Komi-Saami-Russian contacts on the Kola Peninsula

�� !"�#�

�

KOMI-SAAMI-RUSSIAN CONTACTS ON THE KOLA PENINSULA

ROGIER BLOKLAND AND MICHAEL RIEßLER

Summary Standard Russian and the Russian Pomor dialect are relatively new arrivals on the Kola Penin-sula in north-western Russia. The indigenous languages spoken there comprise the Saamic lan-guages Skolt Saami, Kildin Saami and Ter Saami, which belong to the Uralic language family. Speakers of the distantly related Uralic language Iźva Komi, a Permic language, arrived in the 1880s. The present article sketches recent language contact situations between Saami, Iźva Komi and Russian on the Kola Peninsula and describes the impact of these contacts in the respective languages.

Introduction1 The present article is a sketch of recent language contact situations between Kola Saami, Iźva Komi and Russian on the Kola Peninsula in north-western Russia, and describes the impact of these contacts in the respective languages. Historical contacts (Finnic with Common East Saami or Karelian and Nor-wegian with Kola Saami) and recent contacts with North Saami2 as a lingua franca are not considered.

The relevant geographic settings for these contact situations are illustrated in Map 1 of the Saami languages and the main Saami and Iźva settlements on the Kola Peninsula.

In addition to standard Russian and the Russian Pomor dialect, a number of Uralic languages are also spoken on the Kola Peninsula: the Saamic lan-guages Skolt Saami, Kildin Saami and Ter Saami and the distantly related Permic language Iźva Komi.

�1 M. Rießler’s fieldwork on Kola Saami was supported by the Gesellschaft für bedrohte Sprachen e.V. (2004) and the VolkswagenStiftung (2005–2010). Fieldwork on Kola Saami and Iźva Komi was carried out jointly by R. Blokland, E. Karvovskaya and M. Rießler during three weeks in February and March 2009. This field trip was also partly funded by the Gesellschaft für bedrohte Sprachen e.V. and the VolkswagenStiftung. The collected data are available from the Endangered Languages archive at Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, http://hdl.handle.net/1839/00-0000-0000-0003-A5A5-9. 2 Though not an autochthonous language of the Kola Peninsula, due to contacts with Scandina-via and Finland North Saami is the second most widely spoken Saami language on the Peninsula today (Scheller 2010).

ROGIER BLOKLAND AND MICHAEL RIEßLER 6

There are also a number of other autochthonous or long-established lan-guages which either recently became extinct or are spoken by only very few people: Akkala Saami is perhaps already extinct, the Finnic languages Kare-lian and Finnish possibly still have a few speakers (cf. Zajkov 1987: 18), Nor-wegian is almost certainly no longer spoken (Jentoft 2002: 212–213), the Rus-sian-Norwegian pidgin Russenorsk probably became extinct soon after the First World War and the 1917 October Revolution (Broch & Jahr 1984: 21, 28), and North (Filman) Saami has not been spoken on the Peninsula since the 1930s (Leinonen 2007: 139). Nenets, a Uralic language of the Samoyed branch very distantly related to Saami and Iźva Komi, is spoken by a small number of recent immigrants to the Peninsula.3 The native languages of other, more recent immigrants from other parts of the Soviet Union/Russia will not be taken into account here.

The Saami are the indigenous inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula. The first Iźva Komi arrived on the Kola Peninsula during the 1880s, and since then the Kola Saami and Iźva Komi have been in close contact. The principle contact language of Kola Saami and Iźva Komi is Russian, which can be shown to have had a strong impact on both languages.

Another contact language on the Kola Peninsula, Karelian, spoken at least until the first half of the 20th century, has left considerable traces in Kola Saami vocabulary and to some extent in its grammar (cf. Itkonen 1943; Rießler 2009). There is no verifiable contact between Iźva Komi and Karelian,

�3 The Nenets on the Kola Peninsula who still speak Nenets are recent arrivals from the 1960s from the Archangel region (Valentina Kuznecova, p.c.), and should not be confused with the Iźva-speaking Nenets who arrived in the 1880s and who had almost certainly already given up Nenets for Iźva Komi before migrating to the Kola Peninsula.

KOMI-SAAMI-RUSSIAN CONTACTS ON THE KOLA PENINSULA 7

undoubtedly because the possible period of contact was too short, and be-cause the most likely language of interaction was Russian. Neither can any contact with other languages (formerly) spoken on the Kola Peninsula (Fin-nish, Norwegian, Russenorsk) be shown for Iźva Komi.

The Kola Saami language situation Genealogically, the four Kola Saami languages belong to two subgroups of the East Saami branch: Akkala and Skolt belong to the Mainland group (together with Inari, which is only spoken in Finland), whereas Kildin and Ter form the Peninsula group of East Saami (Sammallahti 1998: 26–34). Thus, from a strictly geographical point of view, only Kildin and Ter, spoken on the Penin-sula, should be regarded as ‘Kola Saami’. However, the term ‘Kola Peninsula’ is now often used as a synonym for the administrative area of the Murmansk District (Russian Murmanskaja oblast') where the four Saami languages are (or were) spoken. From a socio-historical point of view, it makes sense to classify the Russian Saami languages into a single group as all four languages share the same contact-linguistic environment and have been exposed to similar assimilatory pressure from Russian.

All Saami languages spoken in Russia are highly endangered due to lan-guage shift. All speakers of Kola Saami languages are bilingual in Russian and the Kola Saami languages are hardly ever heard in public life today.

Akkala Saami is perhaps already extinct. According to information from a number of Saami and non-Saami individuals, the last speaker of Akkala died in 2003 (cf. also Salminen 2007: 235). Other sources mention at least one re-maining native speaker (Scheller 2010).

Ter Saami is nearly extinct and spoken by no more than 30 speakers or semi-speakers living in different locations within and outside of the Murmansk region, such as in Murmansk, Lujāvv'r (Lovozero), Revda, Krasnoščel'e, Umba, and also in Saint Petersburg. The mean age of the youngest speakers of Ter is over 50.

Skolt Saami is a special case. First, with the exception of only about 30 speak-ers, Skolt Saami is now spoken in a relatively compact area by approximately 300 Saami in Finland (Salminen 2007: 268).4 This is perhaps the explanation for the second point, namely that Skolt Saami has been more extensively de-scribed and is probably also somewhat less endangered than Kildin Saami. However, the Notozero dialect of Skolt Saami spoken in Russia probably has even fewer speakers than Ter and is in fact almost extinct. Most Skolt Saami �4 There were also small number of Skolt Saami in Norway around Neiden (Skolt Njauddâm), but the language there died out in the 1970s.


speakers in Russia live close to the original territories of their villages in the north-western parts of the Murmansk District, mostly in Verchnetulomskij, but also in Tuloma, Murmaši and other locations.

Kildin Saami is actively spoken by no more than 100 native speakers (Schel-ler 2010), though the number of passive speakers is surely much higher. However, the number of speakers is decreasing rapidly from year to year. The language is no longer passed on to children and must be characterized as se-verely endangered.

Originally, Kildin was spoken in the central inland parts and the central coastal parts of the Kola Peninsula. The original Kildin Saami dialect areas have fragmented chiefly as the result of forced centralization. Today, more or less compact Kildin Saami settlements in or close to their original villages are found only in Lovozero, Revda, Kola, Loparskaja and Teriberka, but small Kildin Saami speech communities are also found today in all larger settle-ments, such as in Murmansk, Olenegorsk, Apatity, etc. As a result of the forced resettlement of most of the Kola Saami population to Lovozero, this village is nowadays usually regarded as the ‘Saami capital’ of Russia, and in fact Lovozero has by far the densest Saami population today. However, less than a third of the village’s approximately 3000 inhabitants are ethnic Saami, and the number of Saami speakers among these is considerably lower.

Of the original four Skolt Saami dialects, only those of Njuõ´ttjäu´rr (Rus-sian Notozero) and Mue´tǩǩ (Russian Muotka) are still spoken by very few speakers in Russia. Of the original six main dialects of Kildin, only the four dialects of Arsjogk (Russian Varzina), Lujāvv'r (Russian Lovozero), Koar-rdegk (Russian Voron'e) and Kīllt (Russian Kil'din) are still maintained by older speakers, even after their relocation to Lovozero or other places. Of the original 6 Ter Saami varieties, only the Joffk�j-dialect (Russian Jokan'ga or Iokan'ga) is still spoken.

Kildin is the only actively used Kola Saami language today. It is also the only standardized Saami language of Russia.5 Since most Kildin Saami speak-ers live in Lovozero, the central and probably most innovative Lujāvv'r variety has been chosen as a normative basis for the language is usually being re-garded as the Kildin Saami standard. A Cyrillic-based orthography for Kildin was developed during the 1980s, and since then different kinds of teaching materials for elementary schools and school dictionaries using some variant of this orthography have been published. Even though Kildin is standardized, the language is used neither in official business or administration nor as a �5 Skolt Saami has been standardized in Finland since the 1970s and a certain amount of written material has been created using the Latin-based Skolt Saami orthography. The written standard of Skolt Saami, however, is not used by Skolt Saami from Russia.


medium of education. In mass media, Kildin is only marginally represented. Radio programs in Kildin have been broadcast locally in Lovozero since 1983, but broadcasting time has never exceeded 5–20 minutes per day.6 Some fic-tional literature in Kildin has been published in books and journals, but these texts consist almost exclusively of short tales and poems for children or trans-lations into Kildin Saami. At present, Kildin is taught to children only in one school in Lovozero. This weekly course is optional and for grades 1 through 4 only. One pre-school in Lovozero has a Saami group in Kildin. Besides that, classes in Kildin are occasionally taught for children and adults at different places in the region.

Kola Saami exonyms and endonyms Kola Saami speakers refer to themselves as Saami (e.g. Kildin Saami sām-m'lenč, sāmm'la or sāmm') and to their respective languages as ‘Saami lan-guage’ (e.g. Kildin Saami sām' kīll, Skolt Saami sää´mǩiõll) in the same way as each different Saami group elsewhere normally refers to its individual variety as ‘Saami language’, adding the name of the own village to avoid misunder-standings only when necessary. Lujāvv'r-sijt kīll would thus only be used in order to differentiate the Kildin Saami variety of Lujāvv'r from that of another village, e.g. from the Arsjogk variety: Arsjogk-sijt kīll. Originally, there were thus no true endonyms for the Kola Saami languages.

According to the rather newly introduced model of using endonyms in “globalized” discourses about and in Saami languages (cf. North Saami dav-visámegiella ‘North Saami language’, Lule Saami julevsábme ‘Lule Saami lan-guage’, Skolt Saami nuõrttsää´mǩiõll ‘Skolt Saami language’), kīlt kīll is now sometimes used as endonym (see e.g. the Kildin Saami abstract of Scheller’s 2010 article, translated by A. A. Antonova).

Note, however, that even Kildin Saami kīllt (as in kīlt kīll) derives from an exonym because it is borrowed from Kildin (Russian kil'din-), the name for an island on the Barents Sea coast close to present-day Murmansk. Originally, kīlt kīll referred only to the rather peripheral Kīllt dialect of Kildin Saami. But non-Saami introduced the name Kildin Saami (language), Russian kil'dinskij saamskij (dialekt/jazyk), North Saami gielddasámegiella as an exonym refer-ring to the whole group of Kildin Saami dialects linguistically distinguished from the other Kola Saami dialect groups Akkala, Skolt, and Ter. The Finnish linguist Arvid Genetz was perhaps the first to use ‘Kildin’ with this meaning (cf. Genetz 1891: IV).

An endonym for the Ter Saami language noted by Genetz in the same publication is tarje kīll. The Kildin Saami cognate tar'j kīll is sometimes used

�6 It is unclear how many Skolt Saami from Russia listen to the weekly broadcast in Skolt Saami on YLE’s Saami Radio (based at Inari/Finland), which is also available on the Internet.


as an exonym for Ter Saami. The origin of the endonym and toponym Ter is unclear: The name Tarje [t̟r��jɛ ~ t̟r�j�-] ‘Ter coast, eastern part of the Kola Peninsula’ is related to Finnish Turja ‘Lapland; Norway; a land in the high north; the Kola Peninsula’ and its front vowel variant Tyrjä (more common in eastern Finland, from which Russian terskij ‘Ter-’ was borrowed; cf. Kipar-sky 1950: 77–78). It is also cognate with ter(-finnas), recorded by the Norwe-gian traveller Ohthere of Hålogaland in the 9th century as the name of a peo-ple living on the eastern coast of the Kola Peninsula. The ultimate origin of Tarje, however, is unknown (cf. Kiparsky 1950; Itkonen 1958: 1021; SKES V: 1421–1422; SSA III: 334).

The Skolt Saami endonym nuõrttsää´mǩiõll (lit. ‘East Saami language’) is not used by Skolt Saami in Russia. If they do refer to their own language in Saami then as njuõ´ttjäu´rrǩiõll according to the Saami name of their original village Njuõ´ttjäu´rr (Russian Notozero). The cognate ńuh't-jāv'r kīll is some-times used as Kildin Saami exonym for this variety of Skolt .

The name Akkala Saami originates from the former Saami village of Ähkel, the name of which derives from the closely situated lake Ähkkejäur (lit. ‘old woman lake’). The name of the lake and the village has been loan-translated into Russian as Babozero and Babinsk respectively. These loan translations form the base of the Russian exonym for the language: babinskij (dialekt/jazyk), which is a semantically fully transparent derivation from Rus-sian baba ‘old woman’. The Akkala Saami endonym was äh'k'el'säm'la (Za-jkov 1987: 5); the cognates ah'kel' kīll or akg'-jāv'r kīll are sometimes used as Kildin Saami exonyms for this language .

The exonym for Saami used in Iźva Komi is lopar k��7 ‘the Lapp language’, based on Russian lopar' ‘Lapp’ (probably borrowed from Finnish Lappi ‘Lap-land’, lappalainen ‘Lapp’; cf. SSA II: 48). This is a fully adapted loanword in Iźva Komi, evinced by the Iźva Komi nominative plural form loparjes ‘the Saami’ (cf. standard Komi saamjas ‘the Saami’).

Many Russians still use loparskij jazyk, based on the (older) Russian lopar' ‘Saami’ (cf. also Russian loparka, lopka ‘Saami woman’), though saamskij jazyk ‘Saami language’, based on the Saami endonym, is the form now used officially. Note, however, that the single Kola Saami languages are called dia-lects in Russian linguistic literature and accordingly also by Russian-speaking Saami when referring to them. Thus, Russian saamskij jazyk normally refers to the whole group of Saami languages spoken in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia and saamskie dialekty ‘Saami dialects’ denotes the single Saami languages. �7 FUPA kī�. Linguistic examples of Komi and Saami are here transcribed using the symbols of the IPA. Note that in orthographic transliterations, an acute marks a palatal consonant (e.g. ń /ɲ/), whereas an apostrophe marks palatalization (n' /n�/), a phonetic distinction often ignored in descriptions of Uralic languages.


The Iźva Komi term for ‘(a) Russian; Russian (language); Pomor; Pomo-rian’ is [r�ʨ ~ r�c], cf. standard Komi roć; the Kildin term, with the same meaning, is rūšš.

The Iźva Komi language situation Genealogically, Iźva Komi is a dialect of Komi (also known as Komi-Zyrian), which belongs to the Permic branch of the Uralic language family; the other members of the Permic branch are Komi-Permyak8, and Udmurt. Iźva Komi is one of the ten dialects of Komi-Zyrian (henceforth: Komi), and is mainly spoken in the north-western region of the Komi Republic in north-eastern European Russia, with small diaspora groups in Siberia, the Archangel region and the Kola Peninsula.

Here ‘Iźva Komi’ will be used to refer to the variety spoken on the Kola Peninsula; where it refers to non-Kola varieties of the Iźva dialect this will be made clear. All speakers of Iźva Komi are bilingual in Russian and the lan-guage is no longer passed on to children. Iźva Komi thus must be character-ized as severely endangered. In addition, the informal status of the language has decreased since contacts with Scandinavia have increased the status and usefulness of the Saami languages. This is the converse of the situation during Soviet times, where the status of Kola Saami was low, and ethnic Iźva Komi often held high positions in local business (kolkhozes and sovkhozes) and administration (cf. Bryleva 1996).

Most speakers live in the villages of Lovozero (where they in fact outnum-ber the Saami), Krasnoščel'e, Kanevka and Sosnovka, where Krasnoščel’e and Kanevka even have a Komi majority. Numbers of speakers are hard to come by, also because Soviet and Russian censuses often did and do not differenti-ate between the Iźva Komi and later immigrants from the Komi Republic. According to Konakov & Ročev (1989: 78) in the 1980s 60.2% of ca. 1200 Iźva spoke Iźva Komi; at present there seem to be just over a 1000 ethnic Iźva Komi, of whom perhaps 400 to 500 speak the language.

There is no written form of the language, and the language is almost ex-clusively used in oral form . Lovozerskaja Pravda, the weekly local newspaper of Lovozero, occasionally publishes very short texts in Iźva Komi, written in an inconsistent orthography loosely based on standard Komi, and Iźva Komi claim that they cannot read literature in standard Komi published in the Komi Republic. Teaching material in standard Komi is occasionally used non-officially in Krasnoščel’e to teach children Komi after school on an op-

�8 In Russia Komi-Zyrian and Komi-Permyak are considered separate languages, but the differ-ences between Komi-Zyrian and Komi-Permyak are smaller than those between most Komi-Zyrian dialects. Komi-Jaźva, a dialect of Komi-Permyak, is often accorded language status due to its location and slightly aberrant structure.


tional basis. But the children have difficulties with understanding standard Komi, which is partly due to the relatively large number of neologisms intro-duced into standard Komi in the 1930s and since the 1990s and therefore un-known in Iźva Komi, and also to the greater loss in Iźva Komi of genuine Komi vocabulary and replacement thereof with Russian loans.

Iźva Komi exonyms and endonyms Speakers of Iźva Komi refer to themselves as iźva or iźvatas and call their language iźva k�� ‘the Iźva language‘. Through the mediation of Russian the standard Komi endonym komi is also occasionally used, though traditionally this was not used by the Iźva (or by the local Russians). Among the Iźva opin-ions differ as to whether they are Komi or not, and some also subsume all the Komi, including those in the Komi Republic that are not Iźva-speakers, under ‘Iźva’. The local Russian term most commonly used for the language is ižem-skij (jazyk) ‘the Iźva language’, though komi jazyk ‘the Komi language’, a later learned borrowing referring to all Komi, also occurs. In Kildin Saami īž�m kīll ‘the Iźva language’ is the term used, where īž�m is a borrowing from Russian ižemskij, not from Iźva Komi.

Russian colonization on the Kola peninsula The first, though sporadic, contacts between Kola Saami and Russian date as far back as the 12th century, when Pomor traders from the empire of Nov-gorod landed on the southern shores of the Kola Peninsula. More intensive contacts with speakers of Russian, however, did not start before the perma-nent settlement of Russian colonists in northern Karelia and on the Kola Pen-insula from the 15th–16th century onwards (Kert 1994a: 101–102; Ruotsala 2005: 161). Russian settlement ran parallel to the missionary work of the Russian Orthodox Church, which founded monasteries and churches in the area. However, it can be assumed that the contacts between Russian and Saami were relatively loose from the beginning. Each group probably had its own economic and socio-cultural niche. Until very recent times, contacts with the Pomors must have been of a rather symbiotic nature.

The influence from Saami on Pomor dialects might even have been equally strong at one point in time. This is reflected in borrowed vocabulary, mostly belonging to natural phenomena and names of animals and plants. T. I. Itkonen (1932) lists more than 100 Kola Saami loanwords in North Russian dialects. A considerable part of borrowed Saami vocabulary has found its way from North Russian into standard Russian; among them the word paren' ‘boy’ (< Kola Saami pārr'n ‘boy, son, kid’ < North Germanic, cf. Swedish barn ‘child’; Scheller 2004).

However, in the course of ongoing colonization, the Russian influence be-came stronger. This is evinced by the relatively large number of loanwords in the Kola Saami wordlists recorded during the second half of the 19th century


(of which Genetz 1891 is the most important). Russian influence also resulted in borrowed function words and even in calqued expressions and grammati-cal constructions. The use of the Russian topic-marking enclitic =že, noted already in Halász’ grammatical description of Kola Saami (Halász 1883: 40), may serve as an example.9

Russian influence during the period of Russian colonization was still fairly marginal, compared to the period after the October Revolution in 1917 and the founding of the Soviet Union. This is best demonstrated by the flood of lexical borrowings from Russian into Kola Saami. Loanwords from the period after 1917 are often easy distinguishable from Russian words adapted in pre-revolutionary times, as many of them refer to newly introduced matters such as terms related to Soviet social and political administration, technical inno-vations, etc. Accompanied with the ever-increasing degree of russification, even words for basic concepts were later replaced by Russian borrowings (cf. Rießler 2009 for Kildin Saami).

With regard to the sociolinguistic situation, uni-directional assimilation and language shift was perhaps characteristic already for the early period of Russian colonization, and widespread bilingualism among the Saami is al-ready attested in the 19th century. According to a Finnish traveller’s account from the Russian parts of Sápmi (cit. Qvigstad 1893: 1–2, fn 3), the Russian language was understood and spoken in all parts of the Kola Peninsula at least from the middle of the 19th century onwards. The relatively high number of Russian loanwords and their concentration in certain semantic fields (agri-culture, religion, administration, among others), some of them having re-placed earlier Karelian borrowings (Rießler 2009: 395–396), point to a contact situation in which Saami speakers shifted to the language of their Pomor neighbours.

The contacts after the founding of the Soviet Union and especially after World War II are of a quite different nature. Whereas the period of Russian colonization was characterized by a gradual (and unsolicited) assimilation of bilingual Saami, forced Sovietization has led to almost complete language loss during a period of only three generations of Saami speakers.

Komi and Nenets colonization on the Kola peninsula In the early 1880s a small number of families of Komi and komified Nenets reindeer herders migrated from their original homelands along the tributaries of the river Iźva (Russian Ižma) in north-eastern European Russia (now the Komi Republic), along the Archangel coast and through Karelia to the central and eastern parts of the Kola Peninsula, where they founded permanent set-

�9 Note that Halász’ 1883 grammar is exclusively based on the texts collected and later published (1891) by Genetz.


tlements (cf. Rakin & Ljašev 1980; Konakov, Kotov & Ročev 1984; Kiselev 1995; Konakov & Ročev 1989; Kokkonen 2004). Consequently, the contacts have originally been closest with speakers of Ter and Kildin, though a num-ber of Iźva Komi families later resettled to the western parts of the Peninsula in the Skolt Saami area (Kokkonen: 2004: 380). The last Iźva Komi who can be considered as part of the migration arrived on the Peninsula in the 1920s (Konakov 1996: 79), and since then there has been only very occasional im-migration from the Komi Republic to the Iźva Komi on the Peninsula.

Until recently there has been close contact between the Iźva Komi, the Nenets (who often still retain an awareness of their Nenets ethnicity, partly due to the continuity of typically Nenets surnames, although they no longer speak the language, and partly due to their pride in their knowledge of rein-deer husbandry and prowess in reindeer handling; cf. Pennanen 2000: 85) and Kola Saami due to mixed settlements and intermarriage, and, especially after collectivization and forced relocation of the Saami to centralized vil-lages, and due to shared work in the reindeer brigades. The contacts with Iźva Komi speakers continue at present and trilingualism in Iźva Komi, Saami, and Russian occurs in ethnically mixed families or among reindeer herders (cf. Bryleva 1996: 165–166), although it is more common for Kola Saami to have a knowledge of Iźva Komi than vice versa (cf. Turkin 1994: 20).

Russian influence on Kola Saami Several contact-induced features of Russian origin have been mentioned en passant in earlier works on Kola Saami, for example in Kert’s (1971) grammar of Kildin. Russian influence on Kola Saami is also the subject of a published conference abstract by Klaus (1977) dealing with borrowed adverbs and the use of Russian numerals in Saami speech. Another mention of contact-induced features in Kildin is found in two almost similar papers by Kert (1994a; 1994b) that deal mostly with lexical borrowings and list only a few other minor features, such as borrowed phonemes in loanwords, the bor-rowed superlative particle, and borrowed function words. A larger list of lexi-cal borrowings into Kildin Saami and its ancestor language is presented in Rießler 2009.

Instances of contact-induced changes, however, can be found at all levels of Kildin Saami grammar: phonology, morphology and syntax, as well as in discourse pragmatics. Rießler (2007) shows that recent changes concerning the borrowing of actual linguistic material from Russian are mostly found at the level of discourse-pragmatic (e.g. the topic-marking enclitic =že) and syn-tactic text and phrase structuring (e.g. the discourse marking conjunction a < Russian a ‘but’, the subordinator što < Russian što ‘that’, the coordinators ele ~ ili < Russian ili ‘or’), in the replacement of an original synthetic superlative construction by the superlative particle same (< Russian samyj M.SG), and in the replacement of an original negative suffix by a borrowed negative prefix


nie- on negative indefinites. Other changes in verbal and noun morphology, such as the grammaticalization of an analytic future tense and the introduc-tion of secondary diminutive and augmentative forms are the result of bor-rowed grammatical patterns from Russian.

A number of grammatical borrowings not listed in Rießler 2007 can be observed in recorded texts of Kola Saami languages (note that contact-induced change as the result of the influence of Russian seems to be very similar in all Kola Saami languages).

An example of a borrowed discourse-pragmatic marker is the hortative particle -ka (< Russian -ka / -ko [ka]). This feature is attested in older re-corded Kola Saami texts, like the Ter Saami example vancla-ka munn son gorrâ [go:1SG-HORT 1SG 3SG:GEN with] ‘let me just go to him’ which was noted already by Mägiste (1968: 17). Such constructions can still be observed today in Saami speech.

Mägiste (1968: 16–17) also mentions the borrowed suffix -nihk ~ -n�hk ~ -nehk (< Russian -nik) which derives agent nouns (similar to English -er); cf. pastlesn�hk ‘a thorny shrub’ from pastel ‘sharp’, v(�nn)ājtnihk ‘wine-grower’. This suffix perhaps first entered Kola Saami as part of derived Rus-sian word forms like oteral'nehk (< Russian utiral'nik (arch.) ‘cloth, towel’) but was later used productively like in soagknehk ‘dictionary’ (← soagk ‘mes-sage; news’ + -nehk; cf. analogue derivations like slovnik (arch.) in Russian). Note that the original shape of the suffix was altered considerably due to phonological adaptations by Saami speakers: Palatalization disappeared, the vowel was reduced and the voiceless consonant was preaspirated (Russian [-n�ik] > Kola Saami [-n��k].)10

The productive use of the attributive suffix -es' as denominal and deverbal adjectivizer is very likely also the result of a borrowed grammatical pattern and in analogy to the use of the so-called long adjective form in Russian, e.g. Kildin vārr'j-es' ‘wooded, forested (attr.)’ (← vārr' ‘wood, forest’ + -j ADJ + -es' ATTR) and Russian lesn-oj (← les ‘wood, forest’ + -n ADJ + -oj ATTR:M.SG.NOM); Kildin jiegkj-es' ‘patient (attr.); a patient one’ (← jiegk'e ‘be-ing patient’ + -j ADJ + -es' ATTR) and Russian terpeliv-yj ‘patient (attr.); a pa-tient one’ (← terpet' ‘being patient’ + -liv ADJ + -yj ATTR:M.SG.NOM). The at-tributive suffix is also very regularly used with verb essives and verb abessives in attributive positions, e.g. Kildin mākk'sxemes' ‘a/the free one’, mākk'sx-emes' k�rrj ‘free book’, (mākk's-xem-es' ← mākk'se ‘to cost’ + -xem ABESS + -es' ATTR), k�rrj lī mākk'sxem ‘a/the book is free’; cf. these constructions with the

�10 Later, preaspiration disappeared and is now replaced by a fricative in most Kola Saami dialects. Note also that younger Russian loanwords with the suffix -nik do not exhibit preaspiration, like Kildin kolxoz-nik ‘kolkhoz worker’.


use of the so-called long- and short adjectives in Russian where the latter never occur in attributive position.

A phonological feature of Kildin Saami, which Kert (1994a: 111; 1994b: 174) and Stadnik (2002: 34, 165, without reference to Kert) believe to be borrowed from Russian, is palatalization. Since almost all plain consonants in Kildin (and, similarly, in the other Kola Saami languages) have a phonologically distinct palatalized counterpart the consonant inventories of Kola Saami and Russian are principally similar in this respect. However, unlike Russian, pala-talization in Kola Saami is almost exclusively restricted to stem-final conso-nants. In other positions, palatalization occurs only in Russian loanwords. Consider, for instance, the Kildin Saami semi-minimal pair lānnt ‘puddle’ and l'ānnht ‘band, tape’ (< Russian lenta /l�enta/ ‘id.’) Such minimal pairs, however, are rather rare. The phonologically much more pervasive palataliza-tion of stem-final consonants is patently the result of a language-internal de-velopment. Considering cognate word pairs across different Saami languages it is obvious that palatalization in Kola Saami occurs as reflex of an apocoped etymological front vowel (Proto Saami *i or *e), whereas non-palatalized con-sonants, as a rule, reflect an etymological non-front vowel. Compare the fol-lowing examples with palatalized word-final geminates and consonant clus-ters in Kildin with their North Saami cognates and the reconstructed Proto-Saami form (adapted from Lehtiranta 1989):

Kildin Saami North Saami Proto-Saami gloss

kūll' /ku�l��/ guolli /ku͡ol�i/ *[ku͡ol�e�] ‘fish’

kulle /kul�e/ gullat /gul�t/ *[kul��-] ‘to hear’

vānn'ce /va�n��ʦe/ vázzit /va�ʣ�it/ *[va�n�ʣe�-] ‘to walk’

kēnnc /ke�n�ʦ/ gazza /kʣ�/ *[k�nc�] ‘fingernail’

In the Kildin Saami examples above, the stem consonant is palatalized before the etymological mid front vowel Proto-Saami *ē [e�] (the North Saami cog-nates have the high front vowel /i/), whereas the consonant is non-palatalized in the two words where they appear before the mid central vowel Proto-Saami *e� [�] (the North Saami cognates have the low back vowel //). Pala-talization thus serves as a tool for maintaining phonological distinctiveness in Kildin. The contact with Russian, a language exhibiting phonological palatali-zation in almost all places of articulation, might have been a catalyst but is definitely not the trigger of this development.11 Kert’s (1994a; 1994b) and

�11 Note similar developments of palatalization after the apocope of front vowels in eastern Finnic and Estonian, which is also mentioned by Stadnik 2002: 137.


Stadnik’s (2002) assumptions about borrowed palatalization in Kildin Saami are thus only partly true.

Russian influence on Iźva Komi The Iźva Komi variety spoken on the Peninsula displays typical features of the Iźva dialect (for an overview see Sacharova & Sel'kov 1976), it e.g. has long vowels (cf. Kola Iźva Komi pukoonə ‘to sit’, Republic Iźva Komi pukoon�, standard Komi pukavn�; Kola Iźva Komi kuunə ‘to die’, standard Komi kuvn�), though often, especially in word-final position, these long vowels are again shortened: ‘language; tongue’ was recorded as both k�� and k� (cf. stan-dard Komi k�v), and ‘wind’ as tə (standard Komi t�v). Typical Russian loans in Kola Iźva Komi include gorod ‘city’ (Russian gorod, standard Komi kar, as an adapted loan gɘrɘd; cf. Kalima 1911: 52), tarakan ‘cockroach’ (Russian tarakan, standard Komi tɘrɘkan, an earlier adapted loan from dialectal Russian toro-kan; cf. Kalima 1911: 147), vol ‘ox’ (Russian vol, standard Komi ɘš), castə ‘often’ (Russian často, standard Komi suka, tšɘkida), jug ‘south’ (Russian jug, stan-dard Komi lun, lunv�v). Grammatical borrowings are not as easily discerned, as the most likely candidates usually also occur in the Komi varieties spoken in the Republic, and therefore their age cannot always be determined.

Loss of personal suffixes and concurrent use of personal pronouns only in possessive noun phrases (e.g. standard Komi menam korka [I:GEN house] ‘my house’ instead of menam korkaɘj [I:GEN house:POSS:1SG] or korkaɘj [house:POSS:1SG]) may be due to influence from Russian, but it has been common in standard Komi for a long time (cf. Wiedemann 1847: 33).

A modal element borrowed from Russian was noted in one consultant: mɛ, kaz�vat'e, ɛstən jɛkt� ‘I apparently danced here’, where kaz�vat'e is copied from Russian okazyvaetsja ‘it turns out’. Although modal elements are gener-ally easily borrowed (cf. e.g. Matras 2009: 161–162), there is little need to do so in Komi and the other Permic languages, well known for their generous array of verbal forms for denoting inferentiality. In Republic Iźva Komi (cf. Sa-charova & Sel'kov 1976: 82) and Kola Iźva Komi recorded in the 1950s (Sa-charova & Sel'kov 1960: 144) the perfect ‘tense’ ending -ema (not used for the first person singular in standard Komi), is commonly used for evidential con-structions, and though it would be premature to draw conclusions on the basis of one consultant, the fact that this is used at all means the Komi verb system is being undermined.

Contact-induced changes in local Russian varieties T. I. Itkonen (1932) lists more than 100 Kola Saami loanwords in Pomor dia-lects. Many of them denote phenomena related specifically to the nature and (Saami) culture and economy of the Kola Peninsula and show also geo-graphically restricted distribution to the White Sea costs in Northwest-Russia. Besides lexical borrowings, contact-induced influences in the local Russian


speech on the Kola Peninsula have not been systematically investigated. What can be clearly shown, however, are a few instances of contact-induced inter-ferences in the Russian speech of bilingual Saami and Komi. Kostina (2006) investigated vowel quantity and quality patterns in Russian as it is spoken by native Kildin speakers. She showed that the qualitative reductions of un-stressed /e/ → [i] and /o/ → [a] characteristic of Standard Russian are often missing in „Saami-Russian“ speech.12

Also the articulation of Russian palatalized alveolar stops /t�, d�/ not as af-fricated sounds [tç ~ ʨ, d� ~ ʥ] as in Standard Russian, but as true palatalized sounds [t�, d�] as in Kola Saami, is possibly due to interference in the pronun-ciation of Russian words by bilingual Saami.13 This feature is not very perva-sive but can sometimes be observed in the speech of single Saami speakers.14.

An interference feature in the pronunciation of Russian words by several Iźva speakers is the systematic replacement of Russian palatalized alveolar and post-alveolar stops, affricates and sibilants by the respective palatal sounds, for instance [naʨ�t ~ nac�t] ‘well, so’ (Russian značit [znaʧ�it ~ naʧ�it]), [çɛmga] ‘salmon’ (Russian semga [s��mga]), [�ima] ‘winter’ (Russian zima [z�ima]).15 Note that Iźva (similar to standard Komi but unlike Russian) does not exhibit phonological palatalization but has a whole series of palatal consonants.

In addition, a Russian phonological rule, namely the devoicing of final ob-struents, is often not observed by Iźva speakers.16 This is most likely also due to interference because final devoicing does not occur in Iźva.17

Another interference in the pronunciation of Russian words by Saami speakers is the articulation of Russian voiceless plosives and affricates with preaspiration. This feature is not found in the Russian speech of Saami today, but it is frozen in dozens of Russian words borrowed into Kola Saami. Con-sider words like bōht (< Russian bot ‘small coastal or river boat’ < Middle Low German bot), floht (< Russian flot ‘fleet, navy’ < French flotte), saml'oht (< Russian samolet ‘airplane’) or the already mentioned derivational suffix –nihk ~ –n�hk ~ –nehk (< Russian –nik), all of them already included in Genetz’s (1891) and T. I. Itkonen’s (1958) dictionaries of Kola Saami.

A syntactical interference typical for the Russian speech from Krasnoščel'e is the use of the particle taj.18 A common example would be my, taj, včera

�12 In Russian linguistics, these phonological processes are normally called ekan'e and okan'e. 13 The perceived “weaker” palatalization in Saami has probably also contributed to native Rus-sian-speaking linguists’ analysis of “half-palatalization” (cf. Rießler & Wilbur 2007: 71). 14 David Pineda (p.c.) 15 Blokland, Karvovskaya & Rießler: fieldnotes(2009). 16 Blokland, Karvovskaya & Rießler: fieldnotes(2009). 17 This rule is often not observed by speakers of Uralic languages in Russia; for e.g. Mari cf. Il'in 1988: 82.


prijexali ‘well, we arrived yesterday’, where taj is a loan from Iźva Komi, though it is not recorded in Sacharova & Sel'kov 1976; cf. Republic Iźva Komi tai ‘ja, doch, nämlich; vor kurzem, unlängst, neulich’ (Wichmann & Uotila 1942: 270), standard Komi taj ‘okazyvaetsja; a’ (Lytkin 1961: 669).

All the abovementioned interferences are obviously the result of an ongo-ing language shift situation and arose in the speech of not fully bilingual na-tive speakers of Saami or Iźva Komi. As the example of preaspiration shows, such interference features do not obligatorily remain and lead to a language-change in the local Russian variety.

Iźva Komi influence on Kola Saami An interesting though most likely occasional Iźva Komi interference feature in Kildin Saami is attested in the derivation of compound cardinals 11 to 19. Whereas in Kildin Saami (as in the other Kola and East Saami languages), these numbers are derived by means of an affix -�mp- linking the simple number and the decade: ńeĺĺ�mploagk ńeĺĺ-�mp-loagk' [four-�mp-ten] ‘four-teen’; the respective (phrasal) numeral in Komi consists only of the two num-bers in juxtaposition: das ńoĺ [ten four] ‘fourteen’. Structurally similar deriva-tion of cardinals 11 to 19 (loagk ńeĺĺ [ten four] ‘fourteen’) as in Komi was observed in the speech of two male Kildin Saami speakers. The men were aware of the fact that this is similar to the Komi system, but insisted that this is also the “right” Saami way to count.19 Note, however, that it has also been observed that Kildin Saami speakers often use Russian numerals when count-ing (Pineda 2008: 57).

With regard to the lexicon, it has been claimed by Turkin (1994: 22–24), seconded in some cases by Anikin (2000), that there are a number of Iźva Komi borrowings in Saami, and a number of Kola Saami borrowings in Iźva Komi, but for all of Turkin’s examples it can be shown that a Russian (in one case a Finnic) etymology is much more plausible. The information in the brackets shows, if applicable, the terminus ante quem as proven by inclusion in older Russian dictionaries (earlier records for many of the Russian words can be found, but it suffices if we can show that they predate the arrival of the Iźva Komi on the Peninsula), as well as Turkin’s Iźva Komi etymology, which we reject: Kildin Saami kārr't ‘tin -plate’ < Finnish karta ‘tin-plate’ (Turkin (1994: 22): < Iźva Komi kɘrt ‘iron’)20, Kildin Saami lipta ‘fur stockings’ < Russian lipty ‘id.’

�18 Valentina Kuznecova (p.c.). 19 Rießler (2007), field notes. 20 Rießler (2009) also lists this word erroneously as a loan from Komi. The Finnic etymology is not unproblematic, as the Finnish word is in fact only recorded in Ingrian Finnish, spoken some 1000 km from the Kola Peninsula, and so SSA (I: 318) is forced to assume that the word somehow �


(1850, SRNG; Turkin (1994: 23), Anikin (2000: 362): < Iźva Komi lipti ‘id.’), Kildin Saami māl'ec ‘fur coat’ < Russian malica ‘id.’ (Opyt (1852); Turkin (1994: 23), Anikin (2000: 371): < Iźva Komi mal'ića ‘id.’), Kildin Saami pima ‘fur boots’ < Russian pimy ‘id.’ (1848, SRNG; Turkin (1994: 23), Anikin (2000: 448): < Iźva Komi pim ‘id.’), Kildin Saami sov'ex’ ‘fur coat made from rein-deer fur’ < Russian sovik ‘id.’ (1852, SRNG; Turkin (1994: 23), Anikin (2000: 498): < Iźva Komi sɘvik ‘id.’); Kildin Saami tāsma ‘belt’ < Russian tasma ‘id.’ (Pawlowsky 1879; Turkin (1994: 22), Anikin (2000: 538): < Iźva Komi tasma ‘belt’), Kildin Saami tuberk ‘high boots’ < Russian tobory, tobury, tuborky ‘id.’ (Opyt (1852); (Turkin 1994: 23): < Iźva Komi tɘbek ‘id.’), Kildin Saami xar'a ‘long pole used to drive reindeer’ < Russian harej ‘id.’ (Dal' 1882; Turkin (1994: 23), Anikin (2000: 622): < Iźva Komi karej ‘id.’).

Saami influence on Iźva Komi For the purported Saami loans in Iźva Komi (cf. Turkin 1994: 24) it is even more obvious that these word borrowings are from Russian and not from Iźva Komi: Iźva Komi kuvaksa ‘tent’ < Russian kuvaksa ‘id.’ (1932, SRNG; Turkin (1994: 24): < Kildin Saami koavas ‘id.’), Iźva Komi pečok ‘fur coat’ < Russian pečok ‘id.’ (1847, SRNG; Turkin (1994: 24): < Kildin Saami piecck ‘id.’), Iźva Komi rajda ‘reindeer file’ < Russian rajda ‘id.’ (1842; SRNG; Turkin (1994: 24): < Kildin Saami rājjt ‘id.’), Iźva Komi jary ‘fur boots’ < Russian jary ‘id.’ (1852, Opyt (1852); Turkin (1994: 24), Anikin (2000: 730): < Kildin Saami jār' ‘id.’).

These words, many of which pertain to reindeer husbandry and are ulti-mately of Nenets origin21, are all widespread in North Russian dialects, and they can all22 be found in (dialectal) Russian dictionaries pre-dating the arri-val of the Iźva Komi on the Kola Peninsula, sometimes already in Russian wordlists from the 17th century. The words that Kola Saami and Iźva Komi supposedly borrowed from each other are therefore, in our opinion, all loans from Russian (or Finnish), and we have not found any lexical items that were incontrovertibly borrowed directly by Iźva Komi from Kola Saami or vice versa and not mediated by Russian. It is of course possible that such loans

�has made its way from Ingria to the Kola Peninsula, though it is not found in any other Finnish, Karelian or Saami variety. 21 There are no Nenets loans in Kola Iźva Komi which do not also occur in the Iźva Komi spoken in the Komi Republic (cf. Rédei 1963), which would furnish additional proof to the assumption that the Kola Nenets had already switched from Nenets to Iźva Komi before their migration to the Kola Peninsula. 22 Except for kuvaksa, but here too Russian origin seems more likely than a loan from Saami koavas. Russian kuvaksa is a loan from Karelian *kuvas:*kuvaksen ‘cone-shaped tent’, ultimately from Skolt Saami koovas ‘id.’ (Vasmer 1950: 679).


which have not been transmitted via Russian exist, especially in the Iźva Komi or Kola Saami spoken by reindeer herders, but we have not come across any.

A case could perhaps be made for metathesis in the Iźva Komi pronoun ńim�n ‘nothing’ (standard Komi ńinɘm) being due to Kola Saami influence, cf. Kildin Saami niemenn ‘nothing’ (GEN/ACC). Sacharova and Sel'kov (1976: 187) in their description of the Iźva dialect record it as an Iźva word occurring only in Lovozero, but the metathetic form ńim�n is also found in the Iźva Komi spoken in the Republic where there can be no question of Saami influ-ence, and therefore it probably pre-dates the emigration to the Kola Penin-sula.23

Conclusion There is considerable Russian influence on the lexicon and grammar of Kola Saami; there is also considerable Russian influence on the lexicon and partly on the grammar of Iźva Komi. This is to be expected, given the strength of language shift among ethnic Saami and Komi and the practically complete bilingualism of the few remaining speakers of these languages in Russian, the only official language and the mother tongue of probably over 95% of the population of the Murmansk Region.

The different extent of Russian influence on the two languages is explained by the length of time these languages have been in contact with Russian: Kola Saami since the first contacts in the 12th century, whereas the first speakers of Iźva Komi arrived on the Peninsula in the 1880s. There is some Saami influ-ence on the lexicon of (Pomor-)Russian, but this seems to restricted mostly to terminology referring to various aspects of reindeer husbandry and local flora and fauna. There seems to be no Saami influence on the Iźva Komi lexicon, contrary to what has sometimes been assumed.

There are also a number of interference features in the Russian speech of bilingual Saami and Iźva Komi. Kola Saami has been studied more inten-sively, and so more, comparatively widespread interference features from Saami can been found; though occasional Iźva Komi interference features have been recorded in the Russian speech of ethnic Iźva Komi, the evidence is

�23 In any case pronouns, being closed systems in Uralic, are not easily borrowed. Apart from cases of pronoun borrowing among the very closely related languages Ingrian, Vote and Inger-manland Finnish (cf. e.g. Ojansuu 1922), we are aware of only a few cases: Upper Sysola Komi jevɘ- (stem used in the dative and accusative third person singular) < Russian ego (3SG:GEN:M/N) (Žilina, Sakharova and Sorvačeva 1961: 471), Mordvin t� ‘you’ < Russian ty ‘you’ (Juhász 1929: 299) and Forest Enets bu ‘s/he’ < Ket bu ‘s/he’ (Siegl 2008; in Forest Enets the borrowed stem bu is used in other pronoun forms too). The Mordvin example may, however, be a simple case of code-switching.


still of a rather occasional nature and would need to be studied more thor-oughly.

Interestingly, Iźva Komi and Russian have borrowed so-called ‘utterance modifiers’ (cf. Matras 2009: 192) from each other, Iźva Komi borrowing okazyvaet'sja from Russian, and Russian borrowing taj from Iźva Komi.

Excepting the aforementioned case of occasional juxtaposition of numerals in Kildin Saami, undoubtedly copied from Iźva Komi, there is no observable influence of Iźva Komi on Saami, for which there are two reasons: one, the period of contact has been relatively short, and second, most interaction was through the mediation of Russian, the dominant language.

Neither is there any observable Kola Saami influence on Iźva Komi (the supposed Saami loans in Iźva Komi are almost certainly all borrowed from Russian). There are a number of reasons for this: as already mentioned above, the period of contact has been relatively short (some 120 years), and Russian generally functioned as a common language. Thirdly, the Iźva Komi method of reindeer herding, which they had adopted from the Nenets before their emigration to the Kola Peninsula, was very different to that of the Saami: the Iźva Komi had much larger number of reindeer, which they herded all year round and which they exploited profitably, whereas the Saami traditionally let their reindeer graze free in summer and did not primarily see reindeer herding as a business (cf. Konakov 1996). The Iźva Komi’s more effective and profitable system was later also adopted by the Saami (Konakov 1996: 80). There was thus no reason for the Iźva Komi to adopt any Saami methods, techniques or terminology. On the other hand, one reason why there are per-haps no direct loans from Iźva Komi in Kola Saami is that though Saami reindeer technology has been heavily influenced by the originally Nenets style used by the Komi, there were actually very few kinds of implements, clothes or other items that the Saami did not know before. The tools the Saami now use, having given up their old ones, still have the old names. E.g. the reindeer bit previously used by the Saami is different only in the material it uses and so the Saami name has been kept; similarly, though the Saami tent, the kuvaksa, in comparison to the Komi čum, is smaller, not as well isolated and has no flooring, it is still a tent, and the Saami denomination for it has not changed (cf. Konakov 1996: 81).

University of Hamburg (R.B.) - University of Freiburg (M.R.)

REFERENCES

Anikin, A. Je. 20002 Ėtimologičeskij slovar' russkix dialektov Sibiri. Zaimstvovanija iz ural'skich, al-

tajskich i paleoaziatskich jazykov. Moskva – Novosibirsk: Nauka.


Broch, I. & Jahr, E. H. 1984 “Russenorsk: a new look at the Russo-Norwegian pidgin in Northern Norway”.

In: Ureland, S. & Clarkson, I. (eds), Scandinavian language contacts, 21–65. Cambridge University Press.

Bryleva, Z.I. 1996 “The history of the Kola Peninsular Komi-izhemets”. In: Seurujärvi-Kari, I. and

U.-M. Kulonen (eds), Essays on indigenous identity and rights, 157–169. Hel-sinki: Helsinki University Press.

Dal', V. 1882 Tolkovyj slovar' živago velikoruskago jazyka I-IV. S.-Peterburg – Moskva: M.O.

Wol'f. Genetz, A.

1891 Kuollan lapin murteiden sanakirja ynnä kielennäytteitä. Wörterbuch der Kola-

Lappischen Dialekte nebst Sprachproben (Bidrag till kännedom af Finlands natur och folk 50). Helsingfors: Finska Litteratursällskapet.

Halász, I. 1883 “Orosz-lapp nyelvtani vázlat”. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 17, 1–45.

Il'in, M.I. 1988 “Nekotorye sposoby prezentacii fonetiko-orfoepičeskogo materiala v kurse

praktikuma po russkomy jazyku s učetom osobennostej marijsko-russkogo dvujazyčija”. In: Vasikova, L. L. (ed), Problemy russko-finnougorskogo dvujazy-

čija i mež'jazykovych kontaktov, 80–87. Joškar-Ola: Marijskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.

Itkonen, T. I. 1932 “Lappische Lehnwörter im Russischen”. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimi-

tuksia 27, 47–65. 1943 “Karjalaiset ja Kuolan-lappi”. Kalevalanseuran Vuosikirja 22, 40-55. 1958 Koltan- ja kuolanlapin sanakirja. Wörterbuch des Kolta- und Kolalappischen. I-

II. (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 15). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Jentoft, M.

2002 Ostavšiesja bez rodiny. Istorija kol'skich norvežcev. Murmansk: Izdatel'stvo Rek-lamnaja poligrafija.

Juhász, J. 1929 “A moksamordvin-orosz nyelvkeveredés”. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 47,

296–300. Kalima, J.

1911 Die russischen Lehnwörter im Syrjänischen (Mémoires de la Société Finn-Ougrienne 29). Helsingfors: Société Finno-Ougrienne.

Kert, G. M. 1971 Saamskij jazyk (kil'dinskij dialekt). Fonetika, morfologija, sintaksis. Leningrad:

Nauka. 1994a “Saamsko-russkie jazykovye kontakty”. In: Zajkov, P. M. (ed.), Pribaltijsko-

finskoe jazykoznanie, 99–116. Petrozavodsk: Nauka. 1994b “Saamsko-russkie jazykovye svjazi”. In: Pan'kin, V. M. (ed.), Kontaktologiceskij

ėnciklopedičeskij slovar'-spravočnik 1: Severnyj region: jazyki narodov Severa, Si-

biri i Dal'nego Vostoka v kontaktach s russkim jazykom, 167–176. Moskva: AZ. Kiparsky, V.

1950 “Russ. Terskij (bereg), altruss. Tĭrě ‚Ostküste der Kolahalbinsel’ < finn. Tyrjä (nicht Turja!)”. In: Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Y.H. Toivonen


(= Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 48), 73–78. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Kiselev, A.A. 1995 “Kola ködžsa komijas”. Vojvyv kodzuv 7, 62–69.

Klaus, V. 1977 “O nekotorych javlenijach vlijanija russkogo jazyka na saamskij jazyk”. In:

Issledovanie finno-ugorskich jazykov i literatur v ih vzaimosvjazach s jazykami i

literaturami SSSR. Tezisy dokladov Vsesojuznogo Naučnogo Soveščanija Fin-

nougrovedov, 27-30 okt. 1977g, 33. Užgorod: Institut jazykoznanija Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Kokkonen, P. 2004 “Kuolan niemimaan komilaiset”. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 90,

371–384. Konakov, N.D.

1996 “Wechselwirkungen zwischen der Rentierzüchterkultur des Sami und der der nördlichen Komi auf der Kola-Halbinsel Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahr-hunderts”. In: Larsson, L.-G. (ed.), Lapponica et Uralica: 100 Jahre finnisch-

ugrischer Unterricht an der Universität Uppsala (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 26), 79–82. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.

Konakov, N. D., Kotov, O.V. & Ročev, Ju. G. 1984 Ižemskie komi na Kol'skom poluostrove. Syktyvkar: Akademija nauk SSSR.

Komi filial. Konakov, N.D. & Ročev, Ju. G.

1989 “Ižemcy v Murmanskom zapoljar'e”. In: Rodniki parmy: naučno-populjarnyj

sbornik, 51–79. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izdatel'stvo. Kostina, G. V.

2006 Vokaličeskaja sistema kil'dinskogo dialekta saamskogo jazyka v svete russko-

saamskoj interferencii. Kandidat-dissertation. Sankt-Petersburg: Sankt-Peter-burgskij gosudarstvennij universitet.

Lehtiranta, J. 1989 Yhteissaamelainen sanasto (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 200).

Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Leinonen, M.

2007 “The Filman Saami on the Kola Peninsula”. In: Nuorluoto, J. (ed.), Topics on

the Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Making of the Russian North (Slavica Helsingiensia 32), 138–162. Helsinki: Dep. of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures.

Lytkin, V.I. (ed) 1961 Komi-russkij slovar'. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannych i na-

cional'nych slovarej. Mägiste, J.

1968 “Suffixentlehnung in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen, insbesondere aus dem Russischen”. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 69:2/1–30.

Matras, Y. 2009 Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ojansuu, H. 1922 Itämerensuomalaisten kielten pronominioppia (Turun Suomalaisen Yliopiston

Julkaisuja. Sarja B. 1,3). Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.


Opyt

1852 Opyt" oblastnago velikorusskago slovarja, izdanny vtorim otdeleniem Imperator-

skoj Akademii Nauka. Sanktpeterburg. Pawlowsky, J.

1879 Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Riga: N. Kymmel – Leipzig: C.F: Fleischer. Pennanen, J.

2000 Jos ei ole poronpaimenia, kansa häviää. Kuolan poronhoitajien sosiokulttuur-

inen adaptaatio 20. vuosisadalla (Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 779). Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Pineda, D. 2008 ““Kuess' ne polučaetsja sāmas, rūšas polegče” – codeswitching on the Kola Pen-

insula”. Poljarnyj vestnik 11, 47–62. Qvigstad, J. K.

1893 Nordische Lehnwörter im Lappischen (Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs For-handlinger, Vol. 1). Christiania: Dybwad.

Rakin, A. & Ljašev, V. 1980 “Lovozerosa komijas ord�n”. Vojvyv kodzuv 12, 48–52.

Rédei (Radanovics), K. 1963 “Juraksamojedische Lehnwörter in der syrjänischen Sprache”. Acta Linguistica

Hungarica 13, 275–310. Rießler, M.

2007 “Grammatical borrowing in Kildin Saami”. In: Matras, Y. & Sakel, J. (eds): Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology [EALT] 38), 229–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

2009 “Loanwords in Kildin Saami”. In: Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor, U. (eds): Loan-

words in the world’s languages: a comparative handbook of lexical borrowing, 384–413. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.

Rießler, M and J. Wilbur 2007 “Documentation of the endangered Kola Saami languages.” In: Bull, T., Kus-

menko, J. & Rießler, M. (eds), Språk og språkforhold i Sápmi (Berliner Beiträge zur Skandinavistik 11), 39-82. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität.

Ruotsala, H. 2005 “Kola Saami: history”. In: Kulonen, U.-M., Seurujärvi-Kari, I. & Pulkkinen, R.

(eds): The Saami: a cultural encyclopaedia. (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 925), 161–164. Helsinki.

Sacharova, M.A. & Sel'kov, N.N. 1960 “Nekotorye osobennosti govora Kol'skich komi”. In: Istoriko-filologičeskij sbor-

nik 6, 130–151. Syktyvkar. 1976 Ižemskij dialekt komi jazyka. Syktyvkar.

Salminen, T. 2007 “Europe and North Asia”. In: Moseley, C. (ed), Encyclopedia of the world’s en-

dangered languages, 211–280. London: Routledge. Sammallahti, P.

1998 The Saami Languages. An Introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Scheller, E.

2004 “Paren' – ett samiskt lånord i ryskan?”. In: Kusmenko, J. (ed.), The Sámi and

the Scandinavians. Aspects of 2000 years of contact (Schriften zur Kulturwissen-schaft 55), 173-182. Hamburg: Kovač.

(in print) “The Saami language situation in Russia”. In: Grünthal, R., Kovács, M. & Seu-


rujärvi-Kari, I. (eds), Ethnic and Linguistic Context of Identity: Finno-Ugric

Minorities (Uralica Helsingiensia 5). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Siegl, F.

2008 “A Note on Personal Pronouns in Enets and Northern Samoyedic”. Linguistica

Uralica 44/2: 119–130. SKES V

1984 Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja. V. Itkonen, E., Joki, A.J. & Peltola, R. (eds). (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XII,5). Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

SRNG

1965- Slovar' russkich narodnich govorov I-. Filin, F.P. (et al.). Leningrad (Sankt-Peterburg).

SSA I-III

1992-2000 Suomen sanojen alkuperä. Etymologinen sanakirja. 1-3. Itkonen, E. & Kulonen, U.-M. (eds). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Stadnik, E. 2002 Die Palatalisierung in den Sprachen Europas und Asiens. Eine areal-typologische

Untersuchung. Tübingen: Narr. Turkin, A.

1994� “O vzaimootnošenijach komi i saamskogo jazykov”. Linguistica Uralica 30, 19–27. Vasmer, M.

1950 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Wichmann, Y. & Uotila, T.E.

1942 Syrjänischer Wortschatz nebst Hauptzügen der Formenlehre (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae VII). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.

Wiedemann, F.J. 1847 Versuch einer Grammatik der syrjänischen Sprache nach dem in der Über-

setzung des Evangelium Matthäi gebrauchten Dialekte. Reval: Kluge. Zajkov, P. M.

1987 Babinskij dialekt saamskogo jazyka (fonologo-morfologičeskoe issledovanie). Petrozavodsk: Karelija.

Žilina, T.I., Sakharova, M.A: & Sorvačeva, V.A. 1961 Sravnitel'nyj slovar' komi-zyrjanskich dialektov. Syktyvkar: Komi knižnoe izda-

tel'stvo.

Komi-Saami-Russian contacts on the Kola Peninsula

Documents