BORROWING OF THE RUSSIAN PRONOUN VES’ ‘ALL’ AND CONJUNCTIONS ILI, ALI ‘OR’ INTO SELKUP DIALECTS

This article addresses the following question: can differences in the functionality of a borrowed unit in the recipient language reflect differences in the parameters of the contact situation? Does a model of functional adaptation of a borrowed unit reflect the degree of vitality of the recipient language in a situation of bilingualism? Three models of functional adaptation of a borrowed unit can be distinguished:
1) the set of meanings of a borrowed unit in the recipient language does not repeat the polysemy of the borrowed unit in the donor language, but corresponds exactly to the polysemy of some original element;
2) the complete set of meanings of the borrowed unit in the donor language is replicated into the recipient language;
3) only the most frequent meanings of the borrowed unit in the donor language are transferred to the recipient language.
I assume that these three models correspond to three contact situations different in terms of the vitality of Selkup.
For the first model, it is possible to reconstruct a situation in which at least some speakers of a dialect were proficient in Russian, but the Selkup language remained functionally dominant.
For the second model, it is possible to reconstruct the situation of Russian-Selkup bilingualism, characterized by a fairly complete proficiency in both languages and the absence of a threat to the vitality of Selkup.
For the third model, it is possible to reconstruct the situation of functional dominance of the Russian language.