The South Estonian language islands in the context of the Central Baltic area

Abstract

This article offers a comparative analysis of several morphosyntactic and phonological features in the South Estonian language islands: Leivu, Lutsi, and Kraasna. The objective is to give an overview of the distribution of selected features, their (in)stability over time, and discuss their form and use in a broader areal context. To achieve this goal, comparative information was also included from the closest cognate varieties (Estonian and the South Estonian varieties, Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian) and the main contact varieties (Latgalian, Latvian, and Russian). The data analysed in this study originated from various sources: text collections, dictionaries, and language corpora. The results reveal a multitude of linguistic patterns and distribution patterns, which means that the studied varieties are similar to / different from one another in various ways and points to multifaceted contact situations and outcomes in this area.
 Kokkuvõte. Miina Norvik, Uldis Balodis, Valts Ernštreits, Gunta Kļava, Helle Metslang, Karl Pajusalu, Eva Saar: Lõunaeesti keelesaared Kesk-Balti mõjuväljas. Artikkel esitab lõunaeesti keelesaarte – Leivu, Lutsi ja Kraasna – mitme morfosüntaktilise ja fonoloogilise joone võrdleva analüüsi. Uurimuse eesmärgiks on anda ülevaade valitud joonte levikust ja püsivusest ajas ning arutleda nende vormide ja kasutuse üle laiemas areaalses kontekstis. Selleks võetakse arvesse lähimate sugulaskeelte (eesti ja lõunaeesti, Kuramaa ja Salatsi liivi) ja -murrete ning tähtsamate kontaktkeelte (latgali, läti, vene) esinemusi. Analüüsitakse erinevatest allikatest, mh tekstikogudest, sõna- raamatutest ja keelekorpustest pärit ainest. Uurimistulemused toovad esile mitmesuguseid vormiseoseid ja muutuste levikuviise, osutades uuritud keelte ja murrete omavaheliste kontaktide mitmelaadsusele ning sellest tingitud erinevatele keelesüsteemi arengutele.

Livonian polar questions in their areal context

“…They are, in turn, compared to interrogative markers in the languages of the Central Baltic area to shed further light on their distribution. On the one hand, this continues previous research on interrogative markers and their development (see, e.g., Metslang 1981, Metslang, Habicht & Pajusalu 2011, 2017, on the other hand, this examines areal developments of structural features of Livonian and other Southern Finnic languages (see, e.g., Norvik 2021). The two main varieties of Livonian -Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian -are both included in this study.…”

Introductory survey of the South Estonian language islands

“…At the same time, each of these three communities was a unique laboratory for language contact and responded to the different modern and historical influences of its environment developing, on one hand, new features -such as stød or broken tone in Leivu and Lutsi (Balodis, Pajusalu & Teras 2016, see also Norvik et al 2021 and new vocabulary, while, on the other hand, preserving grammatical archaisms -such as the inessive ending -hn in Lutsi -which are lost or less prevalent in the South Estonian varieties spoken in Estonia today. And yet, while developing independently and separated from the main body of South Estonian speakers, the speakers of the language island varieties had some degree of contact with those speakers in Estonia.…”