CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LINGUISTIC ISLAND AREA AND SOCIAL DEMAND FOR THE VARIETY SPOKEN IN IT (THE EVIDENCE OF REGIONAL VARIETIES OF LESSER-USED LANGUAGES)
Keywords:
island dialect, resettlement dialect, regional language, minority language, linguistic islandAbstract
Article’s purpose is to show that in terms of social relevance, the Northern Irish (Ulster) variety of the Scots language, which meets the definition of an insular dialect, is by no means alone, and in different regions of Europe and the world there are typologically similar varieties of regional and/or minority languages that are de facto or de jure in demand in their society. The key factor that determines the high social status of such idioms is the positive attitude towards them on behalf of the communities of their speakers. In turn, this fact can be explained by the manifestation of the so-called «island mentality».
Methodology. The question of the resettlement and insular character of the dialects under consideration is considered in line with the ideas Academician V. M. Zhirmunsky and his school had put forward on the evidence of insular varieties of German. It seems that this approach can be successfully applied to numerous language communities that exist in various countries and regions of the world, including enclaves and exclaves that speak languages and dialects belonging to the Germanic and Romance groups.
Scientific novelty. Research in the attitudes towards insular resettlement dialects in their communities, which are carriers of the "insular mentality" is still scarce. A similar approach makes it possible to determine whether the relatively high social demand for island dialects can be considered a sociolinguistic universal.
Conclusions. The evidence presented in the work confirms the validity of the interpretation of the insular nature of the dialect area as a factor that counteracts language shift and contributes to an increase in the status of an idiom spoken in such an area. The material of such idioms as Chipilo-Venetian, Alghero Catalan and Saterland Frisian corroborates this conclusion.
References
Zhirmunskiy, V. M. (1976). Problemy pereselencheskoy dialektologii [Problems of migratory dialectology]. Obshhee i germanskoe jazykoznanie. Leningrad, USSR : «Nauka».
Adams, G. B. (1964). Ulster dialects. In: Ulster dialects: An introductory symposium. Holywood, Co. Down (Northern Ireland): Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. P. 1–4.
Hutterer, C. J. (1982). Sprachinselforschung als Prüfstand für dialektologische Arbeitsprinzipien. In: Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Erster Halbband. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter. S. 178–189.
Macafee, C. (1983). Glasgow. In: Varieties of English around the World. T. 3. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. V. 167 p.
MacKay, Carolyn J. (1993). Il dialetto vento di Segusino e Chipilo. Grafiche Antiga. Cornuda ’93.
Marron, C. (2001). Fort: Das Saterfriesische. In: Horst H. Munske u. a. (Hrsg.): Handbuch des Friesischen. Tübingen. S. 422.
Mattheier, K. J. (1994). Theorie der Sprachinsel. Voraussetzungen und Strukturierungen. In: Nina Berend, Klaus J. Mattheier (Hrsg.). Sprachinselforschung / Eine Gedenkschrift für Hugo Jedig. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. S. 333–348.
Scala, L. Català de l’Alguer. (2003). Criteris de llengua escrita. Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat.
Schirmunski, V. (1928). Die schwäbischen Mundarten in Transkaukasien und Südukraine. In: Teuthonista. Jg. 5, H. 1. S. 38–60.
Wiesinger, P. (1980). Deutsche Sprachinseln. In: Lexikon der Germanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. S. 491–500.
