visas tekstas - VPU biblioteka - Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas

12
Substrate phonetic effects in North Russian dialects
bilingualism, normally leading to interaction of the
two languages. In some areas Finno-Ugric languages
are still spoken (e.g.Vepsian), but on a larger area
only Russian dialects survive. Yet, some traces of
substrate influence are still found in North Russian
dialects, and their role in local accents has been
underestimated so far.
The problem with substrate effects does not only
resolve into the fact that they are underestimated
or even neglected. Research in this field requires
competence in both Russian dialectology and Finno-
Ugriс studies. These two branches are traditionally
treated separately and irrespective of one another.
Specialists in Russian dialectology hardly ever appeal
to substrate and prefer to concentrate on inherent
features of the dialect that could result in a certain
effect. In fact, substrate is only appealed to when
all possible means to explain the effect in terms of
inherent phonetics are exhausted, and no clear proof
is commonly demonstrated, so the very concept of
substrate turns vague and not convincing.
Substrate effects in North Russian dialects are best
investigated in the field of lexis. Much fieldwork has
been done to discover words of Finno-Ugric origin in
North Russian (mainly North-West Russian) dialects,
and several books appeared on substrate words and
their etymology (see Мызников, 2003; Мызников,
2004). The number of substrate words in these regions
amounts to one thousand, and these words are
normally concerned with nature, landscape, human
activities, such as fishing and hunting, and were obviously
taken on by the Slavic newcomers from the
indigenous peoples. The study of substrate words is
carried out by specialists in Finno-Ugric languages
who aim to find the closest equivalents of substrate
words and thus to identify the Finno-Ugric language
they were borrowed from. Also, development of
meaning is studied as well as phonetic adjustment of
a foreign word to Russian articulation basis.
In grammar, substrate effects are arguable. There
are few clear-cut cases in North-Russian local grammatical
systems that are parallel to the patterns used
in substrate Finno-Ugric languages. Among the most
probable examples of the kind is the use of nominative
case (instead of accusative) for a direct object
with infinitive, which must be due to the same pattern
in Finno-Ugric.
In phonetics, the influence is much more difficult
to trace. A reasonable reference to substrate in phonetics
should imply a comparison of phonetic and
phonological systems of both languages and a clear
demonstration of the factors that caused the sound
change. Yet, it is possible to detect substrate effects
Šiaurės rusų dialektų fonetiniai pakitimai: substrato
poveikis
from Finno-Ugric languages in present-day Russian
dialects and in Old Russian manuscripts that reflect
local accents. Further in the abstract, we focus upon
such unresolved issues of substrate influence.
In numerous North Russian dialects, particularly
in Karelia, the fricative [j] sound is lacking from the
articulation basis of the dialect speakers. It is consistently
substituted by an occlusive sound described
either as occlusive [j], or as a very palatalized [g’’].
Old Russian manuscripts give evidence of the latter,
with examples like гехали, угезд, пригежалъ, found
in 17 th century local North Russian texts (Галинская,
2002, 68–70). In the course of expedition (summer
of 2007, Vologda region) we made a record, which
shows consistent use of a very palatalized [g’’] instead
of [j]: [mog’’a], [g’’a], [os’en’g’’u], [s’em’g’’a].
The speaker was a bilingual Vepsian woman, and
fricative [j] was absent from her articulation basis.
In this particular case, substrate effect is evident, as
lack of [j] is a specific feature of Middle-Vepsian
dialect. Thus, a bilingual Vepsian speaker replaces
[j] in Russian words with a sound closest to it in
her articulation basis, i.e. [g’’]. Substrate nature of
this effect was first assumed in 1986 (Суханова,
Муллонен, 1986), and the latest research proves this
assumption right.
A similar effect occurs when fricative [h] sound
is substituted by occlusive [k], e.g. [kl’ev], [kutor],
[krapet’], [kolodno] instead of [hl’ev], [hutor], [hrapet’],
[holodno] respectively. This effect is found in
many Russian dialects, though it is never a consistent
sound change and occurs only in a number of
words. It must be due to substrate influence, as most
Finno-Ugric languages, such as Karelian, Vepsian,
Komi, etc. lack [h] from their sound system (Русская
диалектология, 2005, 56–57).
Another point to mention is pronunciation of
European [l] sound instead of palatalized Russian
[l’], an effect that is not so common as that with the
substitution of a non-palatalized Russian [l]. Still,
it is found in north-eastern Russian dialects and in
a great deal of Old Russian manuscripts, including
birch-bark documents from medieval Novgorod.
Such cases of sound substitution are evident from
the comparison of phonological systems of North
Russian dialects and Finno-Ugric languages that
had been used by indigenous population in the past.
Apart from these, substrate effects show in more
complicated phenomena, involving not only detached
sounds, but phonological categories as such. For
instance, some Russian dialects are known to differ
from standard Russian in the correlation of voiced
and voiceless consonants. This is supposed to cause
Irina V. BEGUNTS