The Concept of Work in Yupik Eskimo Society Before and After the Russian Influx: A Linguist’s Perspective

The Yupik language has a word to signify ‘work’ derived from the stem qepgha(gh)- (qepghaq ‘work’ [noun], qepghaghtuq ‘he works’, qepghaghta ‘worker’, etc.) The scope of the meaning of this word changed drastically after the Russians came to Chukotka to stay in the 1930s. While in the pre-(intensive) contact times the word mainly meant ‘house work’ or ‘processing the carcass of a killed animal’, in mid-20th century it acquired new meanings, borrowing them from Russian. The usage of the word also became a replica of Russian usage: the concept acquired new dependent words, like evaluative adverbs and adjectives, or inanimate agents. This change of meaning reflected social changes that took place in the Yupik world as a result of the modernisation process of the 1950s and 1960s, and is an indicator of the deep transformation the society underwent under Russian (Soviet) influence. The paper analyses this process using two sources from two different epochs: Yupik texts recorded by Yekaterina Rubtsova in the 1940s, that is, in the pre-(intensive) contact period, and a modern Russian-Yupik dictionary compiled by Natalia Rodionova, a teacher of Yupik Eskimo at the Anadyr college, and published 70 years later, in 2014.&nbsp

Two approaches to reversing language shift and the Soviet publication program for indigenous minorities

The present paper discusses the interplay between the Soviet state policy towards indigenous languages of "Northern Minorities" and the attitudes of the indigenous communities to their languages and to language endangerment. The author uses statistics on the Soviet state program of publishing books (primarily school books) in indigenous languages that was launched in the late 1920s and underwent considerable changes in the course of the decades to follow. It is argued that the publishing policy for all languages of indigenous minorities of the Far North followed the same consistent pattern that included several phases: "a glorious beginning" in the 1930s interrupted by the war, then a strong continuation in the 1950s, then a drop in the 1960-70s, and a resurrection in the 1980s, interrupted by the economic crisis of the early 1990s. The most interesting and the least clear period is the two and a half decades between mid-1950s and late 1970s where changes of the state policy may be connected with changes in community attitudes towards their native languages. A successful policy of language preservation and revitalization is possible only if it is supported simultaneously by the state and the indigenous community.L'article discute de l'interaction entre la politique soviétique officielle concernant les langues indigènes des «minorités du Nord» et les attitudes de ces communautés envers leurs propres langues et envers leur mise en danger. L'auteur exploite les statistiques du programme soviétique étatique de publication d'ouvrages en langues indigènes (essentiellement des manuels pour l'école primaire), lancé par l'État dans les années 1920, et qui subit des modifications considérables au cours des décennies suivantes. La thèse développée est que les programmes de publication pour les langues minoritaires du Grand Nord ont tous obéi à peu près au même schéma et ont connu les phases suivantes: un début flamboyant dans les années 1930, interrompu par la guerre, puis une reprise vigoureuse dans les années 1950, ainsi qu’un abandon dans les années 1960-70, suivi d'une résurrection dans les années 1980, à son tour interrompue par la crise économique du début des années 1990. La plus intéressante, et la moins claire des phases étudiées est celle de la reprise qui va du milieu des années 1950 jusqu'à la fin des années 1970. Les changements intervenus dans la politique de l'État peuvent être mis en rapport avec ceux dans l'attitude des communautés vis-à-vis de leurs propres langues natales. Une politique de préservation et de revitalisation de la langue ne saurait avoir de succès que si elle est soutenue tant par les communautés indigènes que par l'État

Language obsolescence in polysynthetic languages

Peer reviewe

Who owns Siberian ethnography? A critical assessment of a re-internationalized field.

Although Siberian ethnography was an open and international field at the turn of the 20th century, from about 1930 until the late 1980s Siberia was for the most part closed to foreigners and therefore to Western ethnographers. This allowed Soviet ethnographers to establish a virtual monopoly on Siberian field sites. Soviet and Western anthropology developed during that period in relative isolation from one another, allowing methodologies and theoretical approaches to diverge. During glasnost’ and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Siberian field was reopened and field studies were conducted by several Western ethnographers. The resulting encounter between Western and former Soviet ethnographers in the 1980s and 1990s produced a degree of cultural shock as well new challenges and opportunities on both sides. This is an experiential account of the mood of these newly reunited colleagues at the turn of the 21st century

On Domestication, Permanent and Temporary: Qoraŋә, Ǝlwelu, and Akwәqor

In this paper, I analyze a Yupik folklore plot represented by two stories. Both were recorded in 1940-41 by Ekaterina Rubtsova from two Ungazighmiit storytellers: Nalugyaq (1888–1942) and Tatko (ca. 1875–ca. 1944). The plot is as follows: A man abandons his older wife and two sons and leaves with his younger wife, taking away the herd and apparently leaving the old family to die. But they survive; the boys grow up, start to hunt, and finally come across a herd of wild deer grazing nearby. They tame the herd and fully domesticate it, then set on a journey in search of their father. Eventually they find their father, and once they reach their goal, the herd suddenly turns into a flock of cranes and flies away. Several questions require attention here: From the emic perspective, where is the line between tame and wild? What should a wild animal learn to do, or feel, or get accustomed to, or stop being afraid of, in order to become domestic? What are specific techniques of taming? What are the human-animal relations that enable people to tame the deer and at the same time leave an option for the deer to become wild again?Dans cet article, j’analyse un aspect intriguant du folklore yupik au travers de deux histoires. Toutes deux ont été enregistrées en 1940-41 par Ekaterina Rubtsova auprès de deux orateurs Ungazighmiit : Nalugyaq (1888-1942) et Tatko (vers 1875-vers 1944). L’intrigue est la suivante : un homme abandonne sa femme aînée et ses deux fils, et part avec sa jeune épouse, en emportant le troupeau et en laissant apparemment mourir sa vieille famille. Mais ils survivent ; les garçons grandissent, commencent à chasser et tombent finalement sur un troupeau de rennes sauvages qui paissent à proximité. Ils apprivoisent le troupeau et le domestiquent complètement, puis partent à la recherche de leur père. Ils finissent par trouver leur père et, une fois leur objectif atteint, le troupeau se transforme soudain en une volée de grues qui s’envolent. Plusieurs questions doivent être examinées ici. Du point de vue émique, où se situe la limite entre apprivoisé et sauvage ? Que doit apprendre un animal sauvage pour devenir domestique ? Que doit-il faire, ressentir, intégrer comme nouvelles habitudes ou de quoi doit-il apprendre à cesser d’avoir peur ? Quelles sont les techniques spécifiques de domestication ? Quelles sont les relations entre les humains et les animaux qui permettent d’apprivoiser les rennes tout en leur laissant la possibilité de redevenir sauvage ?В этой статье я анализирую эскимосский фольклорный сюжет, представленный двумя текстами. Оба текста были записаны в 1940-41 гг. Екатериной Семеновной Рубцовой от двух рассказчиков из села Ун’азик: Налугьяк (1888-1942) и Татко (ок. 1875 – ок. 1944). Сюжет обоих текстов одинаков: мужчина бросает старшую жену и двух сыновей и уходит с младшей женой, уводя стадо и таким образом оставляя первую семью умирать. Но они выживают; мальчики вырастают, начинают охотиться и, наконец, натыкаются на стадо диких оленей, пасущееся неподалеку. Они приручают стадо и полностью одомашнивают его, а затем отправляются в путешествие на поиски своего отца. В конце концов они находят отца, и как только они достигают своей цели, стадо внезапно превращается в стаю журавлей и улетает. Здесь необходимо обратить внимание на несколько вопросов. С эмной точки зрения, где проходит грань между прирученным и диким? Чему должны научиться, или чувствовать, или к чему привыкнуть, или чего перестать бояться дикие животные, чтобы считаться домашним? Каковы конкретные методы приручения? Какие отношения между человеком и животными позволяют людям приручать оленя и в то же время оставлять оленю возможность снова стать диким

Who owns Siberian ethnography? A critical assessment of a re-internationalized field.

Although Siberian ethnography was an open and international field at the turn of the 20th century, from about 1930 until the late 1980s Siberia was for the most part closed to foreigners and therefore to Western ethnographers. This allowed Soviet ethnographers to establish a virtual monopoly on Siberian field sites. Soviet and Western anthropology developed during that period in relative isolation from one another, allowing methodologies and theoretical approaches to diverge. During glasnost’ and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Siberian field was reopened and field studies were conducted by several Western ethnographers. The resulting encounter between Western and former Soviet ethnographers in the 1980s and 1990s produced a degree of cultural shock as well new challenges and opportunities on both sides. This is an experiential account of the mood of these newly reunited colleagues at the turn of the 21st century

Who owns Siberian ethnography? A critical assessment of a re-internationalized field.

Although Siberian ethnography was an open and international field at the turn of the 20th century, from about 1930 until the late 1980s Siberia was for the most part closed to foreigners and therefore to Western ethnographers. This allowed Soviet ethnographers to establish a virtual monopoly on Siberian field sites. Soviet and Western anthropology developed during that period in relative isolation from one another, allowing methodologies and theoretical approaches to diverge. During glasnost’ and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Siberian field was reopened and field studies were conducted by several Western ethnographers. The resulting encounter between Western and former Soviet ethnographers in the 1980s and 1990s produced a degree of cultural shock as well new challenges and opportunities on both sides. This is an experiential account of the mood of these newly reunited colleagues at the turn of the 21st century