Search

This book includes twelve articles that present new research on the Finnic and Baltic languages spoken in the southern and eastern part of the Circum-Baltic area. It aims to elaborate on the various contact situations and (dis)similarities between the languages of the area. Taking an areal, comparative, or sociolinguistic perspective, the articles offer new insights into the grammatical, semantic, pragmatic, and textual patterns of different types of predicates or nouns or consider the variation of grammatical categories from a typological perspective. The qualitative analyses find support in quantitative data collected from language corpora or written sources, including those representing the less studied varieties of the area.

This book includes twelve articles that present new research on the Finnic and Baltic languages spoken in the southern and eastern part of the Circum-Baltic area. It aims to elaborate on the various contact situations and (dis)similarities between the languages of the area. Taking an areal, comparative, or sociolinguistic perspective, the articles offer new insights into the grammatical, semantic, pragmatic, and textual patterns of different types of predicates or nouns or consider the variation of grammatical categories from a typological perspective. The qualitative analyses find support in quantitative data collected from language corpora or written sources, including those representing the less studied varieties of the area.

This paper presents the Uralic Areal Typology Online (UraTyp 1.0), a typological dataset of 35 Uralic languages and a total of 360 features, mainly covering the levels of morphology, syntax, and phonology. The features belong to two different datasets: 195 features’ definitions originate from the Grambank (GB) database, developed for comparison of world language typology, whereas 165 features (UT) have been designed specifically to describe the typological variation within the Uralic language family. We present a series of analyses of the dataset demonstrating its scope and possibilities. The complete data set correctly identifies the main Uralic subgroups in a Principal Components Analysis, whereas GB data alone is insufficiently granular to detect this family-internal structure. Similar analyses limited to various typological subdomains also give variable results. A model-based admixture analysis identifies four distinct areas of historical interaction: Saami, Finnic, the Volga area and Ob-Ugric.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

This paper analyses strategies for forming polar questions and their historical sources in the two main varieties of Livonian - Courland Livonian and Salaca Livonian. The results reveal that the main means for marking polar questions in both varieties are sentence-initial particles. Their usage is compared to the means found in other varieties spoken in the Central Baltic area. This micro-areal comparison offers an in-depth analysis of the main patterns in the area, including their developmental paths. It appears that on several occasions, Livonian, Latvian, Latgalian, and Leivu South Estonian ( spoken in Latvia) pattern together as opposed to the Estonian and South Estonian varieties (spoken in Estonia) and Lutsi and Kraasna South Estonian (spoken, respectively, in southeastern Latvia and the southern Pskov region in Russia). The data originate from various sources and different times, and were obtained by using both manual and automated methods; the analyses are qualitative.

Between 2018 and 2020 the Kipot ja kielet [Beakers and Speakers] project (KiKi) collected a typological database of archaeological artefacts in Finland and a typological linguistic database of Uralic languages. Both datasets will be accessible through a public online interface (URHIA) from 2021. The data will help integrate Finnish- and Uralic-speaking areas into global perspectives on human history.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.