Language variation in a shifting community: Different patterns of noun incorporation in Modern Chukchi

Abstract

Research questions:

This study asks whether an interface phenomenon such as noun incorporation (NI) displays meaningful socially conditioned variation in the endangered polysynthetic language, Chukchi, by investigating whether speakers of all levels of experience or proficiency make use of NI in a consistent, rule-governed way.

Design and methodology:

This study compares production data from small groups of speakers of a moribund language. Study tasks include a controlled production task in which speakers are asked to construct sentences using provided lexical items. The lexical items were conditioned so as to trigger NI in certain stimuli (on the basis of verbal valency and argument animacy).

Data and analysis:

The production data was transcribed and coded for the occurrence and structural type of NI (compounding vs. syntactic incorporation). The results were compared across three groups of speakers: conservative older speakers, younger attriting speakers, and new speakers.

Findings/conclusions:

NI frequency and productivity clearly differ among the three groups. CSs use incorporation frequently and productively in the expected contexts, while ASs use productive incorporation only in familiar contexts, followed by NSs who make little to no use of incorporation. All speaker groups display knowledge of the appropriate circumstances in which to use incorporation.

Originality:

This study makes use of a novel experimental methodology in studying several under-researched areas: variation in traditional Chukchi, shift-induced variation in a polysynthetic language, and NI as a locus of variation.

Significance/implications:

This study contributes to our understanding of the behavior of non-normative speakers of endangered languages and demonstrates that they play a role in language preservation. The study shows that the diffuse nature of the Chukchi speech community is different from comparatively well-studied shift settings (especially in the North American and European contexts) in its lack of a community of use or practice, which presents unique challenges in language maintenance.

Keywords

Language shift noun incorporation Chukchi new speakers language endangerment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aalberse

Backus

Muysken

(2019). Heritage languages: A language contact approach. John Benjamins.

Baker

M. C.

(1988). Incorporation. University of Chicago Press.

Baker

M. C.

(1996). The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.

Bobaljik

J. D.

Branigan

(2007). Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. In Johns

Massam

Ndayiragije

(Eds.), Ergativity (pp. 47–77). Springer.

Bogoras

W. G.

(1922). Chukchee. In Boas

(Ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, pt. 2 (Vol. 40, pp. 631–903). Government Printing Office.

Bucholtz

(1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–223.

Campbell

Muntzel

M. C.

(1989). The structural consequences of language death. In Dorian

N. C.

(Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (pp. 181–196). Cambridge University Press.

Dorian

N. C.

(1981). Language death: The life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Dunn

(1999). A grammar of Chukchi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Australian National University].

10.

Evans

(2001). The last speaker is dead—Long live the last speaker!. In Newman

Ratliff

(Eds.), Linguistic fieldwork (pp. 250–281). Cambridge University Press.

11.

Forsyth

(1992). A history of the peoples of Siberia. Cambridge University Press.

12.

Grinevald

Bert

(2011). Speakers and communities. In Austin

P. K.

Sallabank

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages (pp. 45–65). Cambridge University Press.

13.

Gumperz

(1968). The speech community. In Duranti

(Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 66–73). Blackwell.

14.

Halle

Hale

(1997). Chukchi transitive and antipassive constructions (Ms.).

15.

Haugen

J. D.

(2008). Morphology at the interfaces: Reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. John Benjamins.

16.

Hill

J. H.

(1973). Subordinate clause density and language function. In Corum

Smith-Clark

T. C.

Weiser

(Eds.), You take the high node and I’ll take the low node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival (pp. 33–52). Chicago Linguistic Society.

17.

Kantarovich

(2020). Argument structure and alignment in language shift: An investigation of modern Chukchi language use [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago].

18.

Kasstan

(2019). Emergent sociolinguistic variation in severe language endangerment. Language in Society, 48(5), 685–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000472

19.

Labov

(1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

20.

Mahowald

Graff

Hartman

Gibson

(2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language, 92(3), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0052

21.

Mansfield

Stanford

(2017). Documenting sociolinguistic variation in lesser-studied Indigenous communities: Challenges and practical solutions. Language Documentation & Conservation, 13, 116–136. (Special Publication on Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages).

22.

Milroy

(1992). Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21, 1–26.

23.

Mithun

(1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60(4), 847–894.

24.

Mithun

(1989). The incipient obsolescence of polysynthesis: Cayuga in Ontario and Oklahoma. In Dorian

N. C.

(Ed.), Investigating obsolescence (pp. 243–257). Cambridge University Press.

25.

Mithun

(2017). Argument marking in the polysynthetic verb and its implications. In Fortescue

Mithun

Evans

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis (pp. 30–58). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.013.4

26.

Nagy

(2017). Documenting variation in (endangered) heritage languages: How and why?. Language Documentation & Conservation, 13, 33–64. (Special Publication on Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages).

27.

Nedjalkov

V. P.

(1977). Posessivnost’ i inkorporatsija v chukotskom jazyke (inkorporatsiia podlezhashchego) [Possessivity and incorporation in Chukchi (incorporation of subject)]. In Khrakovskij

V. S.

(Ed.), Problemy lingvisticheskoj tipologii i struktury jazyka [Problems of linguistic typology and language structure] (pp. 108–138). Nauka.

28.

Nedjalkov

V. P.

(1982). Chukotskie glagoly s inkorporirovannym podlezhashchim [Chukchi verbs with an incorporated subject]. In Katsnel’son

S. D.

Kordi

E. E.

(Eds.), Kategorija sub”ekta i ob”ekta v jazykakh razlichnykh tipov [The category of subject and object in different types of languages] (pp. 135–153). Nauka.

29.

O’Rourke

Pojolar

Ramallo

(2015). New speakers of minority languages: The challenging opportunity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2015(231), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2014-0029

30.

Park

C. D.

(1980). Productivity of derivational morphemes among bilingual children [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 7–11, Boston.

31.

Polinskaja

M. S.

(1991). Inkorporirovannoe slovo v chukotskom jazyke [The incorporated word in Chukchi]. In Vardul

I. F.

(Ed.), Morfema i problemy tipologii [The morpheme and problems of typology] (pp. 357–382). Nauka.

32.

Polinsky

(2018). Heritage languages and their speakers. Cambridge University Press.

33.

Pupynina

M. J.

(2018). Osobennosti kolymskogo varianta chukotskogo jazyka [Features of the Kolyma variant of the Chukchi language]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Questions of Linguistics], 3, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0373658X18030054

34.

Pupynina

M. J.

Koryakov

(2019). Chukchi-speaking communities in three Russian regions: A 120-year story of language shift. Sibirica, 18(2), 78–124. https://doi.org/10.3167/sib.2019.180205

35.

Rosen

S. T.

(1989). Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language, 65(2), 294–317.

36.

Sapir

(1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt/Brace.

37.

Sasse

H.-J.

(2001). Typological changes in language obsolescence. In Haspelmath

König

Oesterreicher

Raible

(Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (pp. 1668–1677). Mouton de Gruyter.

38.

Schmidt

(1985). Young people’s Dyirbal: An example of language death from Australia. Cambridge University Press.

39.

Sherkina-Lieber

Murasugi

(2015). Noun incorporation and case in Heritage Inuktitut [Proceedings]. 2015 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, May 30–June 1, University of Ottawa.

40.

Skorik

P. J.

(1948). Ocherki po sintaksisu chukotskogo jazyka [Essays on the syntax of the Chukchi language] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uchpedgiz].

41.

Skorik

P. J.

(1961). Grammatika chukotskogo jazyka [The grammar of the Chukchi language] (Vol. 1). Akademija Nauk USSR.

42.

Skorik

P. J.

(1977). Grammatika chukotskogo jazyka [The grammar of the Chukchi language] (Vol. 2). Akademija Nauk USSR.

43.

Tilstra

McMaster

(2007). Productivity, fluency, and grammaticality measures from narratives: Potential indicators of language proficiency?. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 29, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108314866

44.

Tyler

Nagy

(1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90002-8

45.

Vakhtin

(1998). Endangered languages in Northeast Siberia: Siberian Yupik and other languages of Chukotka. In Kasten

(Ed.), Bicultural education in the north: Ways of preserving and enhancing indigenous peoples’ languages and traditional knowledge (pp. 159–173). Waxmann Verlag.

46.

Vakhtin

Gruzdeva

(2017). Language obsolescence in polysynthetic languages. In Fortescue

Mithun

Evans

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis (pp. 428–446). Oxford University Press.