CC BY
15
EXPRESSIVE VOWEL REDUCTION IN CENTRAL SIBERIAN YUPIK ESKIMO:
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION1
Of the Arctic regions of the world, the area including Chukotka Peninsula in the Russian Far East, and St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, can be considered to be the most complex one from a linguistic point of view. In this area, the variety of Eskimo languages spoken in the past and in the present has been more marked than anywhere else. At least three different Eskimo languages were spoken in this area until recently: Central Siberian Yupik, henceforth CSY (called Chaplinski in Russia, and Yupik or Akuzipik on St. Lawrence Island), Naukanski, spoken near East Cape, Chukotka Peninsula, and Sirenikski, which was spoken in Sireniki, on the southern coast of Chukotka Peninsula [de Reuse 1994]. Sirenikski became extinct when its last speaker, Valentina Weye (also spelled Vye), died in 1997. Sirenikski has long been considered a member of the Yupik subgroup, but it is better to consider it the unique member of a third branch of Eskimo, distinct from the Yupik and Inuit branches. The suggestion that Sirenikski is neither Yupik nor Inuit was first made in print by Krauss [1985a: 4],
1 Earlier versions of this paper, under the title “Diminutive Vowel Neutralization in CSY”, were presented at the University of Chicago Department of Linguistics Wednesday Seminar, April 4th, 1988, at the Summer Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Tucson, Arizona, in July 1989, and at the Seventh Inuit Studies Conference, Fairbanks, AK, August 20th, 1990. I thank these audiences for their comments. I thank CSY storytellers Timothy Gologergen, Grace Slwooko, Jimmie Toolie, Nick Wongittilin, and CSY language experts Linda Badten and Vera Metcalf for their kind help. I am grateful to Steven Jacobson, Michael Krauss, Nikolai Vakhtin, and Raoul Zamponi for comments on this paper. This paper is partially based upon fieldwork supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant BNS-8418256 to the University of Texas at Austin in 1985. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
and later approvingly commented upon by Vakhtin [1991: 102], who refers to it as the “Krauss model”2. A non-Eskimo language in close contact with these three Eskimo languages is Chukchi, which belongs to the Chukotko-Kamchatkan family [Fortescue 2005].
In a former paper [de Reuse 2007], I showed that a careful examination of folklore from this area shows diffusion from Chukchi into the Eskimo languages of the area. In this paper, I want to draw attention to another unusual phenomenon which can be found in CSY folklore3.
Consider the line in (1), from a well-documented ungipaghaan (pl. ungipaghaatet), a traditional tale. I looked at six versions of this tale from St. Lawrence Island: [Slwooko 1979: 7-20; Gologergen 1985; Seppilu 1985; Toolie 1985; Wongittilin 1985; Rookok n.d.], and at two versions from Chukotka: [Rubtsova 1954: 114-117], and [Bo-goraz 1901], published later in Russian as [Bogoraz 1949: 159-160]4. A giant has captured several little girls, and two of their brothers are approaching to try to free them. One girl has called out to the brothers. The giant heard something, gets suspicious, and utters (1):
(1a) Panekellemaang, sameng piiqsin? 5 [Slwooko 1979: 7-20; Gologergen 1985; Toolie 1985]
(1b) Panekellemaa, sameng piiqsin? [Rookok n.d.]
(1c) Panekellemaang, (...) sangwaapiiqsigu? [Seppilu 1985]
(1d) Panikellemaang, sameng piiqsin? [Rubtsova 1954; Wongittilin 1985]
2 The main published sources on the Sirenikski language are the monographs by Menovshchikov [1964] and by Vakhtin [2000].
3 It is a pleasure to dedicate this paper to Zhenya, who has always shown a keen interest in matters of language contact and traditional discourse.
4 A third Chukotka version of this tale [Menovshchikov 1947: 31-35] does not contain the lines we will discuss in this paper. A tenth version of the same tale is in Menovshchikov [1988], also from Chukotka, and recently edited for St. Lawrence Islanders as Koonooka [2003], but because of time limits, I did not integrate this tenth version into this paper.
5 The standard CSY spelling used in Alaska [Jacobson 2001; Badten et al. 2008] is used throughout. When quoting stems and derivational suffixes, underlying forms (ending in hyphens for stems, and beginning and ending in hyphens for suffixes) are used.
(1e) Panikellemaa, sangwaa piiqsin? [Bogoraz 1901], published as [Bogoraz 1949: 160]
‘Little daughter dear, what are you saying?’
The second part of this expression, sameng piiqsin? or sangwaa piiqsigu? ‘what are you (sg.) saying?’ is straightforward and needs no further discussion6. The first word, however, is “fairytale talk”. It appears to contain the CSY noun stem panig- ‘daughter’, some sort of diminutive or endearing suffix -kellegh-, ‘little dear N’, not to be found anywhere else in my corpus of CSY, and an apparently inflectional ending -maang or -maa, also not attested anywhere else7.
What is of interest for our purposes is that the forms panig- and -kellegh- can combine as paneke..., as opposed to the expected panike... Actually, the expected form panike... is what we get in versions (1d-e), but the elders I have consulted prefer the form paneke... as found in versions (1a-c). So the second syllable of panig- appears to have replaced its vowel i by an unexpected e (phonetically a schwa).
The appropriately evasive response of the girl is in (2):
(2a) Naaghyekellaankuk meteghllekellaankuk piiqagka ellmegneng puvukiiraaghullghiik. [Slwooko 1979: 12]
(2b) Naaghyekellaankuk piiqagka meteghllekellaankuk ellmegneng puvukiiraaghullghiik. [Seppilu 1985]
6 The sequence sangwaa piiqsin (1e) must be ungrammatical since it combines an object pronoun in the absolutive case with a 2nd person subject intransitive verb form. It was corrected to the grammatical sangwaa piiqsigu in Bogoraz [1949: 160].
7 Bogoraz [1901] comments on panikellemaa: “This form is ancient, and is only used in tales. The modern form of the vocative is panimi”. The final -ng is a CSY vocative, as noted in Menovshchikov [1962: 203-204], who also mentions the vocativepanikellemaay ‘my little daughter’, obviously the same form but with the more common vocative -y. I am grateful to Nikolai Vakhtin (p.c.) for pointing this out.
8 I have a strong suspicion that in this version, as in (2b) and (2e) below, the word teghmegneng ‘their (dual) anuses’, was edited out for reasons of propriety.
(2c) Naaghyekellaankuk meteghllekellaankuk ellmegneng tegh-
megneng puvukiiraaghullghiik piiqagka. [Gologergen 1985;
Toolie 1985; Rookok n.d.]
(2d) Nagheyekellaankuk meteghllekellaankuk ellmegneng tegh-
megneng puvukiiraaghullghiik piiqagka. [Wongittilin 1985]
(2e) Nagheyekellaankuk meteghllekellaankuk ellmegneng ugu-
mikeraaghullghiikpiiqagka. [Rubtsova 1954]
(2f) Meteghllekellaankut elqeghneng puvukiiraaghullghiit piiqanka. [Bogoraz 1901], published as [Bogoraz 1949: 160]
‘A seagull and a raven are poking each other’s behind playfully, that’s what I am saying’9.
Lines (2a-f) are also straightforward CSY, except for the two words referring to the seagull and the raven. We discuss these in turn.
Let us first look at the form nagheyekellaankuk in (2d-e), which is composed of the CSY noun stem naghuya-, ‘seagull’, the diminutive or endearing suffix -kellagh- (which must be a variant of the -kellagh- seen in (1) above), the suffix -nku-‘noun and partner’, followed by the dual inflectional ending -k.
The form meteghllekellaankuk has a parallel structure; we have the CSY noun stem meteghllug- ‘raven’, the suffix -kellagh-, the suffix -nku-, and the ending -k.
The form nagheyekellaankuk in (2d-e) is what one expects to be *naghuyakellaankuk. Here the vowels of the second and third syllables of naghuya- have been reduced to e (phonetically a schwa). We note, furthermore, a complication. The form nagheyekellaankuk more often occurs as the variant naaghyekellaankuk (2a-c), phonetically derivable from the form nagheyekellaankuk. This must be a strategy to keep the stress on a full vowel10, here the long aa, by regular CSY accent rules, and not on the reduced vowel e, (for, as Krauss [1985b: 189] reminds us, there is a tendency in all Yupik to avoid stressing the
9 The meaning is basically the same, expect that (2f) only mentions ravens (in the plural) pecking at each other. I have not been able to analyze the form elqeghneng in (2f).
10 By “full vowel”, the CSY vowels a, i, u, and their long counterparts aa, ii, uu, are meant, i. e. the vowels other than e (schwa), which cannot be lengthened.
vowel e). It might also might be a phonotactically motivated strategy to avoid the sequence -eye- (cf. also footnote 34 below).
The same process of reduction (but without the further complication) has taken place in meteghllekellaankuk, which one expects to be *meteghllukellaankuk. Here the vowel of the third syllable of meteghllug- has become e (phonetically a schwa).
So what appears to be happening in (1) and (4) is that the suffix -kellegh- or -kellagh- causes the second (and third) vowel of the noun stem it attaches to turn to schwa (if it is not already a schwa).
To summarize: panig- ->paneg-; naghuya- -> nagheye-;
meteghllug- -> metheghlleg- when followed by -kellegh- or -kellagh-. This sort of reduction (which one could alternatively call a sort of neutralization, since the vowels a, i, and u, are all neutralized to e) is a very atypical process in Eskimo morphophonemics. Eskimo suffixes can trigger a great variety of morphophonemic processes to apply to the syllable they attach to, but one thing they never do is change the quality of the vowel of the preceding syllable. Such an unusual change is likely to be expressive, and can be considered an abnormal type of speech in the sense of Sapir [1963]. In this case, the abnormal type is the sort of fairytale speech used by giants talking to little girls, or by little girls talking to giants11.
The suffix -kellegh- or -kellagh-, found only in the tale illustrated in (1) and (2), is not the only suffix that can trigger this change.The suffix portion of the CSY dictionary by Badten et al. [2008: 652-653] contains (3):
(3) -ngestagh-, -ngeltagh-, -ngertagh
‘small N, little N, to V in a small way’12.
They provide the following commentary to this entry:
with this postbase, full, non-initial vowels on the base are optionally changedto e, perhaps to emphasize the smallness13.
11 Such a phenomenon occurs in other languages as well. Steven Jacobson (p. c.) points out to me that “Yiddish reduces full vowels to e (i. e. [e], WdR) or schwa when diminutive or endearing suffixes are used with them”.
12 N indicates that the suffix can be attached to a noun stem, to form another noun or a verb, V indicates that the suffix can be attached to a verb stem to form another verb or a noun.
The idea that smallness is perhaps emphasized would also apply to the sort of fairytale talk in the exchanges between the little girl and the giant in (1) and (2). All the data from Badten et al. [2008] involving the suffix -ngestagh- (and variants) are listed in (3a-i). The stem is provided first, then the stem and suffix combination. Numbers in parentheses are the page numbers of Badten et al. [2008]:
(3a) angyagh- ‘boat’, angyangestagh-orangyengestagh- ‘small boat
used for hunting birds’ (60, 653);
(3b) ivilu- ‘clamshell; clam’, ivilengestagh- ‘razor clam shell’ (174);
(3c) kayu- ‘sculpin, bullhead; any ocean fish (especially in the sculpin
family) (196), kayengestagh- ‘small fish of some type’ (195);
(3d) mangteghagh- ‘house’, mangteghangestagh- or mang-
teghengestagh- ‘small house’ (653);
(3e) nenglagh- ‘to laugh’, nenglangestagh- or nenglengestagh- ‘to
giggle or titter’ (301, 652);
(3f) qayugh- ‘to drink tea, broth, or other hot beverage’, qayung-
estagh- or qayengestagh- ‘to drink hot beverage while doing something else; to quickly have a cup of tea or other hot beverage’, (397), ‘to have a quick cup of tea’ (652);
(3g) saguya- ‘Eskimo skin drum’ (449), saguyangestagh-, sa-
guyengestagh-, or sageyengestagh-14 (but not:
*sageyangestagh-) ‘small drum or drum-like thing’ (653);
(3h) silug- ‘feather’, silungestagh- or silengestagh- ‘tiny feather’ (476);
(3i) vegllug- ‘towel’, vegllengestagh- ‘wash cloth’ (579).
The comment in Badten et al. [2008: 653] might imply that -ngestagh- (and variants) is the only suffix with this characteristic. A detailed examination of the stem portion of this dictionary, however, turned up fourteen other suffixes, expressive and mostly diminutive in
13 To keep terminology simple, I use the term “stem” for what is usually called a “base” in Eskimo linguistics, and (derivational) “suffix” for what is usually called a “postbase” in Eskimo linguistics.
14 Steven Jacobson (p. c.) confirms that segeyengestagh- [Badten et al. 2008: 653] must be a typo for sageyengestagh-.
meaning, which also seem to trigger a change to schwa in the noninitial vowels of the stem. These are listed in (4) through (17) below. Except for (17) -vyeghagh- or -vzeghagh-, which might well be productive, these suffixes are non-productive and form lexicalized units with the preceding stems. Therefore, they are not in Badten et al.’s [2008] suffix section, since this section primarily lists productive suffixes. After the presentation of each suffix15, examples available are given (with the number followed by the letters a or a-b). As for the data in (3a-i), the stem is provided first, then the stem with the suffix. Numbers in parentheses are page numbers from Badten et al. [2008].
(4) -kegte- ‘to V in a small way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (4a);
(4a) suugllug- ‘to be irritable; to be in a bad mood; to get angry eas-
ily’, sugllekegte- ‘to slightly hit, touch or scratch; to graze (of thrown thing) (487), but the connection is dubious;
(5) -kengagh- ‘small N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (5a):
(5a) kafsag- ‘shuffling, crinkling, rustling sound’, kafsekengagh- ‘a
quiet rustling sound’ (178);
(6) -kenghagh- ‘to V in a small way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (6a):
(6a) qaprag- ‘to make a move; to squirm; to fidget; to move around;
to be active; to show signs of life’, qaprekenghagh-'to make small motions, to slowly move about’ (389);
(7) -kerregagh- ‘to V in a small way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (7a):
(7a) nayugh- ‘to stay with; to tend; to watch over; to guard; to baby-
sit’ (292), nayeqerregagh- ‘to stay closeby’ (291);
(8) -lleghyiqe- ‘to use N in a deficient way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (8a):
(8a) ighu- ‘leg’ (139), ighelleghyiqe- ‘to limp’ (135);
15 Tentative glosses of these non-productive suffixes are my own.
(9) -llengatagh- ‘small thing like N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (9a):
(9a) yaqugh- ‘wing’, yaqellengatagh- ‘butterfly; butterfly-shaped toggle’ (589)16;
(10) -ngenghagh- ‘small N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (10a):
(10a) amyag- ‘mussel’, amyengenghagh- ‘small mussel shell’ (48);
(11) -ngenghaghhagh- ‘small N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (11a-b)17:
(11a) amyag- ‘mussel’, amyengenghaghhagh- ‘small mussel shell’ [Slwooko 1979:13];
(11b) kayu- ‘sculpin, bullhead; any ocean fish (especially in the sculpin family)’ (196), kayengenghaghhagh- ‘sculpin’ (195);
(12) -nglleghte- ‘to V lightly’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (12a):
(12a) qiya- ‘to cry (shed tears)’, qiyengllegte- ‘to sob, to cry lightly’ (424);
(13) -regagh- ‘little bit of N, eat a bit of N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (13a-b):
(13a) aghtequgh- ‘dish of roots and greens with blubber and raw meat’, aghteqeregagh- ‘to snack on roots and greens with blubber and raw meat’ (60);
(13b) mangtag- ‘edible black whale skin’, mangtagregagh- (243), or mangtegregagh-ls, ‘thin skin from whale mouth area’;
16 I am assuming here that the different etymology proposed in [Bad-ten et al. 2008: 589] is only partially correct.
17 I strongly suspect that the suffix -ngenghaghhagh- is actually not one lexicalized suffix, but a combination of the suffix -ngenghagh- (10), followed by the perfectly productive suffix -ghhagh- ‘little N, small N, little bit of N’ [Badten et al. 2008: 611].
18 The form with vowel reduction occurred in preliminary versions of Badten et al., but no longer in [Badten et al. 2008]. I am not entirely convinced it was actually a mistake.
(14) -regtagh- ‘V in a quiet way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (14a):
(14a) yakugh- ‘in danger; fear of danger’ (emotional root), yakereg-tagh- ‘to speak quietly, to whisper’ (588);
(15) -reghetagh- ‘small device for V-ing’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (15a):
(15a) qugagh- ‘to club; hit hard; to affix a knife or ax into a piece of wood’ (424), qugereghetagh- ‘wedge for splitting wood’ (425);
(16) -reghugh- ‘to V in a strong way’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (16a):
(16a) ivgagh- ‘to come or go around the corner; to come or go into the room’, ivgeghreghugh- ‘for a strong wind to come around a point or projection of land’ (173);
(17) -vyeghagh- or -vzeghagh-‘little bit of N, to V a little’ (693694), as in (17a-b):
(17a) nalluke- ‘to not know’, nallekevyeghagh- ‘to act crazy’ (276)19;
(17b) pagula- ‘dust’ (325), pagelevzeghagh- ‘fine powder’ (323).
It is remarkable that all of the suffixes in (4)-(17), like -kellegh-or -kellagh- (1), (2), and -ngestagh- (3) begin with a first syllable containing e (i. e. a schwa). It is of course conceivable that the schwa of the first syllable of the suffix caused the non-initial vowels of the stem to reduce to schwa, by some sort of very local sort of vowel harmony.I consider this to be unlikely, since vowel harmony is completely unknown in Eskimo languages (although it is very prevalent in Chukchi).
There also exist a few forms in which a suffix which does not have a schwa in its initial syllable seems to trigger the same reduction to schwa20. These are listed with examples in the same format below:
19 It is possible also that nalle- is to be connected to the stem of nal-
lavragh- ‘to lose something; to forget where things are’ [Badten et al. 2008: 276].
20
Other words occurring in [Badten et al. 2008] which might well have a reduced vowel in their second syllables are aglekesengagh- ‘Steller’s eider’, iqlengagh- ‘to be a liar’, kelevagh- ‘to go or take back from shore’, tangteghagh- ‘cartilage in nose’, and tekeyiighagh- ‘Arctic tern’, but the
(18) -gi- and -vri- ‘[meaning unclear]’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (18a):
(18a) qilu- ‘intestine’ (417), qilegi- ‘fat on reindeer intestine’ (415), and qilevri- ‘fat on outside of reindeer intestines’ (416);
(19) -raagh- ‘[meaning unclear]’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (19a):
(19a) akuligh- ‘middle; center; core; part in between’ (27), akeleghraagh- ‘area in between’ (22);
(20) -raaghinagh- ‘nothing but N, just N, only N’ (670), as in (20a):
(20a) anagh- ‘feces; excrement; rust’, aneraaghinagh- ‘putrifying thing’ (51);
(21) -rug- ‘troublesome N’ (not in Badten et al. [2008] suffix section), as in (21a):
(21a) ivgagh- ‘to come or go around the corner; to come or go into the room’, ivgeghrug- ‘wind at cliff coming from various directions’ (174);
(22) -squgh- ‘small N, little N’ (677), as in (22a):
(22a) qengagh- ‘nose’, qengesqugh- ‘limpet’ (406).
Note that (20) and (24) are productive suffixes, which I assume
to occur in the lexicalized examples under (20a) and (22a). I assume
the same expressive process is at work here, although only one of the
suffixes, -squgh-21 ‘small N, little N’ (24) has a clear diminutive
22
meaning .
meaning of the potential stems and suffixes involved is not always clear, so I will not attempt to provide an analysis for them.
21 It might be worthwhile checking with a speaker of CSY whether a
variant -sequgh- of this suffix is at all possible.
22
For the sake of completeness, I mention here one other type of potentially expressive vowel reduction, with potential diminutive suffixes, but here the vowel reduction already starts in the first syllable of the stem. The verb petekengesiigh- ‘to tiptoe’ (349), possibly contains an element putu-occurring in putukugh- ‘big toe’ (368), and a verbalizing suffix -kengesiigh-. This form should be compared with a form without vowel reduction: pum-sukesengiigh- ‘to handle only with thumb and forefinger (as to avoid being
It is now necessary to postulate a hypothesis about where this unusual pattern of vowel reduction comes from. Let us look at the list of forms in (23)-(49). It contains reconstructed Proto-Eskimo forms, Sirenikski, and CSY cognates, abbreviated glosses, and example numbers to be compared with the examples given in the body of this paper. To keep this list simpler, I have not indicated some possible Sirenikski variants with unreduced vowels, nor the full forms of Si-renikski words, where further suffixes are provided in the data.
Focusing on the Sirenikski forms, one can see that Sirenikski has undergone vowel reduction as a regular sound change from Proto-Eskimo [Woodbury 1984; Krauss 1985b: 179], and that the resulting stems are often identical to the CSY example forms in which the diminutive suffix has triggered vowel reduction. So, as in the expressive CSY forms, the Sirenikski forms have kept the first vowel of the stem, but subsequent vowels of the stem have been reduced to schwa. This Sirenikski reduction is probably due to a strong word initial stress, which might have been the original stress pattern of Sirenikski, although what the present-day stress pattern of Sirenikskiis, is not always clear from the available data, as discussed in detail by Krauss [1985b: 176-182]. Fortescue [1998: 224] further suggests that the strong initial stress of Chukchi might have been a factor contributing to the original Sirenikski stress pattern.
Chart 1.
Proto- Sirenikski24: CSY: Gloss: Refs.
Eskimo23: toexs.
(23) o- * n.a.25 aghtequgh- ‘dish’ (13a)
(24) * • 26 *amjay- n. a. amyag- ‘mussel’ (10a, 11a)
dirtied)’ (366), which contains pumsug- ‘to pinch, or as a noun in the dual: thumb and forefinger’ (365), and a verbalizing suffix -kesengiigh- which might well be a variant of the suffix -kengesiigh-.
23 Or other Proto-form, as indicated in the footnotes. The Proto-forms are spelled in the International Phonetic Alphabet.
24
Sirenikski is written with CSY spelling conventions, in order to facilitate comparison with CSY.
25 n. a. stands for “not attested in the available Sirenikski corpus” according to Fortescue et al. [2010].
))))) * ■ 27 *arjjaK- *91)laK9- *9V9xiuy- *ijaquK- *iyvaK- angyegh-lagh(e)-28 n. a. yaqegh-igvegh-
(30) *kaffay-30 kaftseg-
(31) *kaju-31 kaye-
(32) *mamt9KaK- n. a.
(33) *mar/tay'- magteg-
33 )) ^mataxiuy-32 *najuK- eg-e3 l3 l-hh gg £ g ey mena
(36) *naiu- nalle-
333 ))) *naKujaK- *nimi- *payu(la) yagheya-34 ighe- pagula-35
angyagh- ‘boat’ (3a)
nenglagh- ‘laugh’ (3e)
vegllug- ‘towel’ (3i)
yaqugh- ‘wing’ (9a)
ivgagh-29 ‘comearou nd’ (16a)
kafsag- ‘rustling sound’ (5a)
kayu- ‘sculpin’ (3c, 11b)
mangtegh- ‘house’ (3d)
agh-
mangtag- le 13 r'— ^ .s ‘s (13b)
meteghllug- ‘raven’ (2)
nayugh- ‘to stay with’ (7a)
nallu- ‘to be ignorant’ (17a)
naghuya- ‘seagull’ (2)
ighu- ‘leg’ (8a)
pagula- ‘dust’ (17b)
26 This particular Proto-form is Proto-Yupik rather than Proto-Eskimo.
27 This particular Proto-form is Proto-Yupik rather than Proto-Eskimo.
28 In the Sirenikski form, the first syllable has been dropped by a regular rule, so the resulting form is monosyllabic, and cannot display the vowel reduction.
29
The CSY form shows metathesis of -vg- to -gv-.
30
This particular Proto-form is Proto-Yupik and Sirenikski rather than Proto-Eskimo.
31 This particular Proto-form is Proto-Yupik and Sirenikski rather than Proto-Eskimo.
32 This particular Proto-form is Proto-Yupik and Sirenikski rather than Proto-Eskimo.
33 This Sirenikski form is unexpected. One would expect *nayegh-. This might be an unassimilated loan from CSY.
34 This form, with its striking initial y- [Krauss 1994] is evidence that there is no simple borrowing of Sirenikski forms into CSY going on, since the form we saw in (4) is naaghye- or nagheye-. Rather it appears that it is the Sirenikski vowel reduction pattern that is borrowed.
(40) *paniy- paneg- panig- ‘daughter’ (1)
(41) *qajuK- qayegh- qayugh- ‘tea, broth, to drink tea’ (3f)
(42) *qapdaK-36 qapagh- qaprag- ‘to make a move’ (6a)
(43) *qida- 37 qiye- qiyn- ‘to cry’ (12a)
(44) *quydaK- n. a. qugagh- ‘to club’ (15a)
(45) *tfuYluy3-38 n. a. suugllug- ‘to be irritable’ (4a)
(46) *tfayujaK- sageyagh-39 saguyagh- ‘drum’ (3g)
(47) * tfuluy- sileg- O lug- il si ‘feather’ (3h)
(48) *uviluK- ivilu-41 ivilu- ‘clam’ (3b)
(49) *[ n. a. yakugh- ‘in danger’ (14a)
Now, this intriguing similarity in patterning could be a coincidence, but that seems somewhat unlikely. My hypothesis42 is that CSY speakers have borrowed a vowel pattern they were familiar with because of contact with Sirenikski, and used it, for expressive purposes,
35 This Sirenikski form is unexpected. One would expect *pagele-. This might be an unassimilated loan from CSY.
36 The Proto-Eskimo and Sirenikski forms mean ‘to remove blubber’. It is unclear whether the CSY form is cognate with them.
37 This Sirenikski form is unexpected. Since Proto-Eskimo d regularly becomes ts in Sirenikski, one would expect *qitse-. It is possible that qiye- is a loan from CSY, with an adapted Sirenikski vowel pattern.
38 This particular form in Proto-Inuit means ‘scorn’, and the relationship to the CSY form is uncertain.
39
One would expect the Sirenikski form *sagheyegh-. However, it is possible that there are phonotactic constraints against a sequence -eye- [-aja-] in Sirenikski, which would also explain why we have Sirenikski yagheya- in (37), and not *yagheye-.
40 The first vowel of the Sirenikski and CSY forms is unexplained and might be due to contamination with another word.
41 This Sirenikski form is unexpected. One would expect *ivele-. This might be an unassimilated loan from CSY.
42
I shared this hypothesis with Wick Miller in 1989, and he was kind enough to mention it in an introductory book on American Indian languages [Silver, Miller 1997: 169].
in fairytale talk, as well as, optionally, in noun and verb stems when these are followed by certain expressive and mostly diminutive suffixes43.
The question is then why CSY speakers would do this.Why would a Sirenikski-like vowel patterning connote cuteness or smallness in CSY? We have seen in de Reuse [2007], that in fairytale talk, Chukchi is sometimes used to connote the speech of strange and powerful beings. Conversely, it would seem that an imitation of Sirenikski vowel reduction is used to connote cuteness or smallness. As described in Krupnik’s [1991] exemplary paper on the ethnohistory and sociolinguistics of the Sirenikski language extinction, the Sirenikski language group has always been one of the smallest and least powerful in Chukotka, as they were almost entirely surrounded by the more powerful Chukchi, then were under strong Soviet pressure to assimilate linguistically to the majority Eskimo group, (i. e. the CSY speakers to the east of them), and finally all remaining ethnic Sirenik people are undergoing language shift to yet a third powerful language, Russian. However, I do not know whether CSY speakers ever connected the Sirenikski language with smallness or cuteness, and if they do feel this way, why. Krupnik [1991: 7] points out that at present the Sirenikski language is not considered “sacred” or “prestigious”, nor “primitive” or “funny” by people from Sirenikski and other Eskimos, so there is no evidence for such feelings.
Further research on traditional CSY language attitudes toward and ideologies concerning the Sirenikski language might confirm (or disprove) my hypothesis that the CSY forms presented in this paper are due to contact between CSY and Sirenikski. It is my hope that it is not yet too late to carry out such research.
References
Badten et al. 2008 — L. W. Badten, V. O. Kaneshiro, M. Oovi, C. Koonooka, S. A. Jacobson. St. Lawrence Island / Siberian Yupik Eskimo Language. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center, 2008. Bogoraz 1901 — V. G. Bogoraz. Linguistic Materials of the Ai’wan Dialect of the Eskimos of Asia. BAE #1764 of the National Anthropological
43 I have no information about expressive talk and diminutive processes in the Sirenikski language itself, but it stands to reason that other strategies for such connotations would be used.
Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Manuscript, 1901.
Bogoraz 1949 — В. Г. Богораз. Материалы по языку азиатских эскимосов. Л.: Учпедгиз, 1949.
Gologergen 1985 — T. Gologergen. Unpublished ungipaghaan recorded in Nome, Alaska. Transcript in field notebook 2, with commentary by Vera Metcalf and Adelinda Badten. In possession of author. Manuscript, 1985.
Fortescue 1998 — M. Fortescue. Language Relations across Bering Strait. London; New York: Cassell, 1998.
Fortescue 2005 — M. Fortescue. Comparative Chukotko-Kamchatkan Dictionary. [Trends in Linguistics 23]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005.
Fortescue et al. 2010 — M. Fortescue, S. A. Jacobson, L. Kaplan. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary, with Aleut Cognates. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, 2010.
Jacobson 2001 — S. A. Jacobson. A Practical grammar of the St. Lawrence island II Siberian Yupik Eskimo Language. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, 2001.
Koonooka 2003 — C. Koonooka (Petuwaq). Ungipaghaghlanga I Let me Tell You a Story. Quutmiit Yupigita Ungipaghaatangit I Legends of the Siberian Eskimos. From the Chukotka Collection of G. A. Menovshchikov. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, 2003.
Krauss 1985a — M. E. Krauss. Introduction. Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: Descriptive and comparative studies II M. E. Krauss (ed.). Alaska Native Language Center Research Papers. No. 7. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, 1985. P. 1-б.
Krauss 1985b — M. E. Krauss. Sirenikski and Naukanski. Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: Descriptive and comparative studies II M. E. Krauss (ed.). Alaska Native Language Center Research Papers. No. 7. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska. P. 175-190.
Krauss 1994 — M. E. Krauss. Sirenikski y- and proto-Eskimo *n- II Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. Vol. 27. No. 2. 1994. P. 323-341.
Krupnik 1991 — I. Krupnik. Extinction of the Sirenikski Eskimo language: 1895-19б0 II Etudes Inuit Studies. Vol. 15. No. 2. 1991. P. 3-22.
Menovshchikov 1947 — Г. А. Меновщиков. Наши сказки. Л.: Учпедгиз, 1947.
Menovshchikov 19б2 — Г. А. Меновщиков. Грамматика языка азиатских эскимосов. Ч. 1. М. — Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 19б2.
Menovshchikov 19б4 — Г. А. Меновщиков. Язык сиреникских эскимосов. М. — Л.: Наука, 19б4.
Menovshchikov 1988 — Г. А. Меновщиков. Материалы и исследования по языку и фольклору чаплинских эскимосов. Л.: Наука, 1988.
de Reuse 1994 — W. J. de Reuse. Siberian Yupik Eskimo: The language and its contacts with Chukchi [Studies in Indigenous Languages of the Americas Series]. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.
de Reuse 2007 — W. J. de Reuse. The Diffusion of Chukchi “magic words” in Chukotkan and St. Lawrence island Yupik folklore texts // Etudes Inuit Studies. Vol. 31. No. 1-2. 2007. P. 201-211. [actual publication 2009].
Rookok n. d. — R. Rookok. Panekellemaa. Ayumiim Ungipaghaatangi V. Stories of Long Ago V. Ms. draft. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center.
Rubtsova 1954 — Е. С. Рубцова. Материалы по языку и фольклору эскимосов (чаплинский диалект). Ч. 1. М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1954.
Sapir 1963 — E. Sapir. Abnormal types of speech in Nootka // D. G. Mandelbaum (ed.). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. P. 176-196.
Seppilu 1985 — M. Seppilu. Ungipaghaan entitled Yuuggaaqa, recorded for the Eskimo Heritage Program in Savoonga. Nr. SV/HP-85-36-T1 in the Eskimo Heritage Program files, Bering Strait Native Corporation. Nome, Alaska. Manuscript, 1985.
Silver, Miller 1997 — Sh. Silver, W. Miller. American Indian Languages: Cultural and Social Contexts. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1997.
Slwooko 1979 — G. Slwooko. Kaviighhaankuk Mayeraaghpagenkuk / The Fox and the Giant // Sivuqam Ungipaghaatangi II / St. Lawrence Island Legends II. Anchorage: National Bilingual Materials Development Center, Rural Education Affairs, University of Alaska, 1979. P. 7-20.
Toolie 1985 — J. Toolie. Unpublished ungipaghaatet recorded in Savoonga, Alaska. Transcript in possession of author. Manuscript, 1985.
Vakhtin 1991 — N. B. Vakhtin. Sirinek Eskimo: The available data and possible approaches // Language Sciences 13, 1, 1991. P. 99-106.
Vakhtin 2000 — Н. Б. Вахтин. Язык сиреникских эскимосов: тексты, грамматические и словарные материалы. Munich: Lincom Europa, 2000.
Woodbury 1984 — A. C. Woodbury. Eskimo and Aleut languages // D. Damas (ed.). Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 5: Arctic. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1984. P. 49-63.
Wongittilin 1985 — N. Wongittilin. Unpublished ungipaghaatet recorded in Nome, Alaska. Transcript in possession of author. Manuscript, 1985.
