language contact in the arctic volume 541 (northern pidgins and contact languages) || language...

Language contact in northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka)

Bernard Comrie

Introduction

The aim of this article is to investigate the kinds of language contact that have characterized northeastern Siberia, more specifically the Chukotka and Kamchatka peninsulas.1 It is thus not directly concerned with Arctic pidgins — for pidgins in this area, reference should be made to the contri-bution to this volume by Willem de Reuse - but it does discuss the kinds of language contact that are a prerequisite to the development of pidgins. The main indigenous languages of Chukotka and Kamchatka are the Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages, generally reckoned to be five in number: Chukchi, Koryak, Kerek, Alutor, and Kamchadal (Itelmen). Of these, the first four are very close to one another, while Kamchadal is highly divergent. "Kamchadal" originally covered a group of probably three related languages or highly divergent dialects, but of these only Western Kamchadal has survived to be the subject of intensive linguistic investigation. Of the languages of the Chukotko-Kamchatkan family, dis-cussion will be confined, for present purposes, to Chukchi and Western Kamchadal; most of what is said of Chukchi would also apply to Koryak, probably also to Kerek and Alutor, with the exception that these last two underwent no development as written languages in the Soviet period. In addition, a further indigenous language (or, more accurately, group of languages) will play an important role in what follows, namely Siberian Yupik, a member of the Eskimo branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family. Siberian Yupik represents an immigration of Yupik Eskimo into Siberia, and the language is currently spoken both on the Russian side of the Bering Strait and on St. Lawrence Island, administratively part of the state of Alaska in the USA.2 The main nonindigenous language rele-vant to language contact in this area is Russian, although English also plays a certain role, even in speech varieties of areas under Russian ad-ministration.

Brought to you by | Ohio State Univ.-HEA (Ohio State University Libraries)Authenticated | 172.16.1.226

Download Date | 5/11/12 6:05 PM

34 Bernard Comrie

Three contact situations will be discussed below: Chukchi and Russian (and also English), Central Siberian Yupik and Chukchi, and Western Kamchadal and Russian. It will be observed that two of these contact situations involve a nonindigenous language, while one involves two in-digenous languages. This distinction, however, is not the most salient classificatory feature of these language-contact situations. Rather, the Chukchi-Russian (-English) contacts stand out as an instance of super-ficial lexical borrowing, in the traditional sense of this term, while those involving Central Siberian Yupik-Chukchi and Western Kamchadal -Russian attest to a more intimate relationship between the two languages involved, more akin to language mixing or language shift. These terms - borrowing, language shift, language mixing - are used essentially in the senses in which they are introduced in Thomason and Kaufman (1988). Borrowing in its narrow sense refers to a situation where one language borrows, at least initially, only lexical items from another, pri-marily nonbasic lexical items, indeed in the first instance usually only lexical items to name new objects or concepts borrowed from the other language's speakers. Borrowing can be recognized by the prevalence of nouns among the borrowed elements, in the most superficial instances of borrowing to the exclusion of all other loans. Language mixing, by con-trast, presupposes a fairly detailed knowledge of both languages by those who initially carry out the mixing, with the result that much less salient parts of one language's structure are incorporated into the other. As such, language mixing presupposes a closer social contact between speakers of the two languages. Language shift occurs where speakers of a language abandon their language in favor of another language, carrying over cer-tain features of their original language into the new language; since these speakers are by definition familiar with the first language, they can carry over features that would require an intimate knowledge of that language.

1. Early Chukchi contacts with Russian (and English)

By "early" contact I mean contact that took place before the develop-ment of Chukchi as a written language, which took place primarily in the period from 1930. As part of the process of developing Chukchi as a written language, a substantial volume of vocabulary was borrowed from Russian, written in exactly the same way as it is written in Russian (even to the extent of using cyrillic letters that form part of the Russian alpha-bet but are not used in indigenous Chukchi words). For the early period,



Language contact in northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka) 35

an invaluable source is Bogoras (1922), based on the author's own life among the Chukchi (and other Chukotko-Kamchatkan peoples) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in particular during expedi-tions in 1895-1897 and 1900-1901. By this time, there were already well developed contacts between (at least some) Chukchi and local Russian seafarers and traders, so that Chukchi had had to come to terms with naming various foreign concepts. Bogoras notes that the usual Chukchi response at this period was to create new lexical items from indigenous lexical resources.

Chukchi gloss translation keli- carve 'write' keli-kel carving 'drawing; writing;

letter, book' keli-t?ul carve-piece 'paper' kale-tko-ra-n carve-HAB-house-ABS 'school' tin-hle-t ice-eye-PL '(eye) glasses' tin-uqqem ice-deep:vessel 'bottle' tin-puvtdn ice-jar 'glass jar' rirje-nerj fly-thing 'airplane'

The verb stem keli- in Chukchi originally meant (and can still be used to mean) 'carve'. Its semantic range was extended, under contact with li-terate Russians, to mean 'write'.3 The next three items in (1) are deriva-tives of keli-. The same stem keli- can also be used as a nominal stem, referring to the product of the action denoted by the verb stem keli-, for this particular nominal formation, the absolutive singular form of the noun, also used as its citation form, is formed by reduplicating the initial CVC of the stem, a morphophonemic process that is quite widespread in Chukchi. The suffix -t?ul is widely used in Chukchi to mean 'piece, con-crete object', so that keli-t?ul has the meaning 'paper', in some varieties of Chukchi also 'money'. Both the extension of the meaning of keli- and these derivatives with these senses are noted by Bogoras and are still current in Chukchi; they are listed, for instance, in Moll - Inenlikej 1957. The next item in (1) shows the use of Chukchi linguistic material to pro-vide equivalents of words reflecting new social conditions, rather than just material objects; it is presumably subsequent to Bogoras's time, at least not being mentioned by him, but is listed by Moll - Inenlikej. The stem keli- appears in its vowel harmony alternant kale-·,4 to this is at-tached a suffix -tku (vowel harmony variant -tko), which indicates habit-



36 Bernard Comrie

ual action; to this is attached the element -ra, which appears in indepen-dent form as the noun yaraip (stem yam-) 'house'; to which is attached finally the suffix -n, a lexically determined indicator of absolutive case in the singular. This item can thus be glossed more literally as 'house in which one habitually writes', a not unreasonable expression for 'school'. The Chukchi lexical item tin-, literally 'ice', is used in a number of neolo-gisms to mean 'glass', and here we find it combined with ble-t 'eyes' (where -t is the plural absolutive suffix); the sense is thus literally 'ice (or glass) eyes', i. e., '(eye) glasses'. This item is cited both by Bogoras and by Moll and Inenlikej. In addition, Bogoras cites tin-uqqem 'bottle', while Moll and Inenlikej cite tin-puvtan 'glass jar'. The last item is post-Bo-goras, though still current in Chukchi: the Chukchi suffix -nerj, attached to a verb stem, indicates an instrument for performing the action denoted by that verb, so that when attached to the stem riqe- 'fly', the result is an instrument for flying, or an airplane.

Though rarer, Bogoras notes that Chukchi also borrowed some words directly from Russian. Some examples are given in (2).

Chukchi Russian English taaq tabak 'tobacco' caqar saxar 'sugar' cay (PL cag-td) caj 'tea' kone-kon kon' 'horse' col sol' 'salt' toroma zdorovo 'hello'5

In nearly all such instances, however, one finds adaptation of the loan word to the phonological and morphological patterns of Chukchi. Thus, Russian sounds that are nonexistent in Chukchi are replaced by the clos-est Chukchi sound, as when /s/ is replaced by the palatal affricate, here transcribed c, in caqar and col, or /x/ is replaced by the uvular plosive /q/ in caqar, or the distinctive palatalization of the word-final nasal of Rus-sian kon' is lost, or /b/ is simply dropped in taaq. The noun cay follows the pattern of other Chukchi nouns with final y in selecting the -te variant of the absolutive plural suffix and changing y to g (a voiced velar frica-tive) before this suffix (as before t more generally). The word for 'horse' has the stem kone-, and its absolutive singular is formed by means of the same kind of initial CVC reduplication noted in (1) for keli-kel, to give kone-kon. Nearly all of the examples cited by Bogoras are nouns, the only exception being the greeting toroma, again a kind of item likely to




be easily assimilated even in superficial contact. Finally, Bogoras also notes items that combine use of native material and borrowing, as in taa2-koyrpn 'pipe (for tobacco)'. The first component is the already noted loan taaq, with the regular shift of /q/ to [2] before a consonant. The second component, koyrpn, has the original meaning 'cup' in Chukchi.

In addition to the contact with Russian, Chukchi also had direct con-tacts with English, resulting from direct contacts between speakers of Chukchi and American seafarers, with the result that there are even a few items of English origin, surviving in use to the present day, such as mane-man 'money' (and derived from English money, with the same kind of reduplication as in the case of kone-kon), and krscm-dn, which in Chukchi means simply 'holiday', but has its origin in English Christmas.6

To sum up the contents of this section: Chukchi lexical innovation under foreign influence at this period reflects primarily the creation of terminology to refer to new objects and concepts. The primary means was creation of new lexical items using indigenous patterns of derivational morphology, although there were also some direct loans from Russian (and English), all undergoing necessary nativization in phonology and morphology. It will also have been noted that virtually all the items cited are nouns. All of this is characteristic of borrowing in its narrow sense, as a result of relatively superficial contact between languages.

2. Central Siberian Yupik contacts with Chukchi

Contact has been intense between Central Siberian Yupik and Chukchi, with the direction of influence being almost exclusively from Chukchi to Central Siberian Yupik, no doubt reflecting the numerical predominance of speakers of Chukchi.7 The linguistic results of this contact have been noted by investigators of both the Central Siberian Yupik of Russia (e. g., Menovscikov 1968) and that of St. Lawrence Island (e. g., Jacobson 1977). The presence of such Chukchi loans in the Central Siberian Yupik of St. Lawrence is particularly interesting, since direct contact between St. Lawrence Island and the Siberian mainland was virtually nonexistent during the period of the Cold War (1948-1989), so Chukchi items show-ing up in the speech of St. Lawrence Islanders are presumably well in-grained in the language. Central Siberian Yupik items are cited below in the phonemic orthography used by Jacobson (1977), except that vowel length, not shown by Menovscikov, is indicated only for items also cited by Jacobson. Some of the lexical items of Chukchi origin found in



38 Bernard Comrie

Central Siberian Yupik are nouns with concrete reference, such as yay-waali, from Chukchi yeyvel 'orphan', and guygu, from Chukchi guygu-n 'summer dwelling' (in the latter Chukchi item, -n is an absolutive singular suffix). However, Jacobson (1977: 90) notes:

The loans from Chukchi are presumably fairly ancient borrowings. They are largely, though not entirely, uninflectable words such as adverbs, con-junctions, interjections, etc.8

In (3), the first four items are cited by Jacobson (and Menovscikov), while the others are taken from Menovscikov; Badten et al. (1987) con-firm that all items are found in the speech of St. Lawrence Islanders:

(3) Chukchi Central Siberian Yupik English

An extended list of over 50 such items of Chukchi origin is given by Menovscikov (1968). Most of them are adverbs or particles and, in the absence of more detailed research, the English glosses should be taken with a certain pinch of salt: translations given by Jacobson do not always correspond to those given (in Russian) by Menovscikov, though this is surely in large part due to the difficulty of translating such idiomatic particles from any language into another (and in the case of Menovscikov as source, the fact that there is not only Menovscikov's translation from Central Siberian Yupik to Russian but also whatever further problems are introduced by my translation from Russian to English). The glosses of Central Siberian Yupik items, moreover, do not always correspond exactly to the glosses given to the corresponding Chukchi items by Moll - Inenlikej (1957), but this could reflect semantic shifts that occurred when the items moved from one language to the other, or that have occurred in one or the other language in the period since these words entered Central Siberian Yupik.

Phonetically, all such items are adapted to the phonology of Central Siberian Yupik. While in some cases this involves little or no change, there are other instances of clear adaptation, perhaps noticeably to the

rdpet repall lureq luuraq enmec enmis viin wini evdr iiwen dtiraq enraq

venhgi wanlegi 'all the same' 'even' 'probably' 'already' 'aha' 'if' 'but'




Central Siberian Yupik three-vowel system of i, u, a, thus losing Chukchi e and o. (In the orthography used on St. Lawrence Island, e represents shwa.)

It should be noted that, prior to the appearance of these items of Chukchi, Central Siberian Yupik presumably, like most other varieties of Eskimo, was poor in uninflected words of this kind. In all varieties of Eskimo the primary devices corresponding to particles and conjunctions are verbal affixes or clitics, so that the absorption of these words from Chukchi has given rise to a typological innovation, or at least a statistical shift in type, in this variety of Eskimo.

The social conditions that gave rise to this kind of borrowing - pri-marily restricted to particles - must have been very different from that characterizing the contact of Chukchi and Russian. In the case of Chukchi—Russian contact, one society (Chukchi) was essentially borrow-ing a range of objects and concepts from another society and forced into the position of having to name them. In the case of Central Siberian Yupik and Chukchi, the two cultures were presumably technologically at very similar levels, though with Chukchi clearly dominant numerically and possibly characterized by greater "prestige" in this encounter. The kinds of lexical items that were introduced from Chukchi into Central Siberian Yupik suggest a body of people familiar with both languages, and indeed, in the absence of direct historical evidence, a number of possibilities exist for how these Chukchi items found their way into Central Siberian Yupik; possibly some combination of these possibilities was at play:

i. Speakers of Central Siberian Yupik who acquired a good command of Chukchi may simply have liked these newfangled forms they en-countered in Chukchi, perhaps influenced by greater prestige of Chukchi, and have started using them in their own language, their usage subsequently spreading to the community as a whole, even to those speakers of Central Siberian Yupik who did not speak Chukchi.

ii. Speakers of Chukchi may have learned Central Siberian Yupik but have retained these items from their native Chukchi, their usage sub-sequently being imitated by the Central Siberian Yupik community as a whole (again, with the prestige of Chukchi perhaps playing a role); the fact that the closest Central Siberian Yupik functional equivalents would usually have been affixes and clitics, more difficult for the foreign learner to isolate, may have been a factor favoring this development.



40 Bernard Comrie

iii. True bilinguals, perhaps the children of one Central Siberian Yupik and one Chukchi parent, may have created this "mixed" language (the quotes being used to indicate that the result is clearly basically Central Siberian Yupik, rather than a roughly equal mixture of the two linguistic systems), once again their usage subsequently spreading to the community as a whole.

3. Western Kamchadal (Western Itelmen) contacts with Russian

Kamchadal, even in the narrower sense of Western Kamchadal, is now a virtually extinct language, which has been heavily eroded by Russian, not only in the sense of Western Kamchadal speakers shifting to Russian but also in the wholesale incorporation of Russian elements into Western Kamchadal. In Bogoras's time, however, what struck him was not, as in the case of Chukchi, the existence of nouns borrowed from Russian, but rather the fact that "most of the Kamchadal conjunctions have been re-placed by the Russian (local) forms" (Bogoras 1922: 881).9

The items listed in (4) are among those identified by Bogoras in this connection; in the lefthand column, Bogoras's orthography is retained.

(4) Western Kamchadal Russian English i i 'and' dai dai 'and' je ze 'but' tolko tol'ko 'only' dotopera do topera 'so far, till now' potom potom 'then, subsequently'

It should be noted that what surprised Bogoras was not so much the fact that Western Kamchadal had borrowed conjunctions from Russian, but rather that this appeared to him to be the most salient kind of borrowing. Indeed, Western Kamchadal had not only borrowed Russian conjunc-tions, but had in the process virtually lost its native inventory of conjunc-tions. (The other Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages have a well defined set of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, and there is no reason to suppose that Western Kamchadal was markedly different be-fore its contact with Russian; a few indigenous Western Kamchadal con-junctions were retained.)




More recent studies of Western Kamchadal, in particular Volodin (1976), confirm the basis of Bogoras's surprise. The situation is particu-larly clear in traditional stories told by older speakers of Western Kamchadal. Their texts are virtually free of borrowed Russian nouns (in part, of course, because they are dealing with a traditional subject matter where such lexical items would be unlikely to occur), but are replete with Russian conjunctions and other particles, to the exclusion of Western Kamchadal equivalents. Example (5) is the beginning of a traditional story, from the full text given in Volodin (1976: 395—403). The narrator is Varvara Iosifovna Ponomareva (1909—1973), described by Volodin as the best of his informants and as someone who spoke only Western Kamchadal into her teens. Thus both the speaker and the topic are such as to suggest the lowest incidence of Russian loans. Yet the first 45 words of the text contain no fewer than seven Russian conjunctions and par-ticles. This ratio is by no means atypical for the text as a whole. In (5), these items of Russian origin are indicated by underlining.10

(5) ksunlqzukne?n ememqut i smaqewt. theyrlived Ememqut and Sinyangewt. 'Once upon a time, there lived Ememqut and Sinyangewt.' lem ksunlqzukne?n sislxan lilixl?in si?rim, also they:lived Sislkhan sister Sirim 'There also lived Sislkhan and his sister Sirim,' qa?m wetatkenka?n not working 'who didn't work,' a si?rim qunix qamzatantalqzuzen qa?m k'enk laq. but Sirim also wanted:marry not anyone took 'but Sirim also wanted to get married but no one would take her.' ememqut klelexlcom klawülknen ememqut kyeniknen Ememqut with:sister they:sat Ememqut said 'Ememqut was sitting with his sister and Ememqut said:' kazza kwarjikas a kdmma kalxe?n tskqzayalcen. you sew and I arrows will:make 'You sew and I will make arrows.' tolko zaq kdmmanke dlckukaq only not at:me look 'Only don't look at me'



42 Bernard Comrie

i kdmma knanke xe?Ac milckukicen. and I at:you not will:look 'and I won't look at you.' ememqut potom kdmck'elqkuknen Ememqut then got:bored 'Then Ememqut bot bored' i lelexlanke k'iretl klaxlknen. and at:sister sidewards he:looked 'and he glanced sidewards at his sister.'

The precise incidence of Russian conjunctions does vary somewhat from text to text, although the basis for this variation is not clear to me. Of the two main dialects of Western Kamchadal, namely Sedanka and Khayryuzovo (called Napana by Volodin [1976: 16-19]), Ponomareva is a speaker of the Khayryuzovo dialect, the one least affected by Russian. As pointed out to me by Willem de Reuse, in the texts collected by Walde-mar Jochelson (Vladimir Il'ic Ioxel'son) in 1910-1911 (Worth 1961), Russian conjunctions are absent from the Khayryuzovo texts but present in the Sedanka texts. In the approximately sixty years separating Jochel-son's texts from Volodin's, the Khayryuzovo dialect seems to have moved to a degree of Russianization roughly similar to that of the Sedanka dialect sixty years before.

As with contact between Central Siberian Yupik and Chukchi, we need to enquire what kinds of social conditions could give rise to this kind of transference between Russian and Western Kamchadal. The Russian speakers with whom the Western Kamchadal would have come into first intensive contact would not have been occasional visitors (like the seafar-ers with whom the Chukchi had their earliest contacts), but rather sett-lers, and while in certain respects the Russian speakers would have been culturally dominant, the differences were probably not too great: both Russian speakers and Western Kamchadal speakers were faced with essentially the same problems of survival in a not particularly clement environment, and while the new settlers would have had some material advantages, the indigenous population would certainly have had the ad-vantage of greater experience. Mingling of the two communities through common households was probably widespread. One nonlinguistic, or at least not exclusively linguistic, reflection of the difference between Rus-sian-Western Kamchadal and Russian-Chukchi contacts can be seen in the fact that while the Western Kamchadal have Russian family names, the Chukchi have family names based on their own traditional names.




Linguistic mixing presumably went hand in hand with the other close relations between Western Kamchadal and Russian speakers, with no doubt all of the following processes being to some extent involved: West-ern Kamchadal speakers with a good knowledge of Russian being attracted by Russian conjunctions and particles and introducing them into their own speech; Russian speakers learning Western Kamchadal but retaining some of their own conjunctions and particles, perhaps because they could find no exact Western Kamchadal equivalents, with subse-quent introduction of these particles into the speech of native speakers of Western Kamchadal; bilinguals (perhaps the children of Western Kamchadal and Russian parents) introducing elements of one language into the other, with this mixed language then being adopted by the com-munity as a whole.11 It is interesting that, whatever the origin of the introduction of Russian conjunctions and particles into Western Kamchadal, they were sufficiently integrated into Western Kamchadal that they are so salient in the speech of someone like Varvara Iosifovna Ponomareva, who considered herself a monolingual speaker of Western Kamchadal into her teens.

4. Conclusions

As a result in part of studies of pidgin and Creole languages, in part of more wide-ranging studies of language contact like Thomason — Kauf-man 1988, our horizons on the nature of language contact have been vastly expanded. The three case studies presented in this article might seem contradictory from a traditional language-contact perspective: we find two cases where languages have borrowed conjunctions and particles widely but without corresponding widespread borrowing of nouns; more-over, the patterns of borrowing do not seem to correlate with traditional conceptions of culturally more and less dominant languages. These dif-ferent types of language contact must, empirically, be recognized. And while we may never know the precise demographic processes that un-derlie these differences in the particular case of the languages of north-eastern Siberia, such knowledge as we have, supplemented by intelligent speculation, suggests that these differences are by no means arbitrary, but reflect in particular the difference between superficial language con-tact and language contact involving intimate relations between the speak-ers of the languages involved.



44 Bernard Comrie

Notes

1. I have benefited not only from comments from other participants at the Tromso work-shop but also from comments by Willem de Reuse on an earlier written version.

2. A divergent variety of Siberian Yupik, Sireniki, spoken in the like-named settlement on the Russian side of the Bering Strait, is virtually extinct and will not be further consid-ered here; the same is true of the likewise virtually extinct Inupiaq dialect of Big Dio-mede island. The rest of Siberian Yupik is divided between two mutually unintelligible varieties, Chaplino/St. Lawrence and Naukan; material here relates to Chaplino/St. Lawrence, hereafter referred to as Central Siberian Yupik. The Tungusic language Even (Lamut) is also spoken in Chukotka and Kamchatka; I have not yet investigated lin-guistic contacts involving Even. The remarkable contact language involving Aleut and Russian that has developed on Copper (Mednyj) Island, administratively part of Kamchatka, is independent of the contact situations discussed in this article; for discus-sion of Copper Island Aleut, reference should be made to the contribution to this volume by Evgenij V. Golovko.

3. One might compare the development of Old English writan, originally 'scratch' (cf. German reißen) to mean 'write'; German, by contrast, simply borrowed Latin scrTbere to give Old High German scrTban, modern schreiben. And note that even Latin scrTbere originally meant 'engrave'.

4. In Chukchi, if one morpheme of a word contains one of the dominant vowels e2, o, a, then all recessive vowels (/', u, et) of the word must change to the corresponding domi-nant vowel. Some morphemes containing only the neutral vowel 3, or indeed containing no vowel at all, are also morphophonemically dominant and trigger this replacement. The vowels ei and e2 are at least morphophonemically distinct.

5. Glossed by Bogoras as 'how is your health', though in fact the Russian and, presuma-bly, the Chukchi are used as greetings.

6. For a fuller list, see de Reuse (1992). 7. For a more detailed list of loans and account of the social background, see de Reuse

(1994). 8. Willem de Reuse points out to me that, from a strictly numerical viewpoint, there are

actually more noun stems than particles borrowed from Chukchi into Central Siberian Yupik. However, the proportion of Central Siberian Yupik nouns that is of Chukchi origin is several magnitudes smaller than the proportion of particles of Chukchi origin. Moreover, many of the nouns are concentrated in one area, reindeer herding, presuma-bly an instance of loan words accompanying a borrowed phenomenon.

9. By "local" Bogoras refers to the fact that some of these items, such as topera 'now', are not characteristic of standard Russian (which has teper'), but rather of the varieties spoken by Russian settlers in Kamchatka.

10. As the morphological structure of the indigenous Western Kamchadal words is not at issue here, I have given a word-by-word rather than a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss in the second line.

11. On the plausible assumption that Western Kamchadal, like the other Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages, did have indigenous conjunctions, the second process would not exactly have paralleled the contact between Central Siberian Yupik and Chukchi, where Chukchi speakers learning Central Siberian Yupik may well have had difficulty identifying Central Siberian Yupik morphemes corresponding in function to their own




particles. However, conjunctions and particles rarely provide exact matches across lan-guages, even closely related languages, so that Russian speakers may still have been tempted to continue using their own particles, to retain the expressive power of their own language.

References

Badten, Linda Womkon - Kaneshiro, Vera Oovi - Jacobson, Steven A. 1987 A dictionary of the St. Lawrence Island!Siberian Yupik Eskimo language. Fair-

banks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska. Bogoras, Waldemar (= Bogoraz, V. G.)

1922 "Chukchee", in: Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, Vol. 2. Washington DC: Government Printer, 631—903.

Jacobson, Steven A. 1977 A grammatical sketch of Siberian Yupik Eskimo as spoken on St. Lawrence

Island, Alaska. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska.

Menovscikov, Georgij Alekseevic 1968 Grammatika jazyka aziatskix eskimosov, c. 2 [Grammar of the language of

the Asiatic Eskimos, Part 2.] Leningrad: Nauka. Moll, Tat'jana A. - Petr I. Inenlikej

1957 Cukotsko-russkijslovar'[Chukchi-Russian dictionary.] Leningrad: Ucpedgiz. de Reuse, Willem

1992 English loanwords in the native languages of Chukotka peninsula, Common-wealth of Independent States. [Unpublished manuscript, University of Ari-zona, Tucson.]

1994 Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Thomason, Sarah Grey — Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of

California Press. Volodin, Aleksandr Pavlovic

1976 Itel'menskijjazyk [The Itelmen language.] Leningrad: Nauka. Worth, Dean S.

1961 Kamchadal texts collected by W. Jochelson. The Hague: Mouton.



language contact in the arctic volume 541 (northern pidgins and contact languages) || language...

Documents