Yuri Koryakov

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

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

3. Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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