Russian–Belarusian Border Dialects and Their “Language Roof”: Dedialectization and Trajectories of Changes

Abstract

The dialects discussed in this article were considered Belarusian in the early 20th century, and later, as a result of the transfer of the administrative (state) border, they became part of the Russian territory and were considered Russian. The changes occurring in these dialects as a result of the influence of the standard Russian language are interesting from various perspectives. Firstly, the linguistic self-identification of dialect speakers changes and the perception of their dialect as less prestigious compared to the standard language is formed. Secondly, linguistic features that dialectologists previously defined as characteristic of the Belarusian language are being replaced by standard Russian ones. By analyzing the linguistic data obtained from the dialect speakers of different generations, we can trace the emergence of variation and then its loss. Observing which linguistic features are subject to change first, and which remain more stable, allows us to examine linguistic changes through the lens of the “hierarchy of borrowings” theory. Additionally, given the linguistic inequality between the dialect and the standard language, we can observe the gradual transformation of the dialect under the influence of the prestigious standard idiom. Therefore, the loss of Belarusian–Russian variation can be viewed as a process of dedialectization, bringing the dialect closer to the standard language.

1. Introduction

In this article, we focus on dedialectization as the process by which a dialect converges with the normative standard language. We can observe this process as a gradual loss of dialectal features across different linguistic levels. Speakers of Russian and Belarusian dialects are evidently included within the sphere of standard language culture (Milroy, 2001, pp. 530–533). Accordingly, the concept of a prestigious “model” language is relevant for them, and they perceive their own idiom against the backdrop of this prestigious standard as a variety characterized by certain “deviations”. Since the notion of a “model” norm is linked to the ideology of language policy, it is important for language changes (namely, the emergence of variation and its loss in favor of a standard) what language is considered standard and normative for a given territory.

It is well known that “political and social history not only affects a list of ‘languages’, but also a list of ‘dialects’” (Maxwell, 2006, p. 141), and the classification of a dialect as belonging to one language or another closely related one is influenced by the same factors. Undoubtedly, the primary trigger of linguistic changes in the Russian–Belarusian border dialects was the incorporation of their territory into the Russian language zone at the beginning of the 20th century. This shift led, first of all, to a change in the speakers’ linguistic self-identification. The actual linguistic changes occurring in these dialects should be considered in the context of the “language roof” (Kloss, 1967)—that is, the standard language perceived as “model” for this dialect.

The linguistic processes of the emergence of variation and its loss in this case can be described as language changes in the conditions of language contact. It is known that both in contacts between two languages and in contacts between a dialect and a standard language, the adoption of features from one idiom into another occurs unevenly across different linguistic levels. This unevenness has long been a subject of discussion in linguistics. For example, scholars have proposed the existence of “primary” dialectal features, which are more likely to be lost when interacting with a literary language, and “secondary” features, which tend to be preserved to varying degrees (Zhirmunskiy, 1929, pp. 214–220). There have also been attempts to construct a “dialectization scale” (Kogotkova, 1970, pp. 130–148) or a “transition scale” that outlines the sequence in which dialectal features are lost during interaction with a standard language (Trubinskiy, 1984, pp. 52–55). Trudgill showed that phonetic changes occurring during dialect contact are uneven: the features most likely to be replaced by a variant from a prestigious dialect are those that are “salient”, i.e., such features that dialect speakers are most aware of and recognize as distinctive. The salience of a dialectal feature, in turn, depends on several factors, including stigmatization, current involvement in linguistic change, phonetic distance, and phonological contrast (Trudgill, 1986, vol. 11, pp. 37–38). It has been observed that dialects undergoing a shift toward a more prestigious, normalized literary language typically follow a sequence: changes first occur at the lexical level, followed by phonetic and morphological changes (Perekhval’skaya, 2016, pp. 89–90). Similarly, when speakers shift from one language to another, a “borrowability hierarchy” is often assumed: lexical items are replaced first, followed by functional elements, then inflectional morphemes, and finally phonetic features (Field, 2002, pp. 37–40).

2. Linguistic Status of Dialects of the Mogilev–Smolensk Border Region

Since the dialects of the Mogilev–Smolensk borderland lie within the contact zone of the Russian and Belarusian languages, their linguistic status and identification with either of the standard languages is not always clearly defined. It is well known that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish a precise boundary between dialects of closely related languages. For this reason, dialectology employs specific terms such as “transitional dialects” and “mixed dialects” to describe such idioms.

In the territory of the modern Mogilev–Smolensk borderland, the interaction of East Slavic dialects of different origins has taken place since ancient times, predating the emergence of Russian and Belarusian as distinct national languages (Khaburgayev, 1980, p. 149; Kuznetsov, 1960, p. 156). It is therefore believed that a joint linguistic system developed in this region—one that cannot be fully attributed to either Russian or Belarusian, as it contains features of both. In view of this historically formed “transitional” system, the dialects of the Russian–Belarusian borderland are classified as “transitional” (Durnovo et al., 1915, pp. 2–3; Novopokrovskaya, 1975; Prokhorova, 1991) or as “Russian dialects with Belarusian features” (Kuznetsov, 1960, pp. 155–156). However, beginning in the 16th–17th centuries, due to shifting borders between Muscovy and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a result of wars, the western part of Smolensk periodically became Russian territory. Consequently, these dialects—Belarusian in their foundation—came under the influence of the Russian language. As a result of this influence, the dialects began to lose “the stability of features that characterizes transitional dialects” (Rastorguyev, 1960, p. 184), and they are therefore classified as “mixed” dialects, which are characterized by the variation of features from different neighboring languages occurring in the same linguistic positions. For a discussion on the distinction between “transitional” and “mixed” dialects, see, for example, Smułkowa (1993).

By the 20th century, Belarusian and Russian developed into well-codified and prestigious standard languages. This process assumed the existence of regional dialects that deviated, to varying degrees, from the general linguistic “norm”. Linguists attributed the dialects of the Mogilev–Smolensk borderland to either Belarusian or Russian. In the early 20th century, the dialects spoken in the western part of the Khislavichy district—analyzed in this study—were attributed as part of the northeastern Belarusian dialect group (Karskiy, 1903; Durnovo et al., 1915). However, in the first third of the 20th century, this area became part of Smolensk Oblast due to administrative boundary changes, bringing these dialects exclusively within the zone of influence of Standard Russian. Teaching in schools, which became compulsory by this time, began to be conducted in Russian; radio and television broadcasting, which became widespread in the second half of the 20th century, was also conducted in Russian. It should be noted that standard Russian acted as a “roof language” for all Belarusian dialects throughout the 20th century to a greater extent than standard Belarusian (Hentschel, 2017, p. 213). Undoubtedly, standard Russian plays the role of “roof language” also in the case of “trasianka” (Belarusian–Russian mixed speech), in which “the proportion of Belarusian elements gradually decreases in favor of Russian elements”, and “this process is comparable to internal language change caused by dialect contact” (Hentschel, 2008, p. 464).

When dialectologists created new maps of dialectal division in the 1960s, the dialects of the western part of the Smolensk region, which had a Belarusian base, were assigned to the western group of the South Russian dialect. At the same time, it was noted that this area included “peripheral parts of the areals of features characteristic mainly of the dialects of the Belarusian language” (Avanesov & Orlova, 1964, p. 272). Despite this, the drawing of the dialectal boundary between Russian and Belarusian along the state border was justified by the perspectives of the existence of dialectal features within each language. For example, dissimilative yakanye in Belarusian dialects is replaced by strong yakanye, while in Russian dialects it is replaced by ikanye (Zakharova & Orlova, 1970/2004, p. 34). In other words, it was assumed that in the region under discussion, dialectal features previously identified as Belarusian would gradually be replaced by common Russian features under the influence of the standard language. Such reasoning appears logical in a situation when state borders, and, consequently, standard languages acting as a language roof, exist as a given. However, the very establishment of these borders in the 1920s was carried out “according to unclear criteria”, without taking into account the ethnographic, linguistic, and statistical data available at the time. As a result, “the entire Belarusian population of Smolensk turned out to be cut off from Belarus and became part of the RSFSR” (Shiryayev, 1991, p. 14).

Later, this boundary between Russian and Belarusian dialects, drawn along the state border, was adopted in Russian and Belarusian dialectology (see e.g., Kryvitski, 2003, p. 196, as well as a review in Jankowiak, 2013, pp. 322–323). On the other hand, even before the establishment of these borders, it had already been observed that in the northeastern Belarusian dialects, “the Great Russian influence is gradually increasing, especially in vocabulary, to some extent in morphology, and even in phonetics” (Karskiy, 1924, p. 118).

Thus, we can consider that after the relocation of the state border in the 1920s, the Khislavichi dialect began to develop as a dialect of the Russian language. Now it can be classified as a mixed dialect, reflecting the results of contact between a genetically Belarusian dialect and standard Russian. Such development is characteristic of the East Belarusian dialects outside Belarus: “in the eastern area the convergent way of development in relation to the Russian language is determinant” (Kurtsova, 2017, p. 70).

The wide variation of Russian and Belarusian phonetic, grammatical, and lexical elements—used without stylistic or pragmatic intent—characterizes the situation as code-mixing (for the distinction between code-switching and code-mixing, see Auer, 1999). The contemporary Khislavichi dialect can clearly be described as a mixed idiom. This mixing results from language contact, in which one language—standard Russian—is more prestigious. We observe the alternating use of elements from both idioms in equivalent linguistic positions, with these elements appearing in different proportions across individual idiolects.

3. Research Material

This study is based on material presented in the Corpus of the Russian dialect spoken in Khislavichi district (https://lingconlab.ru/khislavichi/, accessed on 20 April 2025) and was collected in 2018–2019 in the western part of the district. The interviews were recorded with local residents from several villages located just a few kilometres from the modern border with Belarus (Stajki, Zhanvil, Soino, Malye Khutora, Zhygalki, Mazyki, Zarechje). The material comprises 30 h of recordings and a total of 296,327 tokens (Ryko & Spiricheva, 2020).

Most interviews include stories about personal lives, traditional jobs and crafts, local customs, and memories of World War II and the years that followed, covering both the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The recordings were made with speakers from different generations, whose language reflects varying degrees of Russification (or approximation to standard Russian) of the dialect formerly classified as Belarusian. Notably, the oldest speakers (born in the 1930s–1940s), whose childhoods were shaped by the war, typically received only a primary education (four years of schooling). The next generation (born in the 1950s–1960s) mostly completed secondary education, often at technical schools. They speak both their dialect and standard Russian well, and they often tend to use more Russian when talking to researchers. It is possible that in other communicative situations—for example, when speaking with fellow villagers—these speakers may choose dialectal elements in cases where variation between Russian and Belarusian forms is available in their idiom. As for even younger generations (under 50–60 years old), few still live in villages because many have moved to cities. Their way of speaking is so close to standard Russian that it is no longer considered a dialect.

4. Russian and Belarusian Elements in the Khislavichy Dialect

In different idiolects of the present-day speakers of the Khislavichi dialect, we observe the variation of Belarusian and Russian elements, which can testify to different stages of Russification of the formerly Belarusian dialect, which took place during the last century.

4.1. Phonetics

The stable phonetic features of Belarusian are best preserved both among the older generation (born in the 1930s–1940s) and the next generation (born in the 1950s–1960s). The most stable phonetic features are those that extend well beyond the borders of Belarus and are not unique to the borderland dialects. These include the use of non-palatalized (retroflex) [ʧ] (with no variation observed among any of the informants) and the fricative [ɣ], although the latter in more Russified idiolects is sometimes replaced by [v] in the Gen. Sg. masc. and neutr. endings of the adjectival declension, which is not a phonetic, but a morphological change. Another feature is the realization of [u̯] or [u] in positions where Standard Russian uses [v] before voiced consonants and [f] before a voiceless consonant or at the end of a word (e.g., práu̯da ‘truth’, láu̯ka ‘bench’, karóu̯ ‘cows, gen. pl.’). In some cases, especially in highly frequent words, [u̯] may be replaced by [f] (e.g., vse, vs’o ‘all’). This variation occurs across all generations but is more common among younger speakers. The characteristic Belarusian tsekanye and dzekanye—i.e., the pronunciation of [tʲ] and [dʲ] with a noticeable fricative (“whistling”) component—are present in the speech of all informants. However, it is worth noting that a similar fricative component developed in the pronunciation of [tʲ] and [dʲ] in Standard Russian over the 20th century (Kuznetsova, 1971; Voronika, 1983; Bondarko et al., 1988, p. 31). Therefore, without instrumental phonetic analysis, it is difficult to determine the extent to which Belarusian tsekanye/dzekanye differs from the corresponding articulations in Standard Russian. Dissimilative akanye and yakanye (i.e., pronunciation of vowel phonemes in pre-stressed syllables, when the quality of the pre-stressed vowel depends on the quality of the stressed vowel according to the principle of dissimilation: trəvá ‘grass, nom. sg.’ and travý ‘grass, gen. sg.’, vədá ‘water, nom. sg.’ and vadý ‘grass, gen. sg’; v’isná ‘springtime, nom. sg.’ and v’asný ‘springtime, gen. sg.’), which are widespread in the Russian border dialects and characteristic of northeastern Belarusian, are found in the speech of all informants. However, speakers born in the 1950s–1960s occasionally deviate from the dissimilative yakanye—typically shifting toward standard Russian ikanye (i.e., pronunciation of [i] in the pre-stressing position after palatalized consonants without regard to the quality of the stressed vowel: v’isná and v’isný).

In idiolects less affected by Russification—primarily those of the older generation, and to a lesser extent in others—additional phonetic features associated with Belarusian phonology are also observed. These include the presence of a prothetic [v] ([w]) before word-initial [o] and [u] (e.g., vókny ‘windows’, vútka ‘duck’), as well as the pronunciation of soft long consonants according to sequences “consonant + [j]” (e.g., sv’in’n’á ‘pig’). The pronunciation of [ʤ] in the first person singular present tense form (e.g., s’i[ʤ]ú ‘I am sitting’) is found only among older speakers. These phonetic features are likely salient in the sense defined by Trudgill (1986) and, as a result, are not retained by younger speakers.

Although not all Belarusian phonetic features are consistently present across all idiolects, we can still speak of a general preservation of Belarusian phonology among speakers of the Khislavichy dialect. In other words, at the phonetic level, Russification remains relatively limited.

4.2. Morphology

The morphological variation of the Khislavichi dialect, based on data from the Khislavichi Corpus (Ryko & Spiricheva, 2020), was analyzed in Ryko (2024) using a statistical method for linguistic profiling of dialect speakers (Konor et al., 2019, pp. 28–29). This method makes it possible to assess the degree to which a given dialect—or more precisely, an individual idiolect—approximates one or another standard language. The analysis focused on features typical of standard Belarusian and its northeastern dialects (see, for example, Avaniesaŭ, 1964; Avaniesaŭ et al., 1969; Kryvitski, 2003), which are also found in the Russian–Belarusian border zone. Some features more common in Russian dialects were also included for comparison. Morphological features that showed little to no variation across most idiolects were excluded, as were those that appeared only infrequently in the corpus. As a result, a list was compiled that includes both variable inflectional endings and distinct morphological forms: (1) the reflexive postfix (position after the vowel): blr. -s’a vs. rus. -s’; (2) the ending 3 Sg. Praes. (stressed): blr. -ec’ (b’aréc’) vs. rus. -ot(’) (ber’ót); (3) the adjective ending Nom./Acc. Sg. masc. (stressed): blr. dial. -éj (maladéj) vs. rus. -ój (molodój) ‘young’; (4) the adjective ending Nom./Acc. Pl. (stressed): blr. -éja (maladéja) vs. rus. -ýje (molodýje) ‘young’; (5) the ending of the personal pronoun 3 Pl.: blr. janý vs. rus. oní; (6) the initial j in the stem of the personal pronoun 3 Pl.: blr. janý vs. rus. oní; (7) the initial j in the stem of the personal pronoun 3 Sg. masc.: blr. jon vs. rus. on; (8) the initial j in the stem of the personal pronoun 3 Sg. fem.: blr. janá (dial. iná) vs. rus. ona; (9) the form 3 sg. Praes. of verb byt’ ‘to be’: блр. josc’ vs. рус. jest’; (10) the form Nom. Sg. of demonstrative pronoun masc.: blr. dial. étyj vs. rus. étot.

The analysis allowed us to divide idiolects into several groups depending on the degree of preservation of the original (Belarusian) morphology in them, which can be conditionally called “Full Belarusian”, “Slightly Russified”, “Strongly Russified”, and “Mostly Russian”.

“Full Belarusian” morphological profiles are characterized by the use of Belarusian variants of morphemes in all of the above-mentioned morphological positions in most instances. There are deviations from the Belarusian “standard” only for two to three features, and these deviations do not exceed 20–25%. These profiles can be seen as representing the “initial” state of the dialect, closely aligned with the Belarusian language. They are primarily associated with speakers born in the 1930s—the children of a generation whose linguistic competence was formed before moving the state border, i.e., before changing the language roof for this dialect.

“Slightly Russified” morphological profiles, unlike the previous group, show a wide generational range, with speaker profiles spanning from the 1920s to the 1960s. These profiles typically display low variability in most of the features analyzed (with Russian forms appearing in up to 20% of cases), but in 3–5 specific areas, the number of Russian variants can reach up to 60%.

“Strongly Russified” profiles reveal that Belarusian variants are preferred in only a few positions, while in many others, there is noticeable competition between Belarusian and Russian forms—with the Russian variant sometimes prevailing, reaching up to 90% usage. In each profile, only a small number of Belarusian features remain clearly preferred, whereas Russian forms are more commonly used in most other positions. This group also includes a broad generational range: speaker profiles dating from the 1920s to the 1960s.

Finally, the “mostly Russian” profiles indicate that while both Russian and Belarusian morphemes may still appear in a few positions, others are exclusively filled by Russian forms. Interestingly, at this advanced stage of Russification, it becomes difficult to determine which Belarusian features have been at least partially retained and which have been entirely lost—as the profiles vary significantly from one another.

Thus, using the method of morphological profiling of idiolects, we can trace the dynamics of transition from one morphological system to another within a mixed dialect.

4.3. Vocabulary

As noted above, whether in the context of language contact or in cases where a dialect changes under the influence of a standard language, lexical changes (or borrowings) are typically the first to occur. It is also known that in the “trasyanka”, “the specifically Belarusian element is represented more in the ending morphs, i.e., in the grammatical area, and the Russian element in the root morphs, i.e., in the lexical area” (Hentschel, 2008, p. 458). This holds true for the Khislavichi dialect: only a small number of lexical Belarusisms remain, particularly in denominative vocabulary. These are more frequently used by the oldest speakers, whose language is the most archaic and best preserves the Belarusian foundation of the dialect across various linguistic levels. It is also important to consider that the representatives of the oldest generation, though they studied at school in Russian, typically received only a primary education. Apparently, the dialect is their only language, although it is influenced by standard Russian. Those born in the 1960s generally received specialized secondary education and have a good command of both spoken and written standard Russian. As a result, they can be considered “dialect–standard bilinguals” who appear to switch easily between registers. When speaking with researchers, they often align more closely with the Russian literary norm and tend to avoid Belarusian vocabulary. However, in other communicative situations, they may use the Belarusian lexicon more frequently. This is reflected in statements like, “We speak differently among ourselves,” which are often accompanied by examples such as skabl’íla búl’bu ‘(she) was peeling potatoes’/nəskabl’í búl’by ‘peel the potatoes’, narýc’ búl’by ‘to dig up potatoes’—whereas in interviews, they use the standard Russian equivalents: číst’ila kartóšku/pačíst’i kartóšk’i, nakəpát’ kartóšk’i (nXr1961). Therefore, the number of Belarusian lexical items found in texts recorded from younger speakers is likely lower than in their everyday speech.

Several observations can be made regarding which Belarusian lexemes continue to be used to a greater or lesser extent.

First, these include frequently used invariable words such as conjunctions, adverbs, and predicatives—for example: pakúl’ ‘while’, tudý ‘there’, tróxu, tróšku ‘just a little’, attúl’a ‘from there’, n’imá ‘there is no/none’, dúža ‘very’, n’ixáj ‘let’, and others. Because these words are high frequency, they play a significant role in shaping the perception of the dialect as Belarusian. Many of them are also mentioned by speakers themselves when asked which Belarusian words appear in their dialect.

Secondly, these are lexemes denoting realities of rural life. Among them are such well-known ‘Belarusian markers’ as búl’ba ‘potato’, xáta ‘house, hut’, ɣróšy ‘money’, as well as other names of vegetables (burak’í ‘beetroot’, cybúl’a ‘onion’, ɣurók ‘cucumber’) and traditional foods (kl’óck’i ‘traditional funeral food’, jajéšn’a ‘scrambled eggs’, kul’éš ‘a thick porridge made from flour or grains with bacon’). These also include names of items of peasant clothing (andrák ‘traditional woolen skirt’, xústačka ‘headscarf’), names of places (maɣílk’i ‘cementery’), buildings and their parts (pún’a ‘a large cold barn for storing hay’, láz’n’a ‘bathhouse’, ɣának ‘a porch with steps in front of a house’, zakrútka ‘wooden door latch’). Other terms refer to tools or natural features, such as púɣa ‘whip used for driving cattle’, ɣal’én’ ‘an old broom without leaves’, dajónka ‘vessel used for milking’, st’óška ‘narrow footpath’, vadz’én’ ‘gadfly’, pýska ‘animal’s snout’, cácka ‘homemade children’s toy’), k’irmáš ‘a large sale of goods, a fair’.

Finally, we find most of all “Belarusian” lexemes among verbs. Only some of them are connected with agricultural activity: ɣadəvác’ ‘caring, nurturing, to ensure the growth, development of someone’, pásv’ic’ ‘to observe the animal when it is out in the pasture, to herd cattle’, skúpc’i ‘to pluck grass, to nibble (about cows)’.

In many cases, the external similarity between Belarusian and Russian lexemes is minimal—often they differ only by a single phoneme while sharing the same meaning. This difference appears to be insignificant for speakers of the Khislavichi dialect. Examples include pužácca vs. Russian pugát’sja ‘to get frightened’, dražníc’ vs. Russian draznít’ ‘to tease’, panádz’icca vs. Russian povádit’sja ‘to get into the habit of doing something undesirable’, raskačác’ vs. Russian raskatát’ ‘to roll out (dough)’, slúxac’ vs. Russian slúšat’ ‘to hear, to listen’.

In other cases, the Belarusian verb has a Russian equivalent, but the Russian variant is stylistically restricted—usually belonging to colloquial usage. Examples include pamérc’i vs. Russian colloquial pomerét’ ‘to die’, vykidác’ vs. Russian colloquial vykidát’ ‘to throw away’, zamarýcca vs. Russian colloquial zamorít’sja ‘to get tired, zapalíc’ vs. Russian colloquial zapalít’ ‘to light’. In some cases, the corresponding Russian word has other stylistic limitations. For instance, bájac’ corresponds to Russian colloquial and regional bájat’ ‘to speak, tell, narrate’, daravác’ to Russian high-style darovát’ ‘to gift’, učyníc’ to Russian formal/official učinít’ ‘to do something, to make something’.

Quite often the Russian–Belarusian correspondences have semantic divergences—the Russian verb has a more specialized meaning than the one in which it is used in the Khislavichi dialect. For example, zavézc’ ‘to deliver, to drive somewhere vs. Russian zaveztí ‘to deliver somewhere something in passing’ or ‘to take something far away or to the wrong place’; naradz’ícca ‘to be born (of a person or animal)’ vs. Russian colloquial narodít’s’a ‘to be born in large numbers’ or ‘to reappear’, ɣamaníc’ ‘to talk’ vs. Russian colloquial gomonít’ ‘to talk loudly, make noise’. In cases of rich verbal polysemy, the full set of meanings often does not align between Russian and Belarusian. In such instances, the Khislavichi dialect may retain both shared meanings and uniquely Belarusian senses that are absent in Russian. Examples include ɣul’ác’ ‘to play game’, k’idác’ ‘to leave, to abandone’.

Apparently, close external similarity or partial semantic coincidence of Belarusian and Russian lexemes contributes to their preservation in the Khislavichi dialect, as speakers often do not perceive a distinction and regard these lexemes as part of a shared Russian–Belarusian lexical fund. Therefore, when switching from Belarusian to Russian, these units are not subject to replacement.

An analysis of the use of Belarusian and Russian conjunctions in the Khislavichi dialect has shown that, as a rule, structurally and functionally similar elements that differ in appearance are replaced first. In other words, they are apparently recognized as belonging to different idioms, but at the same time, they fully correspond to each other. Thus, the pairs of conjunctions blr. kab(y)/rus. čtob(y), blr. kali/rus. kogda, blr. pakul’/rus. poka demonstrate complete structural coincidence in Belarusian and Russian. Their Belarusian variants are found exclusively in the idiolects of the older generation, which maximally preserve not only Belarusian phonetics but also Belarusian inflectional morphology. In cases where structural mismatches exist between the two language systems—such as the use of the Belarusian conjunction/particle c’i versus the Russian li/ili—“the older” Belarusian form tends to be retained (Ryko, 2025). A similar pattern is observed in the domain of denominative vocabulary: Belarusian lexemes are more likely to be preserved when they cannot be easily substituted by a Russian equivalent, e.g., lexis related to rural life.

5. Self-Identity of Local Inhabitants

Finally, there is a question about the self-identity of local inhabitants. In response to the question “What language do you speak?”, modern rural residents of the western part of the Khislavichy district always claim that it is Russian. While in the early 20th century, a significant majority of local inhabitants (around 81.46%) identified Belarusian as their mother language (Troynitskiy, 1903, pp. IX–X). Evidence suggests that this pattern is typical of the western districts of the Smolensk and Bryansk regions: at the end of the 19th century, “the population of the western parts of Smolenshchina and Bryanshchina considered themselves more likely to be Belorussians [it refers to linguistic self-identification, not to ethnic—A.R.] <...> Now the population of these areas considers themselves Russians, hence their language is also Russian”—despite the fact that “structurally the rural dialects of these districts are closer to the Belarusian language” (Koryakov, 2002, p. 112). It is interesting that the speakers of border dialects living on the Belarusian territory, when asked what language they speak, most often answer that it is “mixed” (Sloboda, 2006, p. 223). Apparently, they try to correlate their speech with both Russian and Belarusian languages, while the residents of the Khislavichy district primarily define their language in relation to Russian.

However, traces of Belarusian identity are present in the statements made by speakers of the Khislavichi dialect about their language. They describe their speech as “all kinds of stuff” (zvp1934), “impure” (via1941), “purely rustic” (lva1963), or even “distorted to the point of horror” (tXe1969), in comparison to “pure” and “cultured” standard Russian. At the same time, they often express uncertainty about their linguistic identity, saying things like “we can’t understand whether we are Russians or Belarusians” (zvp1934), “our way of speaking is more Belarusian” (vvb1936), or that they use “a lot of Belarusian words and also a lot of local dialect” (nXr1961). Speakers commonly cite certain words as evidence of the “Belarusian presence” in their dialect—for instance, the well-known Belarusian lexical marker búl’ba ‘potato’ (cf. the colloquial term Bul’baší for Belarusians), along with a number of high-frequency function words and forms such as kal’í ‘when’, kudý ‘to where’, atkúl’a ‘from where’, jak ‘how’, dak ‘yes’, n’imá ‘no’, s’án’n’a ‘today’, and jos’ ‘there is’ (3SG present of to be). Speakers also occasionally point out stress differences, especially in common word forms, such as byló ‘(it) was’ (cf. Russian býlo) and ɣavór’im ‘we say’ (cf. Russian govorím).

It is interesting that informants sometimes note that they speak “in their own way” among themselves, and that they occasionally “slip up” linguistically: nu búl’ba, éta žə u Bilarúsii zavút ták, búl’ba, mý žə kartóška zav’óm, a kədá i búl’ba prəɣavórims’a [well, bulba, that’s what it’s called in Belarus/búlba/we say kartóška/and sometimes we accidentally say búlba] (via1941). From this, we can conclude that they are aware of their dialect-literary bilingualism and feel a need to align themselves with the norms of standard Russian.

Many people share stories about being mistaken for Belarusians during military service, in city hospitals, or in sanatoriums because of their dialect. One telling example involves the granddaughter of an informant who lived in the village until the age of seven and then moved to attend school in Smolensk, where she struggled most with Russian language lessons due to the significant differences between her dialect and the standard language. As for the attitude of the Khislavichi dialect to the Belarusian language, despite the fact that there is “a lot of Belarusian” in their dialect and that they are often mistaken for Belarusians, the informants usually point out the strong differences between their dialect and standard Belarusian (the language they can hear on radio or TV)—this language is often incomprehensible to them.

6. Conclusions

The Khislavichi dialect, Belarusian in its basis and still preserving many Belarusian features, is spoken in a region that became part of the Russian Federation in the 1920s. As a result, the dialect came under the influence of the Russian standard language, making this a clear case of a change in linguistic roof. It is possible to trace the changes that have occurred over the past hundred years by analyzing data from speakers of different generations.

Firstly, as a result of the change in administrative (state) borders and the shift in linguistic roof—accompanied by schooling in standard Russian and the integration of the dialect into the sphere of the standard Russian language—the self-identity of its speakers has also changed. Nevertheless, a “memory” of the former identity is preserved to varying degrees: speakers of the Khislavichi dialect are well aware of both the significant differences between their language and standard Russian, and its closeness to Belarusian.

Secondly, structural linguistic changes—although slower than shifts in self-identity—also occur, as can be observed by comparing the speech of speakers from different generations. The dynamics of language change follow the pattern of the “borrowability hierarchy”: phonetics remains the most stable domain, the lexicon is the most dynamic, while inflectional morphology reflects various stages of Russification of the dialect, which is Belarusian at its core. It should be noted that the correlation of Belarusian and Russian elements of different linguistic levels in the “trasianka” (Belarusian–Russian mixed speech), where Russian dominates in the field of lexicon, gives a similar picture: “Russification rather follows the well-known ‘borrowability hierarchy’ (Field, 2002), which in a simplified form can be presented as follows: phonetics/phonology < inflectional morphology < service parts of speech < independent parts of speech < discourse markers, where Belarusian dominates the left side of the scale and Russian the right” (Hentschel, 2017, p. 218), cf. also (Hentschel, 2013, p. 73) et al.

Observations on the dynamics of Russification at the morphological level allow us to draw some conclusions about how this process unfolds. The preservation of morphological features does not directly correlate with the speaker’s age; in some cases, younger speakers retain Belarusian morphology better than older ones. In the later stages of Russification, the more persistent features tend to be specific to each individual idiolect. It can also be assumed that structural mismatches between Belarusian and the corresponding Russian lexemes contribute to their longer retention in colloquial speech.