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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.