The article concerns the research of functional and linguistic peculiarities of religious discourse in different historical periods. The author considers the religious discourse as a method, consistently reproduced in time and space, of transmitting the complex of meanings of a sacral text with account of the mentality, religious experience and objective reality of people speaking a certain language in a certain phase of history. The contrastive analysis of polyglot sacral texts appearing as a significant part of religious discourse and being a subject of rendering into different languages is worthwhile only when historical, chronological, sociocultural and situative factors which have an impact on the meaning of a sacral text are taken into consideration. Since translators were expected to observe the compulsory rules of rendering the meaning and structure of the source text, translations appeared that distorted the text meaning or did not reproduce it accurately.
The article deals with different aspects of language interaction in agroup of neighboring languages in the Akhvakh district of Daghestan, in particular Karata, Tukita, Tad-Magitl’ and Tlibisho (this zone later referred to as Karata cluster). The villages of the Karata cluster are all located within a short walk-ing distanceof 30–120 min from each other, in all four villages different languages are spoken: Karata, Tukita, Akhvakh and Bagvalal respectively.Qualitative and quantitative data was collected during a fieldtrip in March 2018 as part of a long-term project focussing on neighbor multilingualism in highland Daghestan. The research employed the method of retrospective family interviews. Respondents were interviewed about their language reper-toire and the repertoire of their close relatives that they remembered, which enabled the researchers to conclude which languages were used in the interaction between neighboring villages before the Russi-fication and which languages are used today.We found out that interaction between neighboring villages employed and still employs Avar, that is, the lingua franca model is the common strategy in the Karata cluster. Today more than 90% of the popu-lation of the four villages concerned have command of Avar, which is different from many other areas of highland Daghestan. In other parts of Daghestan the most common model for neighbor interaction was the use of a language of one of the neighbors (asymmetrical bilingualism). Symmetrical bilingualism (when both sides have command of each other’s languages) and lingua franca were less common.Whereas the level of Avar language is high, the level of active multilingualism in the languages of Karata cluster remains low. Passive knowledge of the neighboring languages is more wide-spread. We also found out that passive knowledge is asymmetrical forseveral reasons, which are discussed in the article. A suggestion is put forward that the level of understanding of neighboring languages is not only dependent on the genetic affinity of the languages but also on the direction of socio-economic contact.Similar to other regions of Daghestan, the command of Russian has grown in Karata, however, unlike in many other places, Avar as a lingua franca has not yet been displaced by Russian.
The paper deals with functioning of the analytical additive marker əčʼjə̣ / jəčʼjə̣ in the Temirgoy dialect of West Circassian (also known as Adyghe) and the Kuban dialect of Kabardian and analyses some morphosyntactic parameters, which serve to differentiate its various functions. According to the hypothesis we propose, the marker əčʼjə̣ / jəčʼjə̣ , which originally had exclusively additive functions or functions of the marker of coordination, has developed new pragmatically oriented meanings (contrast, emphasis in negation, etc.). Such pragmaticalization seems to have been accompanied not only by optional phonetic erosion which resulted in the appearance of a new additive clitic but also by the word order change, which presumably can be related to other typological features of the Circassian languages.
This study is the second one in a series of studies devoted to the emergence and development of multilingualism in the Kolyma-Alazeya tundra area, a region where the territories of Yukaghir, Even, Chukchi, Yakut, and Russian settlements overlap. The starting point of this study are Evens, their arrival to the area, their contacts with the neighbors, and the languages they spoke. Based on the various sources (the works and reports of ethnographers, travelers, and missioners) we trace the migration routes of Even nomadic groups from the end of the 19 th to the beginning of the 20 th centuries in this region.
Article raises the main questions connected with variability of language on the example of functioning of Spanish in the territory of the Mexican peninsula Yucatan. A language variation as process of linguistic change in itself is very difficult and subject to influence of a set of factor s, often from each other not the dependent. In each certain Latin American country formation of the literary standards of Spanish happened differently. Spanish of Mexico and, in particular, the peninsula Yucatan – one of unique language educations not only because it is the largest Spanish-speaking country, but also a place where the stable all-Spanish kernel and dialect features caused by identity of the Mexican culture organically coexist. Spanish of Mexicans is national option of Spanish since compliance to functions of national option is peculiar to it: a rank official, existence of national literary norm, the status native for absolute number of inhabitants, performance of full volume of public functions and language and culture specifics. Spanish in the territory of the peninsula Yucatan significantly differs from norms of the Mexican national option of Spanish and has similarity with Cuban, Andalusia, Argentina, Verakruz. Also that the Maya language is now one of languages on which speaks the population of the peninsula Yucatan owing to what the Spanish informal conversation included many words from the Maya language. Considerable changes at the phonetic, grammatical and lexical levels are noted.
The paper presents quantitative data on the modifying participial clauses in Udi (Lezgic, Nakh-Daghestanian), based on text corpora. There are two participles in Udi, a perfective and an imperfective one; modifying participial clauses precede nominal heads, and the participle is clause-final within its clause. Like in other Nakh-Daghestanian languages, modifying participial clauses in Udi are close equivalents of relative clauses proper. However, as they allow a wider range of possible associations between a head noun and a clause, they can be rather assigned to what is known as general noun-modifying clause constructions (GNMCCs). The main goal of the paper is the analysis of frequencies of different associations between participial clauses and head nouns in terms of arguments, adjuncts or otherwise. In total, about 1,000 occurrences of participial clauses in the Nizh dialect of Udi were taken into account, drawn from three corpora: one spoken, one written comprising a translated text of the Gospel of Luke, and another written corpus comprising two collections of original folklore. The Udi data were compared to the data on relativization frequencies available for a few other Nakh-Daghestanian languages, including Agul, Archi, Lezgian, etc. The main generalizations which can be made from the counts are as follows. In participial clauses, intransitive predicates (especially the verb ‘be’) turned out to be more frequent than transitive ones. Relativization of the three core arguments S, A and P accounts for the vast majority of all occurrences (more than 80%), with the intransitive subject S by far outnumbering agent and patient (the same is true for the other languages of the family). Unlike in some other related languages, relativization of the agent is more frequent than that of the patient in Udi. Relativizations frequencies for peripheral arguments and adjuncts is small compared to some other languages of the family (less than one fifth of all occurrences). Among the non-core relativizations, the locative and the temporal ones are the most common. Also, the Udi data confirms the impression that although “extended” uses (i.e. non-syntactic associations) typical of GNMCCs are indeed attested, their frequency is very low.
The paper concerns argument structure of causative verbs in Tundra Nenets and Forest Nenets. Special attention is paid to marking of the initial subject of a non-causative construction. Changing of syntactic status of predicate’s arguments in course of causativization meets expectations and conforms to B. Comrie’s generalization known as “paradigm case”. According to it, the causee (initial subject) is demoted to the highest free position at the grammatical relations hierarchy. The basic ingestive verb (‘eat’) is of interest because it is transitive in the Nenets languages and does not admit omission of its direct object. However, it is causativized as if it were intransitive. Short comments on syntax of an analytic causative construction are also made.
According to a hypothesis put forward by E. A. Helimski, the paradigmatic alternation of root vowels (ablaut) in Khanty results from the influence of second syllable vowels, themselves partially lost already in Proto-Khanty. Helimski’s internal reconstruction of these vowels – ablaut triggers *I, *II, *U and *AA – is convincing, but their Uralic origins remain unknown. The purpose of the present article is to investigate the origins of one of these vowels – the ablaut trigger *I. This vowel is found in four suffixes: 1) a suffix deriving adjectives from local nouns, 2) a suffix of denominal nouns, 3) a suffix of deverbal nouns, and 4) coaffix of possessive forms in kinship terms. The locative adjective suffix and the possessive coaffix have reliable conterparts in other Uralic languages. The locative adjective suffix *-I has cognates in Mansi, Permic, and Samoyedic. These cognates allow us to reconstruct the Proto-Uralic locative adjective suffix as *-ji. The coaffix of the possessive forms in kinship terms *-I- has parallels in Mari, Udmurt, Hungarian, and Selkup. We can suppose that Proto-Uralic had a distinct series of possessive affixes for kinship terms, that differed from usual possessive affixes by having attached a coaffix *-j- before 1st and 2nd person markers.