We assess whether data on lexical borrowing obtained through field elicitation may point not only to a specific donor language but also to its specific regional variety, and whether these data are a reliable tool for reconstructing unknown historical patterns of interaction between ethnic subgroups.
Methodology:
We use quantitative analysis of the data obtained by loanword probing—elicitations of short wordlists from speakers of minority languages—to calculate the amount and identify the source of lexical transfer. We compare the results across several areas with varying degrees of bilingualism and different contact varieties of the donor language to see how this influences our results.
Data:
The data for this study come from a large-scale field study in Daghestan, with 72 people from 19 villages speaking four languages.
Findings:
Our method suggests that speech communities clearly indicate one of the regional varieties of Azerbaijani as the donor, depending on the area of data collection. We also observe that the degree of lexical convergence with the donor depends not only on the level of bilingualism observed in the specific village but also on the native language of this village, suggesting language borders as a natural constraint to the spread of lexical borrowing.
Originality:
The study is novel in that it is fully based on analysis of data on lexical convergence obtained through fieldwork on minority languages and provides quantitative results that can be compared across speech communities in the survey.
Implications:
We conclude that the method is sensitive enough to trace donorship to specific regional varieties of the donor language.
Limitations:
Our observations on the relative weight of the level of bilingualism and language affiliation of a speech community as predictors of the degree of lexical convergence require more data obtained both from other linguistic environments and by different methods.
AlimovaB. M. (1992). Tabasarantsy. XIX – nachalo XX v. Istoriko-etnograficheskoe issledovanie [Tabasarans. 19th – the beginning of the 20th century. A historical and ethnographic study]. Izdatel’stvo DNTs RAN. [In Russian.]
4.
AnthonyD. W. (2007). The horse, the wheel, and language: How Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton University Press.
ArutyunovS. A.OsmanovA. I.SergeevaG. A. (2002). Narody Dagestana [The Peoples of Daghestan]. Nauka. [In Russian.]
7.
AslanovA. M. (1974). Iberijsko-kavkazskije abruptivy v zakatalsko-kaxskix govorax azerbaijanskogo jazyka [Iberian–Caucasian ejectives in the Zaqatala-Qax dialects of the Azerbaijani language]. Ezhegodnik Iberisjko-Kavkazskogo jazykoznanija [Yearbook of Iberian–Caucasian Linguistics], 1(1), 224–228. Georgian Academy of Sciences. [In Russian.]
8.
BellamyK. R. (2018). On the external relations of Purepecha: An investigation into classification, contact and patterns of word formation [Doctoral dissertation]. Utrecht: LOT.
9.
BouckaertR.LemeyP.DunnM. D.GreenhillS. J.AlekseyenkoA. V.DrummondA. J.GrayR. D.SuchardM. A.AtkinsonQ. D. (2012). Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science, 337(6097), 957–960. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219669
10.
BowernC.EppsP.GrayR.HillJ.HunleyK.McConvellP.ZentzJ. (2011). Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages?PLoS ONE, 6(9), e25195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025195
11.
BrownC. H. (1994). Lexical acculturation in Native American languages. Current Anthropology, 35(2), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1086/204248
DanielM.ChechuroI.VerheesS.DobrushinaN. (2021). Lingua Francas as lexical donors: Evidence from Daghestan. Language, 97(3).
14.
DanielM.SchurovI.KoshevoyA.DobrushinaN. (2022). Can recall data be trusted? Evaluating reliability of interview data on traditional multilingualism in highland Daghestan. Field Methods, 34(2).
15.
DobrushinaN. (2011). Mnogojazychije v Dagestane konca XIX – nachala XXI veka: popytka kolichestvennoj ocenki [Multilingualism in Daghestan at the end of the 20th–the beginning of the 21st century: An attempt at a quantitative assessment]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 61–80. [In Russian.]
16.
DobrushinaN. (2013). How to study multilingualism of the past: Investigating traditional contact situations in Daghestan. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12041
17.
DobrushinaN.DanielM.KoryakovY. (2020). Languages and sociolinguistics of the Caucasus. In PolinskyM. (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Languages of the Caucasus (pp. 27–66). Oxford University Press.
18.
DobrushinaN.KozhukharA.MorozG. (2019). Gendered multilingualism in highland Daghestan: Story of a loss. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1493113
19.
DobrushinaN.StaferovaD.BelokonA. (Eds.). (2017). Atlas of multilingualism in Daghestan Online. Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE. https://multidagestan.com
20.
DunnM. (2015). Language phylogenies. In BowernC.EvansB. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 190–211). Routledge Handbooks Online.
21.
DurkinP. (2014). Borrowed words: A history of loanwords in English. Oxford University Press.
22.
ForkelR.ListJ. M.GreenhillS.RzymskiC.BankS.CysouwH.HaspelmathM.KaipingR. (2018). Cross-Linguistic Data Formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics. Scientific Data, 5(180205), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.205
23.
ForkelR.ListJ. M. (2020). CLDFBench. Give your Cross-Linguistic data a lift. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 6997–7004), Marseille. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
24.
HammarströmH.HaspelmathM.ForkelR. (2021). Glottolog. Version 4.4. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://zenodo.org/record/4761960
25.
HancockI. (1995). On the migration and affiliation of the Domba: Iranian words in Rom, Lom and Dom Gypsy. In MatrasY. (Ed.). (1995). Romani in contact: The history, structure and sociology of a language (Vol. 126, pp. 25–51). John Benjamins Publishing.
26.
HaspelmathM.TadmorU. (Eds.). (2009a). Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Walter de Gruyter.
27.
HaspelmathM.TadmorU. (Eds.). (2009b). World loanword database. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wold.clld.org
28.
IbragimovG. K. (1978). Rutul’skij jazyk [The Rutul Language]. Nauka. [In Russian.]
29.
IkhilovM. M. (1967). Narodnosti lezginskoy gruppy: etnograficheskoe issledovanie proshlogo i nastoyaschego lezgin, tabasarantsev, rutulov, tsakhurov, agulov [Peoples of the Lezgic group: an ethnographic study of the past and the present of Lezgians, Tabasarans, Rutuls, Tsakhurs, Aguls]. DF AN SSSR, IIYaL im. G. Tsadasy. [In Russian.]
30.
KeyM. R.ComrieB. (2015). The intercontinental dictionary series. http://ids.clld.org
31.
KhachaturyanM.KonoshenkoM. (2021). Assessing (a)symmetry in multilingualism: The case of Mano and Kpelle in Guinea. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(4), 979–998.
32.
KibrikA. E.KodzasovS. V. (1990). Sopostavitel’noe izuchenie dagestanskikh yazykov. Imya. Fonetika [A comparative study of the Daghestanian languages. The Noun. Phonetics]. Izd-vo MGU. [In Russian.]
33.
KoivulehtoJ. (2001). The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in the light of lexical loans. In CarpelanC.ParpolaA.KoskikallioP. (Eds.). (2001). Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and archaeological considerations. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne (vol. 242, pp. 235–264). Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
34.
ListJ. M. (2020). EDICTOR. A web-based tool for creating, maintaining, and publishing etymological data. Version 1.0.0. Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://digling.org/edictor/
35.
ListJ.-M.LaiY.StarostinG. (2019). Old Chinese and Friends: New approaches to historical linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area. Journal of Language Relationship, 17(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3149507
36.
ListJ. M.RzymskiC.GreenhillS.SchweikhardN.PianykhK.TjukaA.WuM.-S.ForkelR. (2020). Concepticon. A resource for the linking of concept lists (Version 2.3.0). Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://concepticon.clld.org/
37.
MoroF. (2021). Multilingualism in eastern Indonesia: Linguistic evidence of a shift from symmetric to asymmetric multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(4), 1102–1119.
38.
NicholsJ. (2013). The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguistic geography. In AuerP.HilpertM.StukenbrockA.Szmrecsanyi (Eds.). (2013). Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives (pp. 38–60). De Gruyter.
39.
PupyninaM.AralovaN. (2021). Lower Kolyma multilingualism: Historical setting and sociolinguistic trends. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(4), 1081–1101.
40.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
41.
Róna-TasA.ÁrpádB. (2011). West Old Turkic: Turkic loanwords in Hungarian. Harrassowitz Verlag.
42.
SaarinenS. (1997). Borrowed vocabulary in Mari and Udmurt dialects. In HahmoS.-L.HofstraT.HontiL.van LindeP.NikkiläO. (Eds.). (1997). Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt. Vorträge des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Finnougristik an der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 21.-23. November 1996 (pp. 191–196). Shaker Publishing B. V.
43.
SagartL.JacquesG.LaiY.RyderR.ThouzeauV.GreenhillS.ListJ.-M. (2019). Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 10317–10322. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817972116
SlowikowskiK. (2019). ggrepel: Automatically position non-overlapping text labels with ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.8.1. http://github.com/slowkow/ggrepel
46.
ThomasonS. G.KaufmanT. (1992). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.
