The village Keba is located on the left bank of the Vashka river (a tributary of the Mezen river), at the mouth of its tributary, the Keba river, 65 km south of the district center (the village Leshukonskoye), 15 km south of the administrative center of the rural settlement (the village Olema), and only 10 km north of the border of the Komi Republic. The Keba river divides the village into two unequal parts - northern and southern (or Upper and Lower). There never was year-round transport connection with the village. In 1986, there was a shop in the village that was open several times a week, and electricity was being turned on for two or three hours early in the morning and in the evening.
Six months before the field trip, a wonderful folk choir was organized in Keba, whose members subsequently gave concerts in many European cities, including Moscow and Paris, performed on the radio and recorded gramophone records.
There is a reason to think that the village was founded in the middle of the 16th century, presumably by settlers from the upper reaches of the Vashka river, that is, from the territory of the current Komi Republic. The first entry about the village in the scribe book dates back to 1623 (Novikov 2007: 374-375). Throughout the history of the village, the village Vazhgort in the Komi Republic (60 km upstream of the Vashka river) remained its main center of attraction, and not the regional center Leshukonskoye.
In 1897, there were 59 households and 345 inhabitants in the village, in 1918 – 89 households and 444 inhabitants (Novikov 2007: 376, 378), in 1986 – more than 100 houses and more than 300 inhabitants. As of January 1, 2010, the population was only 139 people, 79 of which are elderly people.
Text transcription was performed in standard Russian orthography and does not reflect the phonetic features of the dialect. During transcription dialectal unstressed endings of words were in most cases replaced by their standard counterparts, whereas the dialectal features of the phonemic composition of stems were usually preserved.
The text is unedited (only illegible fragments marked with [] are excluded), and punctuation marks are arranged in accordance with the syntactic structure. At the same time, the prosodic structure of the text often does not match the syntactic structure: real pauses and non-pause prosodic seams do not match the boundaries of syntactic units (sentences and clauses), so commas, dashes and dots do not always match pauses, which, in turn, often appear within clauses.
The subdialect belongs to the southwestern dialect zone of the Arkhangelsk dialects (Getsova 1997).
The speech is characterized by the presence of a “word by word” melodic contour, but the presence of this feature is noticeably smaller than, for example, in the dialects of the Upper Pinega and Vyya (Knyazev 2022).
Under stress, five vowel phonemes are distinguished in the subdialect - /и/, /е/, /а/, /о/, /у/. The phoneme /ô/ is absent, traces of the presence of the phoneme /ê/ are preserved in rare cases under a phrasal accent: хл[ие]б.
Often there is an [а] changing to [е] between palatalized consonants and hardened hushing consonants both under stress (натенет natenet, седет sedet, срежена srežena) and in pre-stressed syllables, in this case – before hard consonants (кип[е]тком).
The change of [ê] to [и] between palatalized consonants is present only in the word йисть jistʹ, in which it seems to be lexicalized.
The subdialect has a fully represented okanye, which is the distinction between the etymological vowels а and о in all unstressed syllables.
The vowel [о] under stress after palatalized consonants at the end of a word (ещё eŝë) is often slightly labialized, and it seems that there is no transition [e] – [o] in this position. There is no such transition between palatalized consonants (смеётся smeëtsâ [см’еjец’:е]). The pronunciation of unstressed [о] after palatalized consonants (yokanye) is inconsistent, and most often occurs in post-stressed syllables before hard consonants (задóхнёт zadóhnët).
If the initial о in the word appears in a phrase in which the preceding word ends in a vowel, в is pronounced between these vowels: что вон čto von.
The voiced velar consonant is a plosive [г], except for interjections and Church Slavonicisms. In the position preceding another plosive, dissimilation is observed according to the manner of articulation: хто hto. Progressive assimilative palatalization of the velar consonant after its palatalized counterpart does not occur: мокрёхонька mokrëhonʹka, узенька uzenʹka.
A voiceless [ф] appears before vowels and sonorants: сарафан sarafan, в феврале v fevrale, на фестиваль na festivalʹ, фотки fotki, во Францию-то vo Franciû-to. Before a voiceless consonant and at the end of a word, [в] usually alternates with [ф], but there are also cases where [w] is pronounced in this position: Аксёноw. The same change [в] – [w] is possible before an unstressed labialized vowel [y]: коро[w]у. At the end of a word, a palatalized fricative labial consonant alternates with a hard one: не став ne stav (‘don't put’), сем sem (‘seven’), не роб ne rob (‘don't be afraid’).
The initial subdialect system is characterized by the match of affricates in the consonant [ц’] or [ц”] (palatalized or palatal tsokanye), but under the influence of the standard language it now occurs as a palatalized or palatal [ч’] ([ч”]) and hard [ч] in the position of an etymological ч.
Other palatal consonants also occur sporadically, and dental plosives consonants are not affricated in these cases (ка[т”]тилосе).
The lateral consonant is the velarized dental [л]. There are a few cases of the change [л] – [w] at the end of the syllable: па[w], переши[w], то[w]стокорённой, presumably only in past tense verb forms and tъlt combinations.
Long hushing consonants are consistently hard, without a plosive element (до[жж]ит, переме[шш]ается). Short hushing consonants are usually hard. At the junction of the verb ending of the 2nd person singular and the reflexive suffix, there is a consistent regressive assimilation according to the place of articulation: [шс’] – [c’c’] (поднимессе podnimesse).
The trill consonants retain the softness in tьrt (вверьх vverʹh, церьков cerʹkov).
Sonorant consonants are devoiced after a voiceless obstruent consonant, especially often after a plosive one (пьёт pʹët, пришла prišla, сказать ле skazatʹ le). This suggests that in the past there probably was a correlation of fortis/lenis in consonants.
At the beginning of a word, [j] occurs before the vowel [и], including the conjunction и ([jи], [j]им, [j]избы), but it is assimilated by a preceding palatalized dental consonant (сва[т’т’а] ‘matchmakers’, бра[т’т’а] ‘brothers’).
Final combinations [с’т’] are simplified to [c’]: есь esʹ, шесь šesʹ.
There is a progressive assimilation according to softness in the combinations of dental sonorants (добаво[ц’н’]о, бо[л’н’]а, изо [л’н’]а).
In initial combinations ср-, нр-, there is an additional plosive consonant (не страми ne strami, ндрав ndrav).
In the prepositional case of singular nouns of the second declension the ending -и -i occurs; the final non-palatalized consonant of the stem here alternates with a palatalized one: там в конци tam v konci, на молоки na moloki, в худом пальти v hudom palʹti. The endings of nouns of the first declension in the dative and prepositional cases in the singular are -и/-ы -i/-y (without alternating consonants of the stem): в воды v vody, в Москвы v Moskvy, на той стороны na toj storony.
Adjectives in the nominative case and in the accusative feminine singular form are presented mostly in contracted forms: полутуха така длинна polutuha taka dlinna, домашни domašni, на профсоюзну na profsoûznu. In the instrumental case in the singular, adjectives (including pronominal ones) have the ending -има/-ыма -ima/-yma, and nouns have the ending -ами -ami: такима граблями takima grablâmi, вот этима руками vot ètima rukami, с этима овцами s ètima ovcami. The endings of the genitive case of masculine and neuter singular adjectives and impersonal pronoun forms are more often pronounced with [г] (кого kogo), and much less often with [в]. Unstressed endings in the nominative case of masculine singular nouns are -ой -oj: тóнкой tónkoj.
The 1st person singular pronoun in the genitive and accusative cases appears in the form of мня mnâ, in the dative case – мене mene. The accusative and genitive cases of the 3rd person feminine pronoun is ей ej, the masculine is его ego (once – нево nevo), the plural is йих jih. The 3rd person plural pronoun они oni, although there is one occurrence of оне one. The plural form of the indefinite pronoun один odin is одны odny.
There are occurrences of the adverbs двоима dvoima, троима troima. The adverb там tam can be used in the meaning of ‘thither’: Зять-от уехал там, на пожню-то Zâtʹ-ot uehal tam, na požnû-to; Ты, дедина, пойдёшь ле к матери-то там, в конец-то? Ty, dedina, pojdëšʹ le k materi-to tam, v konec-to?; Поехали вверх, вот там тебе за десять-то километров, там поехали Poehali vverh, vot tam tebe za desâtʹ-to kilometrov, tam poehali.
In the 2nd and 3rd person singular, and in the 1st person plural of present tense verbs, vowel contraction occurs (не знам ne znam). In rare cases, the final consonant of 3rd person present tense verbs is dropped: задóхнё zadóhnë. The vowel of the reflexive suffix of the verb is [е] (не бойсе ne bojse), including in the position after a vowel (бояласе boâlase, осталисе ostalise, воротилисе vorotilise). In 2nd person plural verbs, stress is on the final vowel of the ending (поедитé poedité; меня в тюрьму посадитé menâ v tûrʹmu posadité).
In verbs with a stem ending with a velar consonant, the infinitive suffix is -ци -ci (-чи -či): напекчи napekči. In present tense verb forms there is no alternation of velar consonants with alveolar ones: напекёт napekët.
The verb тогоделать togodelatʹ with various prefixes is used regularly.
When describing past events, special tense forms are used. Such forms are combinations of a verb in the past tense with the past tense form of the verb быть bytʹ ‘be’, which usually agrees with the main verb in gender and number: Пинега река еще не вышла была Pinega reka eŝe ne vyšla byla; Вся была Олема сгорела Vsâ byla Olema sgorela; Вот поинтересуйтесь, почему хлеб был не рос Vot pointeresujtesʹ, počemu hleb byl ne ros; А сразу-то мужика-то не взяли на войну-то, он ещё остался был A srazu-to mužika-to ne vzâli na vojnu-to, on eŝë ostalsâ byl; Они были тоже продавались Oni byli tože prodavalisʹ; Прошлый год остались были, а сей год все до одного увели Prošlyj god ostalisʹ byli, a sej god vse do odnogo uveli. In some cases, there is no agreement in gender and number: К осуждённым сейчас приехали было родители K osuždënnym sejčas priehali bylo roditeli; У Дуни Макарихиной было развёлся мужик-то U Duni Makarihinoj bylo razvëlsâ mužik-to. There are also combinations of the verb “быть bytʹ ‘be’ in the present tense and a verb in the past tense”: Есть один практикант приехал – учится, дак на практику Estʹ odin praktikant priehal – učitsâ, dak na praktiku.
Iterative forms of verbs sporadically occur, including cases without negation: ботинки где-то брашиваны дак botinki gde-to brašivany dak; Этот уж мне покупыван был, был брат у меня, дак вот брат покупал мне Ètot už mne pokupyvan byl, byl brat u menâ, dak vot brat pokupal mne; Я никакую рыбу не лавливала Â nikakuû rybu ne lavlivala; Пекали раньше-то, всё пекли Pekali ranʹše-to, vsë pekli; и больше не задеивал палечком i bolʹše ne zadeival palečkom.
The subject of the action can be expressed as a genitive case noun with a preposition: платок у меня с подзором-то есть, дак вот у внучек-то унесён platok u menâ s podzorom-to estʹ, dak vot u vnuček-to unesën; Там вышитый сарафан за внучками унесён Tam vyšityj sarafan za vnučkami unesën. The direct object is a noun in the nominative case: тут капуста распахал tut kapusta raspahal. Under negation too the object is marked by the nominative case: Морошка-то сейгод нету Moroška-to sejgod netu; У меня и хлев нету U menâ i hlev netu.
The most numerous and frequent dialectal words are particles which connect different segments of the text: ли/ле li/le (in the meaning of ‘or’), дак dak, да da, ак ak, а a, и i, вот vot, но no, ведь vedʹ, же že, хоть hotʹ, боле bole, опять opâtʹ, ишь išʹ, бат bat, (быват byvat, бывае byvae), and the conjunction да da (including postpositive position). The vowel of the postpositive particle то to in the singular usually matches the final vowel of the preceding noun (after the consonant in masculine nominative nouns -от -ot; in accusative feminine nouns -ту -tu).
An example of a phonetic transcription of a 20-minute fragment of one of the texts is given in (Knyazev, Pozharitskaya 1997).
Getsova 1997: Гецова О.Г. Диалектные различия русских архангельских говоров и их лингвогеографическая характеристика // Русские диалекты: история и современность. Вопросы русского языкознания. Вып.VII. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1997. С. 138-197.
Knyazev 2022: Князев С.В. О фразовой интонации в русских говорах с пословным мелодическим оформлением // Вопросы языкознания. 2022, № 1. С. 7-39.
Knyazev, Pozharitskaya 1997: Князев С.В., Пожарицкая С.К. Образцы говора северо-восточной зоны Архангельского диалекта // Русские диалекты: история и современность. Вопросы русского языкознания. Вып.VII. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1997. С. 311-326.
Novikov 2007: Новиков А.В. Деревни Лешуконья: исторические очерки. - Архангельск : Поморский ун-т, 2007. - 590 с.