97 research outputs found
On the Border of Language and Dialect
No full text"This volume considers the linguistic borders between languages and dialects, as well as the administrative, cultural and mental borders that reflect or affect linguistic ones; it comprises eight articles examining the mental borders between dialects, dialect continua and areas of mixed dialect, language ideologies, language mixing and contact-induced language change. The book opens with Dennis R. Preston’s review article on perceptual dialectology, showing how this field of study provides insights on laymen’s perceptions about dialect boundaries, and how such perceptions explain regional and social variation. Johanna Laakso problematizes the common notion of languages as having clear-cut boundaries and stresses the artificialness and conventionality of linguistic borders. Vesa Koivisto introduces the Border Karelian dialects as an example of language and dialect mixing. Marjatta Palander and Helka Riionheimo’s article examines the mental boundaries between Finnish and Karelian, demonstrated by the informants when recalling their fading memories of a lost mother tongue. Niina Kunnas focuses on how speakers of White Sea Karelian perceive the boundaries between their language and other varieties. Within the framework of language ideology, Tamás Péter Szabó highlights the ways in which linguistic borders are interactionally (co)constructed in the school environment in Hungary and Finland. Anna-Riitta Lindgren and Leena Niiranen present a contact-linguistic study investigating the vocabulary of Kven, a variety lying on the fuzzy boundary of a language and a dialect. Finally, Vesa Jarva and Jenni Mikkonen approach demographically manifested linguistic boundaries by examining the Old Helsinki slang, a mixture of lexical features derived from Finnish and Swedish. Together, the articles paint a picture of a multidimensional, multilingual, variable and ever-changing linguistic reality where diverse borders, boundaries and barriers meet, intertwine and cross each other. As a whole, the articles also seek to cross disciplinary and methodological boundaries and present new perspectives on earlier studies
On the Border of Language and Dialect
No full text"This volume considers the linguistic borders between languages and dialects, as well as the administrative, cultural and mental borders that reflect or affect linguistic ones; it comprises eight articles examining the mental borders between dialects, dialect continua and areas of mixed dialect, language ideologies, language mixing and contact-induced language change. The book opens with Dennis R. Preston’s review article on perceptual dialectology, showing how this field of study provides insights on laymen’s perceptions about dialect boundaries, and how such perceptions explain regional and social variation. Johanna Laakso problematizes the common notion of languages as having clear-cut boundaries and stresses the artificialness and conventionality of linguistic borders. Vesa Koivisto introduces the Border Karelian dialects as an example of language and dialect mixing. Marjatta Palander and Helka Riionheimo’s article examines the mental boundaries between Finnish and Karelian, demonstrated by the informants when recalling their fading memories of a lost mother tongue. Niina Kunnas focuses on how speakers of White Sea Karelian perceive the boundaries between their language and other varieties. Within the framework of language ideology, Tamás Péter Szabó highlights the ways in which linguistic borders are interactionally (co)constructed in the school environment in Hungary and Finland. Anna-Riitta Lindgren and Leena Niiranen present a contact-linguistic study investigating the vocabulary of Kven, a variety lying on the fuzzy boundary of a language and a dialect. Finally, Vesa Jarva and Jenni Mikkonen approach demographically manifested linguistic boundaries by examining the Old Helsinki slang, a mixture of lexical features derived from Finnish and Swedish. Together, the articles paint a picture of a multidimensional, multilingual, variable and ever-changing linguistic reality where diverse borders, boundaries and barriers meet, intertwine and cross each other. As a whole, the articles also seek to cross disciplinary and methodological boundaries and present new perspectives on earlier studies
Välimurteiden idiolektit
No full textIdiolects of transitional dialects variation in the dialects of individuals in the Savonlinna district [html] (englanti)1/2001 (105)Marjatta Palander ([email protected])IDIOLECTS OF TRANSITIONAL DIALECTS: VARIATION IN THE DIALECTS OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAVONLINNA DISTRICTThe article investigates idiolectal variation in transitional dialects. The dialects chosen for the study were those of the Savonlinna district and its immediate vicinity, in eastern Finland. The material consists of recorded dialect samples of 198 speakers (about 195 hours) born at the end of the 19th century or in the early 20th century. The informants had lived most of their lives in the same village.The writer examines the idiolectal variation in the following phonological and morphological features, chosen as being typical of regional dialect variations: 1) oa, in non-initial syllables; 2) ea, e in non-initial syllables; 3) ia, i in non-initial syllables; 4) ua, y in non-initial syllables; 5) schwa vowel; 6) consonant combination ts; 7) the pronouns min, sin; 8) the pronoun hn; 9) equivalents of the 3rd person possessive suffix -nsa, -ns; and 10) pronouns of the type sellainen, semmoinen.The material reveals that variation within a single idiolect increases from north to south. This also applies to the occurrence of parallel vari-ants. In the north of the area the greatest variation is found in the vowel combinations ending in a or (with the exception of ua and y); further south, the variation also increases in other features. The variation can be described using an implicational scale indicating the most likely occurence of variation in the different features, which is best illustrated in the idiolects of the Savonranta district dialects, and in the Sminki area, at the western boundary. In the central area, at Kerimki and Punkaharju, variation is well established and the idiolects show greater similarity than else-where. This is because the area was once the heart of a much larger Kerimki parish.The study shows that idiolectal variation is found not only in the group of transitional dialects of the Savonlinna district but extends beyond the district too. For the ten features examined, variation is absent only in the dialects of two informants from north Savo. The composition of the Savonlinna district dialects nevertheless distinguishes them as a group in their own right, with a dialect system that differs from all the neighbouring dia-lect systems
Savonlinnan seudun välimurteiden analogiatapauksia
No full textCases of analogy in the transitional dialects of the Savonlinna dialect (englanti)2/1997 (101)Marjatta Palander (University of Joensuu; fi)CASES OF ANALOGY IN THE TRANSITIONAL DIALECTS OF THE SAVONLINNA DISTRICT The article concerns the set of transitional dialects found in the Savonlinna district comprising part of the Savo dialects, and the district's nearest neighbouring dialects. Typical of the dialects of the Savonlinna district is an abundant variation in phonological and morphological characteristics. This is a consequence of the competition between the underlying language forms - Karelian and Savo - which has existed in the area at least since the seventeenth century. The variation present has provided the preconditions for the creation of many kinds of analogical formations. The motivating factors in this are:1. Tendency towards a consistent paradigm. E.g. the change of the vowel combination oa to uu in second and later syllables may have caused a change in the vowel of a stem (1st infinitive takkuu* 'takoa' ['forge'] -> 2nd infinitive inessive takkuissa 'takoessa'; partitive singular soittuu 'soittoa' ['music playing'] -> nominative singular soittu). 2. Pressure from morphological group. E.g. for the verbs tulla ('come'), menn ('go'), panna ('put'), haista ('smell') and pst ('get to'), analogical forms of the present potential mood with vowel stems are used (tulenoon, mnenn). The models for this have been forms of the potential mood for verbs with two-syllable vowel stems (e.g. hakenoon). The ultimate reasons for the change are primary gemination and the tendency towards loss of final -n, which in the verbs tulla, menn and panna could cause syncretism with the corresponding indicative forms. 3. Influence of stems which resemble each other. E.g. nominative riiht(i) pro riih(i) ('drying barn'); this analogy arises from the influence of stems which are affected by consonant gradation of the combination ht (lehti : lehen ['leaf'] -> veiht(i) 'veitsi' ['knife'] : veihen -> riiht(i) : riihen), which corresponds to the late Proto-Finnic ht or the Savo ts. 4. Interaction of two sandhi phenomena. There is a tendency in the area for both final -n and *-k to be lost, which has meant that certain suffixes ending in -n have turned into suffixes ending in *-k (e.g. illatives ending in -sen, adverbs ending in -ten, -isin). Correspondingly, the suffixes -kin and -kaan/-kn which generally end in *-k can end in -n, which might represent the late return of the final consonant. 5. Contamination. E.g. the oi and ei diphthongs correspond to the ai and i diphthongs, especially in the 2nd infinitive inessive and instructive forms. The diphthongs represent compromises between the Karelian and Savo forms (Karelian andoas's'a + Savo antaissa -> antoissa 'antaessa' ['while giving']).In particular, changes in the vowels of second and later syllables have led to contamination between inflection types. On the basis of the -ii that appears in inflection in the singular, the inflection of nominals ending in -ea, -e, -io, -i, -ia, -is and -ias has overlapped, which has caused variation in plural forms (e.g. kallioita -> kalleita 'kallioita' ['rocks'], ruumiita -> ruumeita -> ruumioita 'ruumiita' ['bodies']). Analogy is generally taken from high-frequency cases and is applied to low-frequency cases, but exceptionally even the nominative, the most frequently used form in the paradigm, becomes predisposed to analogy
NÄÄ-JUTTU, JUNTTIMURRE JA KEVYTSAVO. MAALLIKKOJEN MURREKUVAUKSET YKSISSÄ KANSISSA.
No full textAila Mielikäinen ja Marjatta Palander: Mitensuomalaiset puhuvat murteista? Kansanlingvistinentutkimus metakielestä. Suomi 203.Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura 2014.260 s
Kolmannen persoonan omistusliitteen ei-refleksiivinen käyttö
No full textNon-reflexive use of the third person possessive suffix (englanti)4/1998 (102)Marjatta Palander ([email protected])NON-REFLEXIVE USE OF THE THIRD PERSON POSSESSIVE SUFFIX Guardians of the Finnish language have from time to time advised against the type of use of the 3rd person possessive suffix whereby the suffix refers to a parallel sentence constituent of the same type, e.g. sken oli pministerin ja avovaimonsa puheenvuoro (avovaimo+3rd pers. poss. suff.; 'A moment ago it was the prime minister's and [his] common-law wife's turn to speak'); Elina ja miehens tulivat (mies+3rd pers. poss. suff.; 'Elina and [her] husband arrived'). In standard Finnish, this possessive construction would include hnen or heidn, the genitive form of the 3rd person singular and plural personal pronouns (- - pministerin ja hnen avovaimonsa puheenvuoro; Elina ja hnen miehens - -). Pronounless use, i.e. non-reflexive use, of the 3rd person possessive suffix to refer to other than the subject of the sentence is especially common in newspaper and magazine picture captions and headlines, where it has presumably become established on account of its brevity. In addition to these cases of parallel sentence constituents, non-reflexive use of the 3rd person possessive suffix that deviates from standard Finnish is also found in cases where the suffix refers to a constituent in a previous clause or sentence, even several clauses previously, e.g. Vuosia myhemmin sama laivapoika on kapteenina ja mukana on poikansa ('hnen poikansa'; 'Years later the same cabin boy is now captain and he has [his] son with him').In the vernacular, the non-reflexive 3rd person possessive suffix is widely recognised in Finnish dialectal constructions in which it is included in a word that expresses membership of the immediate family or other family relationships (e.g. is, iti, poika, tytt, veli, sisko, mies, vaimo, tti, eno) and refers to the previous clause or even further back (Karkku parish: katteli sil ku se veljenst talo palo; 'was there watching as [his] brother's house burned'). Such examples are particularly abundant in the Savo and Hme dialects, but the construction is also found in the Ostrobothnian, Northern and Southeastern dialects. By contrast, with other types of words, the 3rd person possessive suffix is used non-reflexively only in the central Hme dialects (e.g. Viljakkala parish: hn aatteli ett lhteek sormensap poikki; 'he thought [his] finger would break'). In the Hme dialects this phenomenon has also expanded syntactically. Whereas elsewhere the suffix is normally with the subject, in the Hme dialects, in particular, it can appear with other sentence constituents: adverbials, complements and objects, or their modifiers. Use of the suffix with parallel sentence constituents as in the Elina ja miehens type of clause is not, however, typical of the vernacular. This construction is, in fact, an innovation based on the dialectal non-reflexive manner of reference connected with family-related terms.In nineteenth-century written Finnish the use of possessive suffixes had not yet become established. The non-reflexive use of the 3rd person possessive suffix appears to have been favoured most of all by writers in the Hme and other western dialects. Amongst those involved in developing the written language, it was especially the Savo-born August Ahlqvist who sought to discourage this non-reflexive use. There were still examples of the non-reflexive use of the suffix in E. N. Setl's Finnish grammar Lauseoppi (e.g. in the 1919 edition), but these were dropped from the edition revised by Sadeniemi. According to Eeva Lindn (1959: 306-307), the reason for removal of the examples was probably the influence of Swedish. However, it seems that another influential factor behind this was that the non-reflexive use of the suffix has been most widespread lexically and syntactically in only a comparatively small area covering the Hme dialects.Directions from guardians of the language have had little impact on deterring the non-reflexive use of the suffix with parallel sentence constituents as in the Elina ja miehens type of clause, even though the construction can sometimes create ambiguity of meaning. The popularity of this type of construction in newspapers and magazines may also be due to the fact that it is not directly based on any regional dialect
Tutkimus suomalaisten maallikoiden metakielestä
No full textAila Mielikäinen & Marjatta Palander: Miten suomalaiset puhuvat murteista? Kansanlingvistinen tutkimus metakielestä. Suomi 203. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura 2014. 260 s. ISBN 978-952-222-538-2
Itäsuomalaisten murrepiirteiden muodonsisäinen väistymishierarkia
No full textHierarchical recession within certain Eastern Finnish dialect features (englanti)3/2008 (112) HIERARCHICAL RECESSION WITHIN CERTAIN EASTERN FINNISH DIALECT FEATURESThe article examines the sequence in which the variants of 18 phonological and morphological features of Savo dialects recede in favour of standard Finnish in forms which allow the simultaneous presence of at least two features. The data consists of 75 hours of sound-recorded interviews with 118 informants born between 1889 and 1994.The writer demonstrates that the fastest receding features are present only when accompanied by other dialect features. The weakest features identified were the following narrowly distributed variants of the combinations ea, e, oa and : ii, uu and yy (e.g. sannuu instead of *sanuu = sanoa). Palatalisation (lkr instead of likr = lkri) and the plural marker lOi (naapurloissa instead of nuapurloissa = naapureissa) are occasionally tolerant of standard Finnish.Previous studies have shown that the characteristic Savo dialect features of diphthongisation (mua = maa), subsequent monophthongisation in non-initial syllables (suoloo = suolaa), labialisation of e (juoksoo = juoksee) and the mnn form of the verb menn are at risk of receding. Even the schwa vowels are becoming less commonly used, especially among women. In the competition occurring within certain forms, the monophthongisation of non-initial vowels is proving stronger than the schwa vowels: it triumphs over more than half of the possible accompanying dialect features, whereas the other forms win out in no more than half of the cases. The schwa vowel is weaker than the others: it triumphs over only four of the eleven features.The vowel features of eastern Finnish are generally weaker than the consonant features in resisting standard Finnish. Apart from palatalisation and the ts combination, all the consonant features studied (e.g. variants corresponding to the weak grade of t and gemination phenomena) triumph over more than half of their competitors.In the competition between different forms, the strongest features are the assimilation variants uu, yy, ee, oo and of a/-final clusters in non-initial syllables (e.g. valmistuux; commonly valamistuux in the dialect, = valmistua), and the participle form ending in -nUx (mennyx; commonly mnnyx in the dialect, = mennyt). These have long been widely distributed and can appear in forms that are in other respects completely consistent with standard Finnish. An exception among the assimilation variants is ii. Although this variant has been adopted in contemporary spoken language in southern Finland, it is avoided in eastern parts of the country, where the preferred forms are the combinations ia and i (e.g. helemi( instead of helemii = helmi), which not only appear in standard Finnish but are also parallel variants in the dialect. In the competition between different forms of dialect features, recession and retention are not dependent purely on the syllable position. Primary gemination and diphthongisation are more prone to receding from the initial syllable than from non-initial syllables, and the strongest features are often found in the final syllables of words. More critical than the syllable position, however, is whether or not the geographic distribution of a feature has long extended to areas in which western Finnish dialects are spoken.The article demonstrates that the strength of a dialect feature can vary depending on the context in which it is used. In particular, the nature of any accompanying feature can affect the risk of the dialect feature being replaced by a standard Finnish form. This process tends to be overlooked when examining the overall representation of a dialect feature. Form-internal strategies concerning use of standard Finnish forms are common throughout the speech community, and this will tend to steer dialect change in a given direction.Marjatta Palander- - - - - - - - - - - -Itsuomalaisten murrepiirteiden muodonsisinen vistymishierarkiaArtikkelissa tarkastellaan, miss jrjestyksess 18 fonologisen ja morfologisen piirteen savolaismurteiset variantit yleiskielistyvt muodoissa, jotka mahdollistavat vhintn kahden piirteen samanaikaisen esiintymisen. Aineistona on 75 tuntia haastattelupuhetta 118 informantilta, jotka ovat syntyneet v. 1889-1994.Tutkimus osoittaa, ett nopeimmin vistyvt piirteet esiintyvt en vain murteellisten kumppanipiirteiden seurassa. Heikoimpia piirteit ovat levikiltn suppea-alaiset ea, e ja oa, -yhtymien variantit ii ja uu, yy (esim. sannuu eik *sanuu 'sanoa'). Satunnaisesti yleiskielt sietvt liudennus (lkr pro likr 'lkri') ja lOi-monikkotunnus (naapurloissa pro nuapurloissa 'naapureissa').Aiempien tutkimusten perusteella tiedetn, ett savolaismurteille tunnusomaiset diftongiutuminen (mua 'maa') ja sit seurannut monoftongiutuminen jlkitavuissa (suoloo 'suolaa'), e:n labialisaatio (juoksoo 'juoksee') ja mnn-asuinen menn-verbi ovat herkki vistymn. Svaavokaalitkin ovat vhenemss varsinkin naisilla. Muodonsisisess kilpailussa jlkitavujen monoftongiutuminen osoittautuu nist vahvimmaksi: se pystyy voittamaan yli puolet mahdollisista kumppanipiirteistn, kun taas muut voittavat korkeintaan puolet. Svaa on suhteessa muihin heikoin: se voi voittaa ainoastaan nelj piirrett yhdesttoista.Itsuomalaiset vokaalipiirteet ovat yleens heikompia vastustamaan yleiskielt kuin konsonantti-ilmit. Liudennusta ja ts-yhtym lukuun ottamatta kaikki tarkasteltavat konsonanttipiirteet (esim. t:n heikon asteen vastineet sek geminaatioilmit) pystyvt voittamaan yli puolet kilpailijoistaan.Muodonsisisess kilpailussa vahvimpia ovat jlkitavujen a, -loppuisten yhtymien assimilaatiovariantit uu, yy, ee ja oo, (esim. valmistuux; murteessa yleens valamistuux 'valmistua') sek -nUx-loppuinen partisiippityyppi (mennyx; murteessa yleens mnnyx 'mennyt'). Ne ovat vanhastaan olleet laajalevikkisi ja voivat esiinty muilta osin tysin yleiskielistyneiss muodoissa. Assimilaatiovarianteista poikkeuksellinen on ii: vaikka se on omaksuttu etelsuomalaiseen nykypuhekieleen, itsuomalaiset vlttvt sit kyttmll ia, i -yhtymi (esim. helemi( pro helemii 'helmi'), jotka ovat paitsi yleiskielisi mys murteellisia rinnakkaisvariantteja. Piirteiden muodonsisisess kilpailussa vistyminen tai silyminen ei riipu pelkstn tavuasemasta. Yleisgeminaatio ja diftongiutuminen vistyvt kyll herkemmin ensi tavusta kuin jlkitavuista, ja vahvimmat piirteet sijoittuvat usein sanan viimeiseen tavuun. Tavuasemaa ratkaisevampaa on kuitenkin se, ett piirteen levikkialue on vanhastaan ulottunut lnsimurteiden puolelle.Tutkimus osoittaa, ett saman murrepiirteen vahvuus voi eri konteksteissa vaihdella: kumppanipiirre vaikuttaa siihen, miten herksti piirre yleiskielistyy. Tm vaihtelu j piirteen kokonaisedustusta tarkastelemalla huomaamatta. Muodonsisiset yleiskielistmisstrategiat ovat puheyhteislle yhteisi, mik ohjaa murteen muuttumista samaan suuntaan.Marjatta Palande
- …
