Periodic Reporting for period 1 - TMCKyrgyz (Turkic-Mongolian Language Contact: The Case of Kyrgyz)
Berichtszeitraum: 2021-10-01 bis 2023-09-30
The Turkic and Mongolian languages have a great number of similarities in different levels of language. However, these similarities were found to be converging rather than diverging over the centuries, a fact which made many researchers doubt the existence of a genetic relationship between these two language groups and explain all the similarities through language contact.
In order to solve this problem from the perspective of Turkic languages, it is considered the right approach to act from the data of a specific language that has a long and close contact with Mongolian languages. Kyrgyz is such a language. However, Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz have not been analyzed in detail so far. The aim of this project is to identify the Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz, the laws of adaptation of lexical copies, and the determining criteria for borrowings of different chronological layers.
The history and chronology of the contacts of Turkic and Mongolian languages are illuminated through Mongolian borrowings and back-borrowings in Kyrgyz. The phonetic, morphological, semantic, etymological, and other criteria developed for Mongolian borrowings in Kyrgyz can also be used to detect Mongolian borrowings and back-borrowings in other Turkic languages, as well as to clarify which Mongolian language they were borrowed from, and in which period.
The results of this project contribute to the accurate evaluation of the relationships between the linguistic groups of Central Asia, a long-standing area of scholarly debate. Since contact settings correlate with linguistics outcomes, it will also add greater precision to the chronology of interactions of the Central Asian peoples, and given the importance of the Central Asian peoples in medieval history, such precision will be valuable to historians. The linguistic conclusions of this project can be interpreted in a multidisciplinary context as well, integrating insights from the history and ethnography of Turkic and Mongolic nations. The result of the project has an impact on gaining a deeper understanding of the historical identity of Kyrgyzstan. It clearly evidenced that the Mongolian tribes have played a key role in the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people, a role that until now has been underestimated.
In order to solve this problem from the perspective of Turkic languages, it is considered the right approach to act from the data of a specific language that has a long and close contact with Mongolian languages. Kyrgyz is such a language. However, Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz have not been analyzed in detail so far. The aim of this project is to identify the Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz, the laws of adaptation of lexical copies, and the determining criteria for borrowings of different chronological layers.
The history and chronology of the contacts of Turkic and Mongolian languages are illuminated through Mongolian borrowings and back-borrowings in Kyrgyz. The phonetic, morphological, semantic, etymological, and other criteria developed for Mongolian borrowings in Kyrgyz can also be used to detect Mongolian borrowings and back-borrowings in other Turkic languages, as well as to clarify which Mongolian language they were borrowed from, and in which period.
The results of this project contribute to the accurate evaluation of the relationships between the linguistic groups of Central Asia, a long-standing area of scholarly debate. Since contact settings correlate with linguistics outcomes, it will also add greater precision to the chronology of interactions of the Central Asian peoples, and given the importance of the Central Asian peoples in medieval history, such precision will be valuable to historians. The linguistic conclusions of this project can be interpreted in a multidisciplinary context as well, integrating insights from the history and ethnography of Turkic and Mongolic nations. The result of the project has an impact on gaining a deeper understanding of the historical identity of Kyrgyzstan. It clearly evidenced that the Mongolian tribes have played a key role in the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people, a role that until now has been underestimated.
In the first eight months of my project, I conducted a literature review on the research topic and created a database of Mongolian borrowings in Kyrgyz. In this database, the phonetic, morphological and semantic changes that Mongolian borrowings underwent in their transition to Kyrgyz were also recorded. In addition, I have determined the general criteria of the borrowings in Kyrgyz language that are considered to be of Mongolian origin. I presented the results of my work from this period in three scientific events in Mainz (Germany), Siirt, and Istanbul (Turkey).
In the second stage of my project, I examined the so-called etymologically common words for Turkic and Mongolian languages. During this period, I could show with new examples from Kyrgyz that the lexical units that were considered common to both language groups were actually copied from Turkic to Mongolic at various times, and that most of them were later transferred back into Turkic languages. This situation had also been examined by researchers such as J. G. Ramstedt, G. Clauson, G. Doerfer, A. M. Scherbak, and V. Rassadin. However, within the scope of this project, Mongolian borrowings in Turkic could be listed chronologically according to certain phonetic criteria for the first time. My work from this period was presented at a scientific conference in Warsaw (Poland).
In the final stage of my project, I focused on the borrowings from historical Turkic languages to Mongolian. In the context of Kyrgyz-Mongolian language contacts, I have proven through various criteria, especially phonetics, that numerous lexemes passed from this language to Mongolian during the Yenisey Kyrgyz period. On the other hand, thanks to the project it turned out that the number of Mongolian loans in Kyrgyz is more than 3000. This shows that Kyrgyz has a special place in the context of Turkic-Mongolian language contacts. Kyrgyz speakers have been in very long and close contact with Mongolian-speaking tribes throughout history, so the Mongolian borrowings in Kyrgyz cannot have passed through a single Mongolian language. As a result of the research, I determined that there are four different Mongolian chronological layers in Kyrgyz. In this study, for the first time, decisive and concrete phonetic, morphological, semantic, and other criteria were used to identify Mongolian borrowings from the relevant periods. The results of the work from this period were included in four articles.
In the second stage of my project, I examined the so-called etymologically common words for Turkic and Mongolian languages. During this period, I could show with new examples from Kyrgyz that the lexical units that were considered common to both language groups were actually copied from Turkic to Mongolic at various times, and that most of them were later transferred back into Turkic languages. This situation had also been examined by researchers such as J. G. Ramstedt, G. Clauson, G. Doerfer, A. M. Scherbak, and V. Rassadin. However, within the scope of this project, Mongolian borrowings in Turkic could be listed chronologically according to certain phonetic criteria for the first time. My work from this period was presented at a scientific conference in Warsaw (Poland).
In the final stage of my project, I focused on the borrowings from historical Turkic languages to Mongolian. In the context of Kyrgyz-Mongolian language contacts, I have proven through various criteria, especially phonetics, that numerous lexemes passed from this language to Mongolian during the Yenisey Kyrgyz period. On the other hand, thanks to the project it turned out that the number of Mongolian loans in Kyrgyz is more than 3000. This shows that Kyrgyz has a special place in the context of Turkic-Mongolian language contacts. Kyrgyz speakers have been in very long and close contact with Mongolian-speaking tribes throughout history, so the Mongolian borrowings in Kyrgyz cannot have passed through a single Mongolian language. As a result of the research, I determined that there are four different Mongolian chronological layers in Kyrgyz. In this study, for the first time, decisive and concrete phonetic, morphological, semantic, and other criteria were used to identify Mongolian borrowings from the relevant periods. The results of the work from this period were included in four articles.
Mongolian elements in individual Turkic languages have been examined mainly from the perspective of Turkish-Mongolian language kinship until now. However, the issue of genetic relatedness of Turkic and Mongolian languages has not yet been resolved. Moreover, with the increase in lexical data that could be used for analysis of most Turkic and Mongolian languages and the increase in historical linguistic studies and methods on this subject, the issue of the relatedness of the languages in question began to raise doubts. Therefore, the issue needed to be addressed from the perspective of mutual language contact in a specific Turkic language example.
Previously, Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz had not been studied in detail. The aim of my research project was to focus on the results of the Mongolian-based contact-induced change in Kyrgyz. Firstly, I tried to clarify the direction of borrowing using phonetic, semantic and etymological criteria on the basis of the latest reliable lexicographical and etymological sources related to Turkic and Mongolic languages. In addition, I developed linguistic criteria for the identification of the chronological layers of Mongolic lexical copies. Furthermore, I contributed to determining the direction of borrowing in the Turkic-Mongolic parallels, since the extensive Turkic and Mongolian contact has led to much uncertainty about the direction of borrowing for many shared Turkic and Mongolic lexical items. The project has expanded our knowledge about the nature, scope, and mechanisms of linguistic contacts in general and of Turkic and Mongolian languages in particular.
The criteria I developed for identifying different layers of Mongolic lexical copies in Kyrgyz can be applied to other Turkic languages like Kazakh, Altai, Uzbek etc.
This research will have an impact on gaining a deeper understanding of historical identity in Kyrgyzstan. It clearly evidenced that the Mongolian tribes have played a key role in the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people, a role that until now has been underestimated. The results will lead to some answers to complex questions related to the role of various contributing factors, such as cultural, ethnic, and religious ones, for Kyrgyzstan, which is still in process of the nation and state-building.
Previously, Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz had not been studied in detail. The aim of my research project was to focus on the results of the Mongolian-based contact-induced change in Kyrgyz. Firstly, I tried to clarify the direction of borrowing using phonetic, semantic and etymological criteria on the basis of the latest reliable lexicographical and etymological sources related to Turkic and Mongolic languages. In addition, I developed linguistic criteria for the identification of the chronological layers of Mongolic lexical copies. Furthermore, I contributed to determining the direction of borrowing in the Turkic-Mongolic parallels, since the extensive Turkic and Mongolian contact has led to much uncertainty about the direction of borrowing for many shared Turkic and Mongolic lexical items. The project has expanded our knowledge about the nature, scope, and mechanisms of linguistic contacts in general and of Turkic and Mongolian languages in particular.
The criteria I developed for identifying different layers of Mongolic lexical copies in Kyrgyz can be applied to other Turkic languages like Kazakh, Altai, Uzbek etc.
This research will have an impact on gaining a deeper understanding of historical identity in Kyrgyzstan. It clearly evidenced that the Mongolian tribes have played a key role in the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz people, a role that until now has been underestimated. The results will lead to some answers to complex questions related to the role of various contributing factors, such as cultural, ethnic, and religious ones, for Kyrgyzstan, which is still in process of the nation and state-building.