«Congressus Duodecimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015 Book of Abstracts Edited by Harri Mantila Jari Sivonen Sisko Brunni Kaisa Leinonen ...»
Congressus Duodecimus Internationalis
Fenno-Ugristarum, Oulu 2015
Book of Abstracts
University of Oulu, 2015
Oulun yliopisto, 2015
Photographs: © Oulun kaupunki ja Oulun yliopisto
This book of abstracts contains all the abstracts of CIFU XII presentations that
were accepted. Chapter 1 includes the abstracts of the plenary presentations,
chapter 2 the abstracts of the general session papers and chapter 3 the abstracts of the papers submitted to the symposia. The abstracts are presented in alphabetical order by authors' last names except the plenary abstracts, which are in the order of their presentation in the Congress.
The abstracts are in English. Titles in the language of presentation are given in brackets.
We have retained the transliteration of the names from Cyrillic to Latin script as it was in the original papers.
Table of Contents 1 Plenary presentations 7 2 Section presentations 19 3 Symposia 197 Symp. 1. Change of Finnic languages in a multilinguistic environment
Symp. 2. Multilingual practices and code-switching in Finno-Ugric communities
Symp. 3. From spoken Baltic-Finnic vernaculars to their national standardizations and new literary languages – cancelled...... 231 Symp. 4. The syntax of Samoyedic and Ob-Ugric languages...... 231 Symp. 5. The development of Volgaic and Permic literary languages
Symp. 6. Syntactic structure of Uralic languages
Symp. 7. Functional verbs in Uralic – cancelled
Symp. 8 – cancelled
Symp. 9. Computational Uralistics
Symp. 10. Language technology through citizen science............. 323 Symp. 11. Finno-Ugric languages as target languages................. 335 Symp. 12. Expressions of evidentiality in Uralic languages......... 355 Symp. 13. Personal name systems in Finnic and beyond............. 363 Symp. 14. Multilingualism and multiculturalism in Finno-Ugric literatures
Symp. 15. Ethnofuturism and contemporary art of Finno-Ugric peoples
Symp. 16. Rethinking family values. The conception of family in the context of new rural everyday life
Symp. 17. Body – identity – society: Concepts of the socially accepted body
Symp. 18. Borderlands in the North-East Europe – complex spaces and cultures of Finno-Ugric peoples
Symp. 19. Archives enriching the present cultures of the Northern peoples
Symp. 20. Music as culture in an Uralic language context........... 449 Symp. 21. Diaspora Mordvins and their neighbours
Symp. 22. Linguistic reconstruction in Uralic: Problems and prospects
1 Plenary presentations Campbell, Lyle – Hauk, Bryn University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Language endangerment and endangered Uralic languages In this paper we report on the status of the endangered languages in the world based on research findings of the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (at endangeredlanguages.com, ELCat). We compare and contrast the situation for Uralic languages with that of most of the rest of the world’s endangered languages. In this context we focus on new findings concerning the status of Uralic languages, on the implications of these findings for language typology and historical linguistics, and on what is now needed in the documentation and revitalization of these languages.
Although concern for language endangerment became prominent after 1992, Uralic scholars have made substantial strides in recording the Uralic languages from the 19th century onward. As a result, documentation and archival materials exist for nearly all Uralic languages and major dialects. However, as languages across the globe are increasingly threatened with extinction, Uralic linguists once again have the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in further documentation of the many endangered Uralic languages to help safeguard linguistic diversity.
ELCat lists 37 endangered Uralic languages, 15 of them severely endangered.
These results underscore the responsibility of linguists and other scholars to guarantee adequate documentation of these languages, and to act urgently in the case of the most critically endangered ones. In this paper we point to the cases where it is important to provide more adequate documentation, to foster language revitalization where possible, and to consider better curation for existing language documentation. For some of the numerous Uralic languages that were documented in the 19th and early 20th centuries portions of these valuable collections remain undigitized or out of reach for researchers and revitalization programs. The problem is not limited just to these materials from past documentation work either. Modern documentation efforts face similar issues of curation and access. We raise the questions of what further documentation is most urgently needed and of how to best to deploy documentation of Uralic language materials for future researchers and language revitalization efforts.
Hasselblatt, Cornelius University of Groningen The Finno-Ugric message. Literary and cultural contributions of our discipline Although our notion of Finno-Ugrianness is strongly connected with linguistics and based on linguistic evidence only, it makes sense to speak of Finno-Ugric cultures too. The reason for this is that many cultural manifestations are linked to language in one or another way – be it only through the fact that the mother tongue of the creator of a work of art is a Finno-Ugric language. Most of these manifestations can be properly, or at least better, understood only with knowledge of the respective language.
The basic idea underlying the lecture is the following: If linguistic features of Finno-Ugric languages contribute to our general knowledge of language, then, as a consequence, also specific features of Finno-Ugric cultures should have the ability to broaden our horizon with respect to general literary and cultural history.
Therefore as the motto of the lecture may serve a quote by the Estonian poet, philosopher and scholar Uku Masing, who wrote in 1940: Small peoples necessarily have a broader outlook on life on account of the fact that they cannot disregard the existence of others. The inevitable and implicit reverse version of this insight would be: Large peoples necessarily have a narrower outlook on life on account of the fact that they can disregard the existence of others. Since all Finno-Ugric cultures are small when compared to, e.g., English, Russian, German or Chinese, they lack the restrictions of these large cultures.
The aim of the lecture is not to establish a comprehensive set of cultural features which are regarded or interpreted as something 'specifically Finno-Ugric'.
This would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove for two reasons: First of all, the divergence between a modern Hungarian film and a Mansi folk dance is too large to be able to serve as an example for common Finno-Ugric features. And, secondly, the creators of a Finnish poem on the one hand and a Mordvinian song on the other hand have undergone such different foreign influences that it seems impossible to distil any kind of 'Finno-Ugric essence' from them.
The first aim of the lecture is rather to point to several features or simply elements of different Finno-Ugric cultures that deserve more attention because of their – real or alleged or reputed – uniqueness. Uniqueness here means that the respective phenomenon cannot be found in the same shape within other cultural environments without any connection to a Finno-Ugric language. This may help us to establish a notion of Finno-Ugrianness in the cultural field. The only possibility to label a cultural phenomenon 'Finno-Ugric' seems here to be the method Wittgenstein sketched in his concept of family resemblance: No single fixed criteria or distinctive feature for 'Finno-Ugric cultural manifestations' can be given, but a set of criteria can be established of which, say, a certain number has to be matched in order to make something 'Finno-Ugric'. Secondly, investigating these specific features should lead to a better understanding of multicultural situations, since all Finno-Ugric cultures are situated in a more or less multicultural environment. Therefore the study of these cultures has a high potential to contribute to our theoretical framework of multicultural studies.
Tsypanov, Jevgeni Institute of Language, Literature and History, Syktyvkar Modified model of linguo-ethnogenesis of the Permian people Now as well as previously nobody doubts concerning close relationship of the Permian languages and their common origin. Their typological peculiarities and distinctions in phonetics and grammar were briefly depicted by Robert Austerlits in his article “The Permian centre”, having shown small difference in their dialects: “In general, we can say with confidence that Komi dialect distinctions are insignificant. In the Udmurt language they are even less. This makes appreciable contrast with some other Finno-Ugric languages, especially the Ersian, Saami, Mari and Ob-Ugrian languages”. (Austerlitz 1985: 100-101). For historians of the language this circumstance testifies to rather recent splitting of languages and dialects. The lexical affinity between the Permian languages is clear even for nonspecialists. According to Alo Raun data, in the list of Svodesh the etymologically common vocabulary in the Komi and Udmurt languages makes 70 % that is the maximum number in paired comparisons in the table.
According to Sándor Csúcs, in vocabulary of languages there are 1554 common primordial bases, with that 671 of them have parallels only in the neighbouring Permian languages that makes 43 % of total number of words. This speaks of importance of the common-Permian period in development of the Permian languages among which Komi dialects have preserved ancient linguistic riches better (ibid.). Obviously, this can be explained by much more intensive and long influence of the Turkic and Russian languages on the Udmurt language that resulted in mass borrowings within centuries.
In the Finno-Ugristics the model of divergence of the Permian languages, proposed by Jurje Vihman and V.I.Lytkin is the most spread. The latter explained the disintegration of the parent language as follows: “The common-Permian language-base disintegrated about IX-X centuries, while movement of Komi ancestors to the north (possibly, at first to closer north) started even earlier… How long did the common-Komi period last? Apparently, it did not last long, only one-two centuries somewhere about IX-XI centuries: in advance to the north the Komi ancestors quickly settled among dense woods of the Northern Dvina and Mezen basins, on the one hand, and the middle and upper Kama basin, on the other hand; close connection between territorially disintegrated parts of the Komi people which is necessary for an integrated processes in the language, stopped” (V.I.Lytkin). Such version of divergence of the Permian people seems very simple and schematical, however it reflects scientific level of historicallinguistic analysis of the beginning of last century. For many years the position presented above was classical, in many modern generalizing works it is taken as a basis.
In works of the Finno-Ugrians (Mikko Korhonen, Juha Janhunen, et al.), with no doubt concerning common-Permian parent-language nature, the time of disintegration of the Finno-Permian parent language and occurrence of commonPermian parent language, becomes even more ancient and goes back to 1500On the other hand, in most works the time of disintegration of the commonPermian parent language does not go through special revaluation.
The aim of the modified model of linguo-ethnogenesis of ancient Permians, constructed on the analysis of linguistic reality of the modern languages, is to eliminate sketchiness and primitiveness of the course of divergence of the common-Permian parent language under Vihman-Lytkin theory. Possibly, from the very beginning the common-Permian parent language differed by unity and unification, which results are well keep in the modern languages. The ancestral home of the Permians originally was compact, however then it began to extend both for the internal reasons, and under the pressure of the neighbouring ethnic formations (the Domaris, ancient Hungarians, possibly others). Predecessors of the Komis were initially localized to the north of predecessors of the Udmurts, on the basis of these zones corresponding dialect groups have gradually developed. Possibly, the differentiation of two common-Permian protodialects began long ago, while splitting of the parent language occurred gradually and did not result in territorial division of languages. On the contrary, two dialect groups and protolanguages were in close contact and interaction. Nevertheless, possibly, the consciousness of the proto-Komis and proto-Udmurts has already been formed long since, of which testify traditional ethnonyms-self-names of the Komis and Udmurts, and there are not any mixed Udmurt-Komi dialects.
Such a long and gradual way of crystallization of the Permian languages also explains that the Komi language also has integrated systemic character which cannot be explained by two-three centuries of the common-Komi period, according to traditional point of view. According to similar scheme three basic
groups of Komi dialects were distinguished (Permian, Zyryan and Yazva-Ural):
slowly, not suddenly, in the course of interferences. However the localization territory of the proto-Komi, possibly, was initially more than that in protoUdmurts and represented an extended from west to east oval, that can be explained by various historical-demographic factors, for example, migration and pressure of masses of proto-Udmurts on the proto-Komi population. The proposed modified model of divergence of parent-Permians confirms and strengthens the migratory scheme of ethnogenesis of the Komi-Zyryans as people which not earlier than 1000 years ago gradually occupied at first southwest territories of the present Republic of Komi, parts of the Kirov and Arkhangelsk areas, and then in the course of development of northern territories they further colonized open spaces of the Northeast of the European part of Russia and Western Siberia.