Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact in the Territory of the Former Soviet Union
Edited by Diana Forker and Lenore A. Grenoble
[IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society 50] 2021
► pp. 259–288

Some structural similarities in the outcomes of language contact with Russian

 | Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
 | University of Chicago
This paper surveys a broad range of languages in contact with Russian to provide an overview of a core set of similarities in the outcomes of contact-induced change. We consider both lexical and structural borrowings, focusing on five categories: adjectives, verbs, indefinite pronouns, participles and conjunctions, and the structure of complex clauses. There are clear genetic and areal tendencies for particular strategies for the integration of loan verbs, while we also find broad similarities in the changes across all languages surveyed, despite their differences typologically and genetically, and also in terms of their demographics and local contact ecologies.
Keywords: matter borrowing, pattern borrowing, Russian, minority languages of Russia, Slavicization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Borrowing of verbs
    • 2.1Typological tendencies
    • 2.2The light verb strategy
    • 2.3Direct insertion
    • 2.4Indirect insertion and minor strategies
    • 2.5The morphological form of the Russian input verb
    • 2.6Summary of verbal borrowing patterns
  • 3.Borrowing of adjectives
  • 4.Calquing of indefinite pronouns
  • 5.Borrowing of conjunctions and discourse particles
  • 6.Complex clauses
    • 6.1Conjunction, adverbial subordination and conditional clauses
    • 6.2Complement clauses, purpose clauses, adverbial subordination and conditional clauses
    • 6.3Relative clauses
  • 7.Conclusion / Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.50.09for
References (61)
References
Alvre, P. (2002). Russische Lehnelemente in Indefinitpronomen und Adverbien der Ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Russian loan elements in indefinite pronouns and adverbs in the Finnic languages of the Baltic Sea region]. Linguistica Uralica, 48, 161–164.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. (2005). Language contact in South Central Siberia. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(2006). Towards a typology of the Siberian linguistic area. In Y. Matras, A. McMahon, & N. Vincent (Eds.), Linguistic areas. Convergence in historical and typological perspective (pp. 266–300). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The changing profile of case marking in the northeastern Siberia area. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics (pp. 627–650). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkhangelskiy, T. (2019). Russian verbal borrowings in Udmurt. Folia Linguistica, 53(2), 519–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Muhamedova, R. (2005). Embedded language and matrix language in insertional language mixing: Some problematic cases. Rivista di Linguistica, 17(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
Blokland, R., & Rießler, M. (2011). Komi-Saami-Russian contacts on the Kola peninsula. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 38, 5–26.Google Scholar
Bogoras, W. (1922). Chukchee. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages (pp. 631–903). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1996). Language contact in northeastern Siberia (Chukotka and Kamchatka). In E. H. Jahr & I. Broch (Eds.), Language contact in the Arctic: Northern pidgins and contact languages (pp. 33–46). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csató, É. Á. (2000). Some typological features of the viewpoint and tense system in spoken North-Western Karaim. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 723–752). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elšik, V., & Matras, Y. (2006). Markedness and language change: The Romani sample. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, J. K. (2016). Code-mixing among Sakha-Russian bilinguals in Yakutsk: A spectrum of features and shifting indexical fields. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, D. (2013). A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Sanzhi-Russian code switching and the Matrix Language Frame Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(6), 1448–1468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The late success of Soviet language policy. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(1), 240–271. DOI logo
Georg, R.-S., & Volodin, A. P. (1999). Die itelmenische Sprache [The Itelmen language]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Golovko, E. V., & Vakhtin, N. B. (1990). Aleut in contact. The CIA enigma. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 22(1), 97–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, K. D., & Anderson, G. D. S. (2008). Tofa language change and terminal generation speakers. In K. D. Harrison, D. S. Rood, & A. Dwyer (Eds.), Lessons from documented endangered languages (pp. 243–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Höhlig, M. (1997). Kontaktbedingter Sprachwandel in der adygeischen Umgangssprache im Kaukasus und in der Turkei [Contact-related language change in the colloquial Adyghe language in the Caucasus and in Turkey]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Janurik, B. (2017). Erzya-Russian bilingual discourse: A structural analysis of intrasentential code-switching patterns (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Szeged. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kashkin, E., & Muravyev, N. (2021). Izhma Komi in Western Siberia: At the crossroads of language contact. In D. Forker & L. Grenoble (Eds.), Language contact in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaysina, I. (2013). The adoption of Russian conjunctions in Udmurt. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 4(2), 131–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Grammatical effects of Russian-Udmurt language contact. In C. Stolz (Ed.), Language empires in comparative perspective (pp. 219–235). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khanina, O. (2021). Enets-Russian language contact. In D. Forker & L. Grenoble (Eds.), Language contact in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khanina, O., & Shluinsky, A. (2008). Finite structures in Forest Enets subordination: A case study of language change under strong Russian influence. In E. J. Vaida (Ed.), Subordination and coordination strategies in North Asian Languages, (pp. 63–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozintseva, N. (2003). Armenian and Russian: Grammatical contacts. In S. Ureland (Ed.), Convergence and divergence of European languages, (pp. 219–234). Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
Lebedeva, E. P., Konstantinova, O. A., & Monaxova, I. V. (1985). Èvenkijskij jazyk. Učebnoe posobie [The Evenki language. Tutorial]. Leningrad: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Leinonen, M. (2009). Russian influence on the Ižma Komi dialect. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(3), 309–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. L. (2003). Russian interference in Tungusic languages in an areal-typological perspective. In S. Ureland (Ed.), Convergence and divergence of European languages, (pp. 235–251). Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
Maslova, E. (2003). A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, D. (2008). Russian influence on the Kolyma Yukaghir morphosyntax. In A. Casaretto & S. Kutscher (Eds.), Sprachkontakt, synchron und diachron [Language contact, diachronic and synchronic], (pp. 93–124). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36(2), 281–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minayeva, V. (2003). Russian grammatical interference in Ket. Language Typology and Universals, 56(1–2), 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muhamedova, R. (2006). Untersuchung zum kasachisch-russischen Code-mixing (mit Ausblick auf den uigurisch-russischen Sprachkontakt) [Investigating Kazakh-Russian code-mixing (with view on Uyghur-Russian language contact]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, I. V. (2009). Taksis v èvenkijskom jazyke [Taxis in Evenki]. In V. S. Xrakovskij (Ed.), Tipologija taksisnyx konstrukcii [Typology of taxis constructions] (pp. 803–827). Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (2004). Online Kolyma Yukaghir documentation. Retrieved on 16 June, 2020 from [URL]
(2014) A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, I., & Tolskaya, M. (2001). A grammar of Udihe. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oskolskaya, S., & Stoynova, N. (2013). The la-form: Russian verbs in Nanai speech. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri, 4(2), 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, B., & Novgorodov, I. N. (2009). Sakha vocabulary. In M. Haspelmath & U. Tadmor (Eds.) World loanword database. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved on 3 July, 2019 from [URL]
Potanina, O., & Filchenko, A. (2016). Russian contact-induced innovations in Eastern Khanty. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO, 2(12), 27–39.Google Scholar
Rießler, M. (2007). Grammatical borrowing in Kildin Saami. In Y. Matras, & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, (pp. 229–244). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Kildin Saami vocabulary. In M. Haspelmath & U. Tadmor (Eds.), World loanword database. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Retrieved on 4 April, 2019 from [URL]
Robbeets, M. (2015). Common denominal verbalizers in the Transeurasian languages: Borrowed or inherited? In F. Gardani, P. Arkadiev, & N. Amiridze (Eds.), Borrowed morphology (pp. 137–154). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlyter, B. N. (2003). Sociolinguistic changes in transformed Central Asian societies. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalising world, (pp. 157–187). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, R. (2010). Chinese Pidgin Russian. In U. Ansaldo (Ed.), Pidgins and creoles in Asian contexts (pp. 5–62). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stapert, E. L. (2013). Contact-induced change in Dolgan: An investigation into the role of linguistic data for the reconstruction of a people’s (pre)history (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Leiden University.Google Scholar
Stolz, T. (2008). Romancisation worldwide. In T. Stolz, D. Bakker, & R. Salas Palomo (Eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes (pp. 1–42). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Teptiuk, D. (2021). Quotative indexes in Permic: Between the original strategies and Russian. In D. Forker & L. Grenoble (Eds.), Language contact in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tereščenko, N. M. (1953). O russkix vlijanijax na neneckij jazyk (na material leksiki) [On Russian influence onto Nenets (evidence from lexicon)]. In Učenye zapiski LGU 157, Fakulʹtet narodov severa, vyp. 2 (Jazyki i istorija narodnostej krajnego severa SSSR) [Research notes of Leningrad State University 157, Faculty of peoples of the North, Vol. 2 (Languages and history of circumpolar peoples of USSR)] (pp. 60–83). Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo LGU.Google Scholar
Vajda, E. J. (2009). Loanwords in Ket. In M. Haspelmath & U. Tadmor (Eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages (pp. 471–495). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Alsenoy, L., & van der Auwera, J. (2015). Indefinite pronouns in Uralic languages. In M. Miestamo, A. Tamm, & B. Wagner-Nagy (Eds.), Negation in Uralic languages (pp. 517–546). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Berg, H. (2004). Coordinating constructions in Daghestanian languages. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Coordinating constructions (pp. 197–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volodin, A. P. (1976). Itelʹmenskij jazyk [The Itelmen languag]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, B. (2015). Negation in Selkup. In M. Miestamo, A. Tamm, & B. Wagner-Nagy (Eds.), Negation in Uralic languages, (pp. 133–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, H. (2002). Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jennisej-Sprachen [Comparative dictionary of the Yeniseian languages]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wertheim, S. (2003). Linguistic purism, language shift and contact-induced change in Tatar (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of California.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S., & Wohlgemuth, J. (2008). Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In T. Stolz, D. Bakker, & R. Salas Palomo (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on romancisation processes (pp. 89–121). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, J. (2009). A typology of verbal borrowing. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Grenoble, Lenore A & Boris Osipov
2023. The dynamics of bilingualism in language shift ecologies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Reconstructing Non-Standard Languages [IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 52], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.