G.A. Tsykhun
The Belarusian-Russian borderland, like the linguistic border itself, has always attracted the attention of linguists.
The problem of the affiliation of dialects in the borderland to one language or another remains difficult to resolve even today. A definitive or simple solution to this problem usually leads to a distortion of the true picture. However, in the Soviet Union, preference was given to such solutions. Regarding the issue of the dialects of the Belarusian-Russian borderland, an outside (uninterested) researcher, Professor P. Wexler from Tel Aviv University, wrote the following (quoted in translation into Russian):
“The smoothing of linguistic and ethnic differences, conditioned by the theory of a unified ‘Soviet’ culture, took various forms. For example, the Belarusian language and culture were to be considered legitimate only within the borders of the BSSR, even though the Belarusian ethnic boundaries now lie abroad. It is significant that the ‘Dialectological Atlas of the Belarusian Language’ of 1963, despite its name, contains only maps of Belarusian dialects within the territory of the BSSR, which do not include Belarusian dialects in Poland, the Ukrainian SSR, and the RSFSR” [Wexler 1995, 2: 56].
Another “simple” solution has recently been proposed by former dissident and Nobel Prize laureate A. Solzhenitsyn, who stated in an interview that wherever the linguistic and state borders of Russia do not coincide, the latter should be aligned with the former (see [Bider 1994, 3: 41 - 44]). The consequences of this can be seen in the example of former Yugoslavia. Therefore, a scholar must be very cautious in their formulations when it comes to questions of ethnic and linguistic affiliation of certain dialectal territories. One of these provisions is the possibility of a mismatch between ethnic and linguistic borders, which is often observed in the world, not to mention the difference between linguistic and state borders. Thus, in the future, when we speak of Belarusian dialects or Belarusian features in Russian dialects, we will only refer to the proximity of these dialects or features to the most typical dialectal formations and characteristics in the Belarusian linguistic territory, and this cannot be interpreted in the sense of A. Solzhenitsyn’s statements. Therefore, we will discuss Belarusian dialects in the territory of Russia and Belarusian dialectal features in Russian dialects in the same territory. Pskov Gusli (village of Puzyri, Ostry District)
As for Belarusian dialects in the territory of Russia, it is necessary to distinguish between autochthonous dialects in the Belarusian-Russian borderland and resettlement dialects. The largest compact arrays of resettlement dialects are known in the European part of Russia around Nizhny Novgorod and in Yaroslavl Oblast. Meanwhile, in Siberia and the Far East, until recently, there were entire regions predominantly populated by immigrants from Belarus. We have quite reliable linguistic data on some of these dialects, cf. the dissertation and numerous publications by E. Ukhmylina dedicated to the linguistic features of the so-called Gorky Budaks, the dissertation by V. Tsapnikova, works by N. Okholina, V. Senina, and others. It is characteristic that, being in a Russian ethnic environment, speakers of resettlement dialects most often completely lost their ethnic consciousness and identify themselves only as a regionally distinct cultural-linguistic community against a dialectal Russian background. Although in the 1920s and 1930s, before the onset of Stalinist repressions, Belarusian schools operated in the Tomsk region in Western Siberia, where teachers were sent from Belarus. Similar schools existed in Smolensk Oblast, but for a very short time. Usually, these resettlement dialects are studied by dialectologists within the framework of Russian dialectology as insular dialects, and the question of their ethnic affiliation is raised only in a historical context.
The situation is different with the dialects of the borderland, particularly in Smolensk and Western Bryansk. Here, certain changes in the approaches of Russian dialectologists are observed. In the context of Tsarist Russia and for some time after the revolution, when the Belarusian language was regarded as one of the “dialects” of Russian (alongside Great Russian and Little Russian), nothing influenced the position of scholars, who, from the perspective of the genetic criteria that existed at that time, classified certain dialects of the present Belarusian-Russian borderland as either Belarusian or Great Russian (Southern Russian) dialects. Generally, most pre-revolutionary Russian scholars had no doubts about the dialectal affiliation of Smolensk dialects west of the line of Dorogobuzh – Yelnya – Roslavl to the Belarusian “dialect.” The question of the “dialectal” border in Kursk and Bryansk was debated, but the linguistic affiliation of the western regions, it seems, was not in doubt. This was significantly facilitated by the classical monographs of the well-known Russian and Belarusian dialectologist, published later.
I mean P. Rastorguev’s “Seversko-Belarusian Dialect” and “Dialects in the Territory of Smolensk.” The first monograph, from the perspective of classical criteria of the comparative-historical approach, determined the basis of the dialects of Western Bryansk as Belarusian. A similar assertion, albeit in a somewhat more veiled form, was made regarding the Smolensk dialects, which was largely explained by the changed political and ideological conditions during the preparation and publication of Rastorguev’s second book. However, serious scientific facts could be ignored, and a tradition was established in Russian dialectology for several decades to include the southern Pskov and western Smolensk dialects in dialectological maps as part of the Great Russian linguistic territory; as for Western Bryansk, for a long time it remained a “white spot” on the Russian dialect map, i.e., it was not actually included in the main dialectal division of the Russian language. However, gradually this “shortcoming” was overcome, and already in the summary maps of the “Dialectological Atlas of the Russian Language,” this “white spot” was erased. From the perspective of the interests of linguistic science, this may even be a good thing, because for known reasons, as mentioned above, Belarusian dialectologists did not include Western Bryansk in the sphere of their study, fearing accusations of nationalism, which could lead to very serious “organizational conclusions,” and thus the western Bryansk dialects found themselves in “no man’s land.”
On the other hand, the study of these dialects by Petersburg dialectologists (mainly from the former Leningrad Pedagogical Institute named after Herzen) was conducted under the constant dictate of the idea of proving the originally Russian (Great Russian) basis of these dialects and refuting Rastorguev’s conclusions. This can be easily verified by reviewing the publications of participants in the study of western Bryansk dialects, especially the introductory article of the “Dictionary of Bryansk Dialects.”
Often, the dialectal and linguistic affiliation of these dialects is resolved within the framework of so-called transitional or mixed dialects. Referring to the transitional nature shifts the problem of genetic affiliation into a conditional plane. That is, one can agree to interpret certain dialects as belonging to one or several linguistic territories. The problem is only that the aforementioned dialects are not transitional in the full sense of the word, as their structure is essentially identical to the structure of neighboring Belarusian dialects included in the northeastern dialect of the Belarusian language (which was faithfully noted by such a dialectologist as R. Avanesov). The true transitional zone lies to the east of the mentioned territories, which is very well demonstrated by the “interlacing” on the dialectological maps of the Russian language.
Western Group of Southern Russian Dialects
Thus, based on the works of pre-revolutionary Russian researchers and modern data, it can be asserted that the historically genetic Belarusian basis of the southern Pskov, western Smolensk, and western Bryansk dialects cannot be questioned. It is likely that these dialects or their predecessors belonged to ancient ethno-linguistic formations that later became part of the Belarusian ethnic group. This perspective does not provide grounds to claim that these are ethnically Belarusian dialects, as ethno-linguistic affiliation requires consideration of many additional characteristics, such as ethnic self-consciousness, areal moments, etc.
To understand this “not simple” solution to the question, it is necessary to refer to some theoretical considerations.
In the linguistic world, processes of differentiation and integration are constantly occurring. That is, it is assumed that according to A. Schleicher’s “tree of languages” theory, there has been and continues to be a process of dividing larger linguistic formations into smaller ones, resulting in the existing picture of linguistic and dialectal division (families, groups, subgroups, languages, dialects, etc.). At the same time, alongside the processes of differentiation, there are integration processes that unite linguistic formations (dialects, dialects) based on certain characteristics, which may have previously belonged to different groups, languages, dialects. When we speak of the dialectal division of a linguistic territory, we are referring to the results of the ancient division of a whole mass into large blocks. This resembles geological faults in the Earth’s crust that divide continents into separate platforms. However, very soon such faults are filled with sedimentary rocks that conceal the boundaries of the platforms under the deposits. As a result, a new landscape emerges, under which old faults are hidden or weakly manifested. In this case, the old division often does not coincide with the new division of the linguistic territory. This notion of dual division of the Russian linguistic territory has long been present in Russian dialectology, but the conclusions that can be drawn from such dual division are not always recognized. We are talking about dialectal division on the one hand and so-called zonal (or zonal) division on the other.
It is generally acknowledged that alongside the division of Russian dialects into two significant arrays (northern Russian and southern Russian dialects), there exists another division that can be conditionally called the division into center and periphery. Isoglosses associated with the delineation of the central territory, including Moscow, do not cluster into bundles [4: 28 - 29]. In simple terms, we have two divisions of the modern Russian territory. On the one hand, the division into northern Russian and southern Russian dialects, into genetically Belarusian and genetically Great Russian dialects. On the other hand, into the center around Moscow and the periphery – in other directions. The so-called southwestern zone, which geographically adjoins the Belarusian territory and is oriented towards it, is of particular interest to us.
If we examine individual isoglosses that fall within the southwestern zone but generally do not overlap with the center in Moscow, we will find that all of them, with rare exceptions, represent Belarusian features that exist not only in neighboring dialectal territories but also in the Belarusian literary language, cf. the Belarusian literary iльну (but flax), iржы (but and iржа), восень, руку, ваду, старану, нару, спала, брала, рыю, мыю, ёсць, сёмы, шосты, рукавы, памерла, шыя etc. Others represent local innovations that undoubtedly arose under the influence of neighboring Belarusian dialects (for example, в него instead of у него, вчитель instead of учитель) as hypercorrect forms based on the generalization of the correspondence “Russian в = Belarusian у” (for example, Russian вниз = Belarusian унiз, Russian в дом = Belarusian у дом), Eastern Belarusian forms (аднэй, тэй etc., Russian дочка - Belarusian дачка, Russian матка - Belarusian colloquial матка, literary мацi etc.).
Oh, you swallow… (Starodubsky District, village of Kurkovichi)
Thus, regarding the mentioned phenomena, there is no doubt that all of them originated in the Belarusian linguistic territory and spread to the Russian territory. However, we have no grounds to classify the zone of their distribution in Russia as Belarusian dialects because such distribution of innovations is characteristic of the so-called contact zones of any languages.
Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between mixed or transitional dialects, which relate to the genetic division of linguistic territories, and contact zones – a term characterizing the areal interaction of languages. In transitional or mixed dialects, phenomena of two neighboring languages are usually contrasted, with the proximity to the territory of one of the languages increasing the number of its characteristic features. In a contact zone, however, there may exist phenomena that cannot be attributed to either language (formations like в него, вчитель, дочка). However, other isoglosses that cover significantly larger territories and overlap the so-called center along with Moscow may also have a similar direction.
Regarding phenomena represented in this broader zone, a definitive conclusion about their Belarusian origin is often not made, frequently because they overlap with the center, thus characterizing to some extent also the Russian literary language. For example, take the phenomenon of tsikan’e/dzikan’e, i.e., the pronunciation of soft labial t’, d’ with assibilation. Concerning this phenomenon, A. Kuznetsova [1971: 166, 168] wrote: “The development of dzikan’e in the Russian literary language is a living phonetic process,” and also noted: “Recently, phoneticians have observed an increasingly wide penetration of dzikan’e into Russian literary pronunciation” [5]. The area of Russian dzikan’e encompasses various groups of dialects, including Middle Russian (in the territories of Pskov, Tver, Moscow, Vladimir, Penza, and other regions). It is clear that in this case, we observe an areal phenomenon common to most Belarusian and some Russian dialects. However, it cannot be classified as Belarusian solely on this basis. It is necessary to prove that it originated in the Belarusian linguistic territory and spread to the Russian.
G. Ostashkov, Tver Oblast
The interpretation of the isogloss of akanye may provoke significant disputes, although it generally coincides with the aforementioned isogloss of dzikan’e. This is primarily related to the fact that this phenomenon is used as one of the criteria for the main dialectal division of the Russian territory, and because it has overlapped the central zone and has been established in the Russian literary language. However, everything indicates that in the case of akanye, we are dealing not with an ancient feature distinguishing two dialectal masses, but with an innovation, the isogloss of which accidentally coincides with an ancient dialect boundary. The very configuration of the area of this phenomenon is interesting: it stretches in a fairly wide band along the line Pskov – Moscow – Kasimov in the north and along the Belarusian-Ukrainian-Russian Polesie in the south. Such a configuration, with a wider part in the west and narrowing in the east, usually indicates that the center of innovation is located closer to the broad base of the wedge, i.e., to the Slavic-Baltic border (cf., for example, [M. I. Lekomtseva, The Problem of the Baltic Substrate of Akanye, in: Baltic-Slavic Language Contacts, Moscow, 1980, pp. 157 – 168; V. Chekmonas, The Territory of Origin and Stages of Development of Eastern Slavic Akanye in Light of Linguogeographic Data, “Russian Linguistics” 1987, Vol. 11, No. 2/3, pp. 335 – 349]).
An indirect indication of this is the zone of distribution of the so-called strong or complete akanye, i.e., akanye, for which the sphere of appearance in the word is not limited by dissimilation from the north and akanye from the south. As we have shown [G. Tsykhun. Areal Aspects of the Formation of Slavic Literary Languages [Reports to the XI International Congress of Slavists], Minsk 1993, p. 9], this type of akanye has a narrower wedge-shaped form within the broad band described above, the base of which rests on the Belarusian-Lithuanian border, while the sharp part is localized in the territory of Russian dialects in the area of Kursk and Voronezh (cf.: *“Having originated among the Krivichs, akanye very quickly passed to their close neighbors, the Vyatichs and Dregovichs” [Ya. Vowlk-Levanovich, Belarusian Akanye, Minsk 1926, p. 17] and “The Vyatichs’ great akanye is identical to the akanye of the western layer of the Belarusian middle dialect” [Ya. Stankevich, Soviet Distortion of the History of Belarus, in: Studies and Materials of the Institute for the Study of the USSR, Series 2, Issue 51, Munich 1956, p. 27]). All this indicates that as a specific phenomenon, akanye originated in the Belarusian territory and spread eastward, rather than the other way around, as it is usually interpreted in Russian dialectology.
Decoding of References:
Słovianie Wschodni: Między językiem i kulturą. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana prof. W. W. Witkowskiemu w 70-ą rocznice urodzin. Kraków: Wyd. Bohdan Grell, etc., 1997.
P. Wexler. Belorussification, Russification and Polonization Trends in the Belorussian Language 1890 – 1982, in: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet National Languages: Their Past, Present and Future. Ed. by I. T. Kreinder. – Berlin, New York, Amsterdam 1985.
Cf.: G. Bider. Russia and Ukraine (or A. Solzhenitsyn’s Neo-Panslavism), “Opera Slavica” 1994, vol. 4, No. 4.
K. F. Zakharova, V. G. Orlova. Grouping of Russian Language Dialects According to Linguistic Geography Data, “Questions of Linguistics,” 1963, No. 6.
A. M. Kuznetsova. Some Remarks on the Assibilation of Consonants t’, d’ in Slavic Languages in: Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Moscow 1971.
Source: Tsykhun G. Selected Works: Belarusian Studies, Slavic Studies, Areal Linguistics / G. Tsykhun; compiled, introductory article by M. V. Suprunchuk. – Minsk: RIVSH, 2012. – 372 p. – (Series “Linguists of Belarus”). First publication – Krakow, 1997 [1: 217 - 225].