]. Moscow. (In Russian). 

Chapter 11

Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief (from the Experience of Fieldwork in Western Pamir) Joy I. Edelman

Abstract  In this chapter, the author discusses her fieldwork in Western Pamir between the 1950s and the 1970s, examining the issues she encountered in collecting and processing unknown materials reflecting the worldview of various ethnic groups, particularly of the Yazghulami community. The methodology employed involves living in the local community, recording not only language data but also its ethnographic and cultural background, so that language material both illuminates and is illuminated by its anthropological context. To implement this approach, a considerable task consists in collaborating with language consultants to collect and analyze data on religious beliefs, rituals and customs, and their reflection in language; for this, researchers require thorough preparation, including knowledge of cultural anthropology and ethnology. The author highlights key findings resulting from this methodology, including interrelations within the traditional Pamir extended family, as well as some local particularities in kinship terminology and principles of naming, including forms of address and the naming of children. She also analyzes Pamir people’s worldview incorporating successive layers of spiritual culture: rituals and ceremonies; stories and popular beliefs about supernatural beings and local superstitions; and more traditional folkloric texts that explain the origin of many images and correlated words and phraseology. Keywords  Fieldwork · Western Pamir · Yazghulam · Minority ethnic groups · Worldview · Kinship terminology · Forms of address · Child-naming · Spiritual culture · Ethnolinguistics · Popular beliefs · Supernatural beings · Superstitions · Vocabulary · Phraseology · Culture transmission · Pamir languages · Fieldwork techniques

Translated from Russian by L.R. Dodykhudoeva. J. I. Edelman (*) Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 T. B. Agranat, L. R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for Knowledge Elicitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_11

177

178

J. I. Edelman

11.1  Introduction. Project Methodology Collecting and processing little-known materials that reflect a people’s worldview (Weltanschauung)—the beliefs and ideas that inform their interpretation of the world and their interaction with it—requires a particularly meticulous approach. We will describe key issues encountered during our fieldwork in the 1950s–1970s. These include some of the most significant problems related to the recording and analysis of data from languages that have no written tradition, especially languages of minority ethnic groups. At the time, we were gathering data in the northern part of the Western Pamir, working primarily on Yazghulami and also on Shughnani, both branches of the eastern group of the Iranian language family. The work was carried out using the methodology of the influential Russian specialist on Iranian languages Ivan I. Zarubin (1887–1964) and techniques we developed, based on his approach. According to this methodology, the researcher should live, if possible, in a local family and record language data together with its ethnographic and cultural context; this leads to further questions that elicit further language data. To collect data on certain beliefs and customs, the researcher should have a deep and wide-ranging cultural background that requires considerable advance preparation. This preparation includes not only linguistic training but also knowledge of general cultural anthropology and ethnology. At the analysis stage, the language data elicited in this way helps us to understand its anthropological context and vice versa.

11.2  Data Collection and Analysis 11.2.1  F  amily Relations, Kinship Terminology, and Naming Conventions Using this approach, the author examined interrelations within the traditional Pamir extended family, as well as some local peculiarities in kinship terminology1 and principles of naming. One example concerns forms of address in Yazghulami. In this language family, as in others in Central Asia, people are commonly addressed not only by name but also by using a kinship term as well, for instance “(little) brother X,” “(little) sister Y.” This has left its mark on the development of Old Iranian kinship terms containing the morpheme *-tar-. In these languages, most of the modern reflexes of kinship terms come from the forms of the words that were most frequently used in vocative function (Edelman 1999). 1  Some similarities in the treatment of Iranian kinship in this area can be seen in the Dravidian kinship system (Dousset 2011).

11  Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief…

179

Another example: relatively often, marriages between cousins (characteristic of closed communities) resulted in the father-in-law being addressed (and referred to) as “uncle.” In some dialects, “uncle” gradually displaced the historical term designating “father-in-law.” In addition to forms of address, we studied the specific features of the local system of naming, especially how names were chosen for children born in an extended family. In addition to an official name used in official documents (usually a standard Muslim one), people used a domestic name that interacted in complex ways with the form of address. For example, in one Yazghulami family, a baby boy was named Khabir in memory of his deceased grandfather Khabir. As a result, he was addressed by relatives just as they would have addressed their deceased family member: The boy’s brothers and sisters called him “grandfather Khabir.” His mother called him “uncle Khabir,” as the deceased Khabir was both her uncle and her father-in-law. The boy’s uncle, the late Khabir’s son, called him “father Khabir” or “Dad.” This tradition supports the argument that the origin of the system of closely related Tajik official names (Boboǰon, Bobonazar, Dadaǰon, etc.) results from the analogical naming of a child in memory of its father or grandfather. (Tajik bobo ‘grandfather,’ dada ‘father’; ǰon, lit. ‘soul’ is used as an endearment component of the composite).

11.2.2  Belief Systems While collecting data on naming and forms of address was relatively straightforward, data related to the larger worldview and system of beliefs were much more difficult to elicit and analyze. Initially, we had great difficulty understanding the most basic elements of people’s perception of the natural world, such as time and space. In the 1950s and 1960s in Yazghulam, time was not ordinarily divided into hours. (Not everybody had a watch, and not everybody understood its function.) Instead, people in the valley used a well-developed ancient system of names for morning, day, evening, and night. For example: žə-dab-sār // žə-dab-saar ‘crack of dawn, before the sunrise, the time of the morning prayer’; šābug/k ‘break of day, right before the sun is rising over the mountains, which in summer is around 8–9 am)’; sāray // saaray ‘morning, first light; tomorrow’; and so on. In a narrative, the exact time was indicated by pointing to a mountain and the place on the mountain where the sun (or moon) was at that moment. Spatial orientation was identified not by compass direction (north, south) but according to orientation in relation to the flow of the main river in the valley: “up–down” and “high–low”. (The same phenomenon occurs in the group of Shughnani-Rushani languages, where the inventory of spatial orientation has been much better preserved (Yusufbekov 1998). The most difficult task involved the collection and analysis of data on religious beliefs. While some information could be gleaned from the language content of rituals and from folkloric texts, working with language consultants presented many challenges. First, it was not always clear how to pose the right question. To obtain data about the terminology of material culture (clothing, cutlery, natural objects,

180

J. I. Edelman

and so forth) the linguist can ask directly: “What is this?” and “What would you call this thing?” Such questions are perceived as natural. Linguistic data connected with activities like dairy work, sewing, or reaping can also be gathered with no particular difficulty. However, to collect data on local beliefs, rituals, and customs and their reflection in language, the researcher will need to deploy his knowledge and understanding of anthropology and ethnology as key elements of his methodology. In some cases, very subtle means of discussion have to be used. The researcher should learn how to put some questions in an oblique way to obtain a response, so as not to provoke a negative reaction from the language consultant who will then try to avoid giving an answer. It is true that a local native researcher has the ability—if properly trained—to obtain much broader and deeper data in comparison with an “outsider” (a researcher from elsewhere in the world), as the native researcher himself is, to a large degree, a bearer of such information, and can add to it just by talking with elders. Although Yazghulami settlers represented a closed society, their inside information was not hidden from their own members. However, in accordance with our methodology, an “outside” researcher needs lengthy preceding training in language adaptation, and close and reliable contacts with potential language consultants. Sometimes, a researcher should arrange for a third person to be involved in the discussion. This local person should himself be interested in the process and should directly interact with the language consultant by asking additional questions, or add to his story. This technique is widely used by researchers in closed communities, see, for example, the publication of texts in the Burushaski language (Skyhawk 2003). We should keep in mind that conversation on traditional customs, family relations, and especially religious beliefs, as communicated directly by language consultants, is largely dependent on the closeness of their relationship with the listener and on how much the listener deserves the language consultant’s trust. In the case of Western Pamir, the need for this trust is particularly important because language consultants have lived in closed communities over many generations in the region. Here people had to conceal information from outsiders. They were used to doing so because of the whole worldview background of the peoples of Western Pamir (and Yazghulam, in particular)—a worldview that has a multilayered structure elaborated over different historical periods. Each new level of spiritual culture sought to reject the previous ones, so although people (and their language) preserved elements of the spiritual culture of the previous period(s), they were reluctant to openly express their beliefs. The following specific layers are preserved: 1. Ancient pre-Zoroastrian cults (against which Zoroastrianism struggled, beginning from 2000 BC; though in remote and isolated mountainous areas of Central Asia, including Western Pamir, there were no winners). In these cults, there is a belief in diw, pari, dragons, and other supernatural creatures (for a detailed description, see: (Andreev 1927; 1970; Litvinskiy 1981). In Yazghulam, these figures are still grouped into a single class, neither “non-divine” (lit. “impure” (Russian nečist’), as in Russian tradition) nor “evil spirits” or “(evil) monsters” (as in Islamic tradition) but into a class of Bəzərgen—“Great ones”; this is

11  Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief…

181

reflected not only in vocabulary but also in the very structure of the language itself, as this group is considered to be of a different semantic class from “human beings” (see subsequently); 2. Ancient pre-Islamic beliefs with fire-worship (a pre-Zoroastrian cult, that was supported by Zoroastrianism); 3. Islam in two forms: one as reflected in the Ismaili tradition in the main part of Western Pamir, and the other in the later official Sunni orthodox tradition, in Yazghulam. (However, many settlers of the valley secretly continued to be of Ismaili faith). An additional layer of complexity was introduced by the militant antireligious stance of the Soviet state. During the Soviet period, language consultants avoided talking to outsiders about faith in general and especially about their secret beliefs. Even if such data could be collected, it would be difficult to get it published.2 Ethnolinguistic sources for studying systems of beliefs can be grouped into three categories: rituals and ceremonies; stories about supernatural beings and local superstitions; and more traditional folkloric material. 11.2.2.1  Rituals and Ceremonies Transcriptions of ceremonies and rituals include both texts and paralinguistic elements, such as women’s mourning dances in the funeral ritual. These dance descriptions include specific texts, rhythms of their articulation or singing, melodies, gestures, and the choreography of the dance itself (in Yazghulam valley). A large group of rituals, common in Shughnan, is connected with fire, the hearth, and ashes from the hearth. Several important life-cycle rituals had protective magic actions associated with them. For instance, it was recommended to put an iron object under the head of the bed of a woman giving birth because this gave protection against Almasti (a demonic female creature). In another instance, to cross a mountain pass safely it was recommended to tie a rag of a woman’s dress onto a specific juniper tree—Luq-əmbis “juniper tree of shreds”—located in the entrance to a pass near Jamak village in Yazghulam. In a period of drought, to bring rain, people would place a skull of a mountain goat in water.

2  One characteristic situation was when the story of a woman was interrupted by the arrival of a teacher. He told her: “All this is nonsense!” and turned to the author: “Why are you writing down stupid women’s talk?” Another such situation arose when, during the publication of the legend about dragons, an editor asked the author to replace the word “mullah” with the word “magician”, to give the legend an image of a magic fairy tale, and thus avoid problems with the censor.

182

J. I. Edelman

11.2.2.2  Stories about Supernatural Beings and Local Superstitions In the course of research, the author uncovered several interesting stories on popular beliefs. In Yazghulam, there was a story that pari could be of female or male sex. This is represented in language—in the system of gender distribution, although in the Yazghulami language, distribution by gender of substantives designating live creatures is not always correlated with the natural gender of the creature.3 Pari, whether female or male, could marry human beings. The author was shown a stone behind which a female-pari was living; in the night, she was rocking the cradle of her child, but in the daytime, she was not to be seen. Another story features a lady who had a relationship with a male-pari, and in another, we heard the tale of a frightful monster—Woyt, a mountainous spirit, giant-werewolf. In Yazghulami, this creature is designated without mention of specific gender, and in Shughnani there are forms of both—female and male, respectively: Vūyd and Vōyd (also reflected in the genders of coordinated classes of words, such as pronouns, adjectives, and verbs). People told various stories about dragons who live in mountains; these dragons were usually depicted as negative, evil personages. According to local beliefs, a snake can become a dragon, if nobody sees it for several years (7–11 years, according to different beliefs). Data on the supernatural figure known by the Tajik compound Dewi safed (lit. “White Diw,” which may be female or male) proved of major interest for ethnography and linguistics. According to tradition, this supernatural figure is a woman in white—a benefactor of weavers—who comes (usually in the night) on fixed days of the week—usually Fridays. (This figure resembles, but is not identical to, the Christian Saint Paraskeva-Friday (Russian Paraskeva Pjatnitsa) of Slavonic tradition). In Yazghulam, we also heard a tale about Dewi safed “the (male) White Diw,” who has the role of “Owner of the Mill,” and so on. These latter images are interesting both in themselves and as a reflection of the old pre-Zoroastrian beliefs (repressed by Zoroastrianism, and later Islam) as well as regarding the etymology of these names: These are continuations of the Proto-Iranian, respectively: *daiu̯a‘the God and *daiī ‘Goddess, correlated with Old Indian *devá- ‘God and *devī‘Goddess reflecting the Indo-European *deiu̯o- ‘Heaven, God (Rastorgueva and Edelman 2003: 306–307). The absence of the direct influence of Zoroastrianism in some mountainous regions of Central Asia as well as in the Scythian tradition4

3  In the Yazghulami language, an ancient category of gender is transformed based on the principle of semantic classes: the masculine gender contains names of male humans and inanimate things, while the feminine gender contains names of female humans and all animals, independently of their sex; the same rule mostly works for references to male and female supernatural creatures. 4  With regard to the preservation by Scythians of old beliefs in diws, their attitude to them as deities, and the rejection of Zoroastrianism, see (Abaev 1990: 42–43). Partially this “Scythian” attitude to the diw is reflected in the understanding of the image of diw described in the text of “Igor’s tale” (Russian “Slovo o polku Igoreve” (Edelman 2005: 539), where there is also information on Central Asian beliefs in diws).

11  Documenting the Vocabulary of Worldview and Systems of Belief…

183

meant that diws (supernatural characters) were not identified solely as ‘evil spirits’, in contrast to other regions. Thus, in the period when the data were recorded, Yazghulamis were living— according to their own notions—in a world settled not only by human beings and animals but also by the so-called “Great ones” which, as ancient deities, did not simply treat human beings “well” or “badly”: the relationship between “the Great ones” and humans varied, depending on circumstances. 11.2.2.3  Folkloric Texts This third source of data on systems of beliefs consisting of folkloric texts includes: (a) Fairytales, legends, and epic stories that explain the origin of many ideas and the corresponding vocabulary, for example, the Yazghulami legend about Alexander the Great. All Yazghulamis were convinced—at least in those years—that S(ə)kandar-i Zər-karnay (distorted Iskandar Zu-l-qarnayn), that is, Alexander the Great, was killed in Yazghulam and buried at the source of the river Zgamenj; he was thus the “Revered Master” of its spring (Piri sari ob, literally ‘The Old man of the river source’). This widely known expression specifically designates Alexander the Great. The legend also serves to explain the striking natural phenomenon that occurs every summer: the water of the river rises and becomes red. According to this legend, this happened at the time of Alexander’s death, and the river became red with his blood (rather than because of the red soil on the banks of the river washed by the rising water) (Edelman 2016). (b) Fairytales and stories that sometimes contain subjects connected with local pre-­ Islamic deities or old customs and forgotten relics. Here we can cite a Yazghulami story about a hunter who was given a welcome reception as a guest in a cave of ancient “good” deities—dragons (see details in: Edelman 1998); or a story about another hunter who, by chance, offended a pari: the hunter’s dog overturned a pot of milk which the pari had got from a mountain goat—so she turned the hunter into stone. Of particular interest were fairytales that shed light on the traditional organization of the family and the dynamics of family relationships. For instance, there is a tale about a diw who married a woman and had a son with her. At some point, a conflict arose between the diw and his brother-in-law; in that conflict, the diw’s son protected his uncle—his mother’s brother—from his supernatural father. This reflects relationships in the traditional Yazghulami extended family, where the mother’s brother had a role of specific importance. That role is also reflected in the wedding ceremony: Included in the bride’s price (qaling) was a specific payment to her uncle on her mother’s side, called— aq-šir “payment (for) milk.” Another connection between language and culture is observed in fairytales containing a description of a magic tool for rapidly getting from place to place.

184

J. I. Edelman

In Yazghulam, this is not the usual flying carpet or winged horse but a spinning wheel (on a base). Here we encounter a reflection of the historical knowledge of the wheel as a means of conveyance, communicated through an etymon. It should be clarified that for centuries the local population did not see any transport on wheels; this happened only after a road to the Western Pamir was constructed in 1929. However, their ancestors—ancient Aryans—used wheeled vehicles (chariots), and the etymology of the word čůrx ‘spinning-wheel’—a reflection of the Old Iranian čaxra-