Societal multilingualism in highland Daghestan:

Nina Dobrushina (Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE) Aigul Zakirova (NRU HSE)

ИЯЗ РАН 13.04.2018

Before the shift: Sociolinguistic description of indigenous languages of Russia

IL RAS, 13 April 2018

Case study of the Karata area

Republic of Daghestan

• North Caucasus (Russian Federation, border with Chechnya, Georgia and Azerbaijan)

• Mountain ridges

• Diverse geography and economy (plains fertile and rich, mountains scarce and poor)

• Population almost exclusively Muslim

• Over 40 languages on the territory of about 50 000 km2

• Three language families (Nakh-Daghestanian, Turkic, Indo-European)

• Even related languages are often quite distant

What is special about multilingualism in Daghestan?

• Diversity: Villages with different local languages are often within walking distance

• Marrying-in: Mixed marriages not encouraged, wives most often taken from the same village, and often from the same clan

• One native language per village: Mountain villages are ethnically and linguistically homogenous

• Vitality: In highland villages local languages are spoken by 100% of the ethnic population (no language shift)

• Multilingualism: Although traditional patterns of language contact have been largely abandoned, today’s speakers have witnessed them and can tell us.

Archib women talking to a trader in Avar

The contacts with the speakers of other languages in Daghestan

• were presumably stable (driven by economy)

• occurred regularly but not on everyday basis– contacts with speakers of other languages took place

only under special circumstances – like visiting markets, accommodation of guests, temporary employment, etc.

The contacts with the speakers of other languages in Daghestan

Singer & Harris 2016 on multilingual communities (Warruwi)

• ‘…we gave a list of references which report on the practice of small-scale multilingualism in a number of areas around the world. What all these communities seem to have in common is the following:

• 1. Community members each speak a number of indigenous languages.

• 2. Each indigenous language has a small number of speakers (<5,000).

• 3. Marriages between people with different main languages are obligatory or common.

• 4. Multiple languages are used within each family and household group’.

Singer & Harris 2016 on multilingual communities vs. situation in Daghestan

• ‘…we gave a list of references which report on the practice of small-scale multilingualism in a number of areas around the world. What all these communities seem to have in common is the following:

• 1. Community members each speak a number of indigenous languages. YES

• 2. Each indigenous language has a small number of speakers (<5,000). YES

• 3. Marriages between people with different main languages are obligatory or common. NO

• 4. Multiple languages are used within each family and household group’. NO

Research problem:

How did neighbors with different languages communicate?

Some questions to be answered

• What configurations of bilingualism (lingua franca, symmetrical bilingualism, asymmetrical bilingualism, etc.) were more typical of the area?

• Why?

• What factors determined the choice of a language as lingua franca?

• What factors determined the choice of a language as dominant in the case of asymmetric contact?

The method of retrospective family interviews (Dobrushina 2013)

• Number of bilingual people at the community level is taken to be a proxy for the intensity of language contact

• Short interviews concerning biographical information and language repertoires of the villagers

• The respondent reports the data not only about themselves but also about all their elder relatives whom they think they remember.

• See also Khanina 2017 for application of a similar method

• From the establishment of Soviet schools in the 1930s, Russian quickly spread over Daghestanas L2

• Traditional patterns of language contact have been almost completely substituted by Russian as a lingua franca

Why retrospective?

Traditional patterns of language contact (Chuni cluster)

Why retrospective?

• Presumably, people born before 1920 were not (heavily) affected by Russification (as they did not attend school)

• People born in the 30s to the 40s usually remember the language repertoire of their parents and grandparents

• …these people are passing away

Name Khaibula (name changed)

Born in Karata

The interviewer was talking to Muhammad

Family relation father of Muhammad

Years of birth and death 1908 – 1982

Native language Karata

Education and living outside the village

Studied from the scholars of Kharakhi (Khunzakhdistrict), worked as a teacher in Karata and the neighboring villages, graduated from party courses (1 year), learned some basic Russian during World War II

Did he read the Koran? Yes, could not translate

Did he speak Avar? Yes

Did he speak Tukita? Yes (taught in school in Tukita)

Did he speak Russian? Yes

Did he speak any other languages? No

Literate in Arabic

Problems and restrictions

• The method fully relies on the respondent’s self-assessment and his or her assessment of the recollected multilingualism of their elder relatives

• Multilingual situation is often stereotyped and generalized and extended to the self’s relatives. (‘Our parents spoke this language, so my parents did, too’.)

• For the eldest relatives (e.g. born in 1880), only multilingualism at a later age could be reported

Data

• fieldwork every year since 2009

• collective fieldtrips with students since 2012

• fieldtrips to 15 clusters of villages

(2 to 4 villages in each cluster)

• 49 villages

Data

SAD_all_wider50.jpg

Aims of the project

• Atlas of multilingualism in Daghestan describing traditional patterns of multilingualism

•One chapter = one cluster of villages

• Each chapter contains a map and a description of the cluster – geographical position, population, crops and trades, important market places, schooling, relations with neighbors

Patterns of multilingualism in Daghestan

Neighboring multilingualism

• Symmetrical multilingualism (neighbors spoke the languages of each other) – 2 cases

• Lingua franca – 3 or 4 (?) cases

• Asymmetrical bilingualism (only one of the two neighbors had decent command of the language of another village) – dozens of cases

Village and its language

Percent of bilinguals

Degree of symmetry

Percent of bilinguals

Village andits language

Shalib (Lak) 62 0,94 58 Chittab (Avar)

Kina 27 0,74 20 Gelmets

Tsulikana (Lak) 63 0,51 32 Shukhty (GDargwa)

Mallakent(MDargwa) 86 0,38 33 Jangikent (Kumyk)

Chumli (MDargwa) 93 0,35 33 Jangikent (Kumyk)

Chabanm (KDargwa)

33 0,27 9 Durangi (Avar)

Chirag (ChDargwa) 28 0,21 6 Richa (Agul)

Khiv (Tabassaran) 83 0,17 14 Arkhit (Lezgi)

Archib (Archi) 92 0,13 12 Chittab (Avar)

Zilo 94 0,12 11 Kizhani

Chuni (Avar) 98 0,11 11 Tsukhta (AkDargwa)

Chuni (Avar) 96 0,08 8 Up. Ubeki (TsDargwa)

Mehweb (Mehweb) 96 0,07 7 Obokh (Avar)

Archib (Archi) 75 0,00 0 Shalib (Lak)

Karata cluster (fieldtrip in March 2018)

Sociolinguistic interviews taken in Karata, Tukita, Tadmagitl and Tlibisho

Expectations prior to the fieldtrip

Closely related idioms (Nakh-Daghestanian < Avar-Andic < Andic)

• Karata – Karata language (Magomedbekova 1971)

• Tukita – a strongly divergent dialect of Karata (Magomedbekova1971)

• Tadmagitl – Nothern Akhvakh (Kibrik, Kodzasov 1990)

• Tlibisho – Bagvalal (Koryakov 2002)

5 – 8 kms of walking distance between villages

Some socio-economic background• Karatathe biggest village; lots of arable land; wood; the biggest local market; transition point to an even bigger market in Botlikh; the center of the Karata naibstvo (Shamil’s administrative unit); now the district center; several villages speak varieties of Karata; some 1,000 people already in the 1895 census; 1,400 m above the sea level• Tadmagitlwas a district center; more engaged in cattle breeding; cattle market; several other villages speak varieties of Akhvakh; 320 people in the 1895 census; 1,400 m above the sea level• Tlibisholittle arable land; several other villages speak Bagvalal; 300 people in the 1895 census; 1,600 m above the sea level• Tukitagood land; more cattle breading; fair Arabic literacy; one village language; 600 people in the 1895 census; 2,000 m above the sea level

Karata

• (picture)

Tukita

Questionnaires collected (directly and via family members)

Karata Tukita Tadmagitl Tlibisho

from 1920 on 205 116 113 191

before 1920 74 33 23 20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Contact situation in a nutshell

• To communicate with neighbors with another native language people used Avar

• To a large extent, this situation persists

“Avar is our common language” (Tukita, 1972 y.b.)

So, in the Karata cluster there is a lingua franca – unusual for Daghestan (~3 lingua franca situations out of all so-far attested)

Before 1920 year of birth

Command of Avar

• Tadmagitl and Tlibisho do not have Avar L1 speakers as their immediate neighbors;

• Avar is thus not a neighboring language for this zone but serves as lingua franca

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

Karata Tukita Tadmagitl Tlibisho

Command of neighboring languages

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

Karata Tukita Tadmagitl Tlibisho

Karata command % Tukita command %

Tadmagitl Akhvakh command % Tlibisho Bagvalal command %

Command of neighboring languages

• Max ≈20% -- for zones with (a)symmetrical bilingualism these are low scores (for the dominant language):

Archib-Shalib-Chittab

Tsulikana-Shukhty

Tsukhta-Chuni-Verkh. Ubeki 57%–100% of the population are

Khiv-Laka-Kug bilingual in at least one of the villages

Megeb-Obokh-Shangoda-Uri-Mukar

• However, ≈20% is a usual level for zones with a lingua franca

Kina-Gelmets (10%-25%)

Which village is more bilingual?

Karata Tukita

Tadmagitl

Tlibisho

A hierarchy emerges:Karata > Tadmagitl > Tukita > Tlibisholess bilingual more bilingual

7

1

4.5 21

3,58

1310

7

0

0

0

From 1920 on

Changes in multilingualism patterns since 1920Karata Tukita Tadmagitl Tlibisho

Karata (%) native 21 - 18 7 - 2 7 - 3

Tukita (%) 4.5 – 0.6 native 0 - 1 13 - 2

TadmagitlAkhvakh (%)

0 - 2 8 - 5 native 10 - 17

Tlibisho Bagvalal(%)

1 – 1 3.5 – 4,5 0 - 6 native

Avar (%) 90 - 91 100 - 100 95 - 96 100 - 93

Russian 24 -- 81 24 -- 80 35-88 14-84

•Growing command of Russian•Otherwise only minor changes

What is unusual in Karata cluster:

• Command of Avar has not been lost

• In other areas with lingua franca?

• Azerbaijani in Kina-Gelmec cluster – strong loss (100 → 50-60%)

• Avar in Hinuq-Kidero-Bezhta cluster – the level of Avar remained unchanged

Intelligibility between neighboring languages

From 1920 on

Speaks / Understand

Karata Tukita Tadmagitl Tlibisho

Karata (%) native 18 / 72 2 / 26 3 / 49

Tukita (%) 0.6 / 24 native 1 / 22 2 / 21

Tadmagitl Akhvakh(%)

2 / 2 5 / 10 native 17 / 23

Tlibisho Bagvalal(%)

1 / 1 18 / 12 6 / 17 native

Receptive bilingualism?

• Only understanding

• Each speaker speaks their own language

• Singer & Harris 2016: typical for closely related languages

• No lingua franca

Receptive bilingualism?

• Only understanding YES

• Each speaker speaks their own languageNO

• Singer & Harris 2016: typical for closely related languagesYES similar situation between Tsukhta and Verkhnie Ubeki (Akusha and Tsudakhar, both

closely related Dargwa languages)

• No lingua franca

NO (doch)

How does intelligibility works

• We might think that understanding between neighboring languages in Daghestan may be due to their genetic affinity

• That would predict similar levels of mutual understanding for e.g. Karataand Tukita

However the level of understanding is asymmetrical:

Karata 0.6 / 24 – Tukita 18 / 72

• Karata: We do not understand Tukita people at all, it is a completely different language.

• Tukita: We speak Karata, well, a slightly modified version of Karata. I understand Karata people when they’re talking, they understand me too.

The readiness to understand?

Tlibisho and Kvanada are two neighboring Bagvalal-speaking villages

• ‘Our parents understood people from Kvanada. They spoke their language, Kvanada people spoke their language, we understand each other’.

• ‘Kvanada is close to our language, we understand it. We used to speak our language, they used to speak their language. In our generation, we are younger people, we speak Avar with them. The older generation had a lot of contacts with them, so they understood each other’. (born 1970 )

Summary

• Karata region shows the pattern of neighbor bilingualism which is unusual for highland Daghestan – use of lingua franca

• Lingua franca shows itself in a very high number of bilinguals in lingua franca (<90%) and a very low number of bilinguals in neighboring language (<20%)

• The presence of lingua franca disadvantages the command of neighboring language…

• … but intensive contacts fosters high level of understanding

• The level of (non-mutual) intelligibility is predicted by the direction of socio-economical gravitation: people from Tukita frequently go to Karata, but not vice versa

This is a collective project• Fieldwork: Nina Dobrushina, Michael Daniel, Darya Baryl’nikova, Ilja Chechuro,

Anna Djachkova, Aleksej Fedorenko, Konstantin Filatov, Dmitry Ganenkov, Aleksandra Khadzhijskaya, Aleksandra Konovalova, Marina Korshak, Elizaveta Kozhanova, Aleksandra Kozhukhar’, Marina Kustova, Yevgenij Lapin, Aleksandr Letuchiy, Aleksandra Martynova, Stepan Mikhailov, Valeria Morozova, YevgenijMozhaev, Rasul Mutalov, Timofei Mukhin, Polina Nasledskova, Ivan Netkachev, Elena Nikishina, Olga Shapovalova, Semen Sheshenin, Aleksandra Sheshenina, Maria Shejanova, Anastassija Vasilisina, Samira Verhees, Aigul Zakirova

• Hospitality: Karim Musaev and his family, Anwar and Maisarat Musaevs, Kamiland his family, Hamzat and his family, Ibadulla, Akhmed, Dzhalil, Ramazan, Said Sulejmanov and his family, Sejdul, Khadizhat and many other people

• Organization: Rasul Mutalov

• Maps: Yuri Koryakov

Sources

Dobrushina, Nina. (2013). How to study multilingualism of the past: Investigatingtraditional contact situations in Daghestan. Journal of sociolinguistics, 17(3), 376-393.

Khanina, Olesya (2017). Languages of Tajmyr in contact: the 20th century/ Language contact in the circumpolar world: Abstracts

Kibrik, A. E., & Kodzasov, S. V. (1990). Sopostavitel'noe izuchenie dagestanskihyazykov. Imya. Fonetika.

Koryakov, Y. B. (2002). Atlas of Caucasian languages. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS.

Magomedbekova, Z. M. (1971). Karatinskij yazyk. Grammaticheskij analiz, teksty, slovar'.) Mecniereba), Tbilisi.

Singer, R., & Harris, S. (2016). What practices and ideologies support small-scale multilingualism? A case study of Warruwi Community, northern Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2016(241), 163-208.

Database online: http://multidagestan.com