The language spoken in the villages of Mitagi, Mitagi-Kazmalyar, Dzhalgan and Nizhny Dzhalgan is known in literature as “Tat language”, "Muslim Tat language". The name "Tat language" is also used to refer to the language of the Mountain Jews, or Caucasus Jews. Both languages ​​belong to the Tatoid group of the southwestern branch of Iranian languages, but they have enough differences to be considered separate languages.

At the moment, the idiom common in the Republic of Dagestan and known as the " Muslim Tat language" is almost unstudied and has no writing system. My project aims to study and document this language: to develop a writing system, to compile a dictionary and a corpus of texts, and to study various aspects of grammar. In addition, I carry out a number of activities to create some content for the language community in collaboration with the native speakers.

For a long time, the Azerbaijani language (< Oghuz (southwestern) group < Turkic) was used as a lingua franca in Southern Dagestan. The language of Mitagi and Dzhalgan has been significantly influenced by the Azerbaijani language due to their long-term language contact. In the course of the project, I also examine the features of the local Azerbaijani variety (of Derbent and Derbent district) and study contact-induced language changes (matter borrowings and pattern borrowings).

1. Identity

Language and ethnic communities of the Dzhalgan and Nizhny Dzhalgan villages use the self-designation "Persian(s)" (Russ. «персы»), "Fars(es)" / “Farsian(s)” (Russ. «фарсы»). However, in Soviet times, residents of these villages were recorded in the nationality column in their passports as Azerbaijanis. That is the reason why the first reaction of some respondents to the question about their self-identification sounds like "we are considered Azerbaijanis". At the same time, some respondents really consider themselves Azerbaijanis, while others point out that this is not true and prefer to call themselves Persians / Farses. The common ethnonym "Tats" as a self-designation, as well as the name of the language ("Tat language" / “Muslim Tat language”), are not really used by the local community. Speakers believe that these terms refer only to Mountain Jews. The people of Dzhalgan call their language "Persian" (Russ. «персидский», «фарсидский»), "Farsi" (Russ. «фарси»), and "Dzhalgan language" (Russ. «джалганский»). At the same time, respondents perceive the term "Dzhalganets" not as the name of a nationality, but as a designation of a place of residence (in Azerbaijan, it is not uncommon that some speakers of Tatoid languages form ethnonyms from the names of the settlements where they live, see [Suleymanov 2020]).

The people of Dzhalgan (as well as people of Mitagi) consider themselves and the Mountain Jews (who are often called Tats) to be different peoples. At the same time, some of the interviewed speakers noted that they consider themselves (i.e. people of Dzhalgan and people of Mitagi) to be different peoples. At the same time, some respondents, on the contrary, note that not only the people of Dzhalgan and people Mitagins are representatives should be considered as a single nation, but also the residents of nearby Azerbaijani-speaking villages (Rukel, Bilgadi, etc.) because they are so close in culture and traditions to Dzhalgan and Mitagi.

The residents of Mitagi and Mitagi-Kazmalyar villages also share different opinions. Just like the residents of Dzhalgan, they use the ethnonyms "Persian(s)" (Russ. «персы»), "Fars(es)" / “Farsian(s)” (Russ. «фарсы»), and call their language "Persian" (Russ. «персидский», «фарсидский»), "Farsi" (Russ. «фарси»), and "Mitagi language" (Russ. «митагинский язык»). However, the language and ethnic community of Mitagi has a significant difference from the Dzhalgan one in their attitude to the use of the terms "Tat(s)", “Tat people”, "Tat language". Some of the speakers in Mitagi use these terms as a self-designation and consider the terms neutral, while others consider the ethnonym "Tats" to be incorrect. Also, unlike the people of Dzhalgan, the people of Mitagi (those who speak the local language) do not consider themselves as Azerbaijanis and do not attribute this ethnonym to their local culture. Some respondents from the Mitagi village consider the designations "Persian / Farsi language", "Farsi" as a broad umbrella term or a hypernym, including closely related Iranian languages: Farsi in Iran, Tajik, Tatoid languages.

Interestingly, native speakers do not generally use all the above-mentioned designations while speaking their native language. In course of their daily communication, the Dzhalgan people call their language “Zuhumu”, and the Mitagi language community members call it “Zujmu”, which literally means "our language".

2. Mutual intelligibility

According to lexicostatistics data, the percentage of coincidences in the basic vocabulary of the Mitagi and Dzhalgan language varieties with the northern and central Tat idioms of Azerbaijan is no more than 89%, while the similarity (the percentage of coincidences in the basic vocabulary) of the Dzhalgan and Mitagi language varieties among themselves according to this method is estimated at 96% (see [Koryakov 2023]). In this regard and with my sociolinguistic data concerning self-identification, it seems to me most correct to use the designation "Mitagi-Dzhalgan language" instead of the terms "Tat language", “Muslim Tat language” that has been previously established in the linguistic literature. I consider the Mitagi and Dzhalgan language varieties to be dialects of this language due to the high percentage of coincidences in the basic vocabulary and stemming from the speakers’ identity.

Both Dzhalgan and Mitagi people point out the differences between their language varieties. The speakers also note that sometimes these differences lead to some obstacles to mutual intelligibility. That is the reason why a significant part of the speakers surveyed consider the Dzhalga and Mitagi varieties to be different languages. Subjectively, the speakers estimate the mutual intelligibility of the dialects at 80%. A question was also asked about the mutual intelligibility of the speakers’ dialects and the closely related Mountain Jewish Tat language (or the Judeo-Tat language). The mutual intelligibility (according to the speakers’ subjective estimation) of the Mitagi-Dzhalgan varieties and the Judeo-Tat language is significantly less than between Mitagi and Dzhalgan dialects (which is expectedly correlated with the lexical statistics data). Interestingly, the Dzhalgan people claim that the Judeo-Tat language has more similarities with the Mitagi dialect than with that of Dzhalgan, while the Mitagi people, on the contrary, consider the Judeo-Tat language to be more similar to the Dzhalgan dialect than to the Mitagi one. An unexpected discovery in the course of the study was that the residents of the village of Mitagi (the upper village) note significant differences between their variety of the Mitagi dialect and the variety that is spoken in the neighboring village of Mitagi-Kazmalyar (the lower village). The documentation of these differences and the study of the nature of their origin require further study.

3. Language proficiency and intergenerational transmission

The sociolinguistic characteristics of the Mitagi-Dzhalgan varieties differ significantly: among other things, there are differences by locality.

The village of Dzhalgan is quite mono-ethnic. The Dzhalgan variety (dialect) of the Mitagi-Dzhalgan language is used everywhere: both in intra-family communication and as a language of communication between fellow villagers in public places. The exception is school: due to formal requirements, the language of communication in the classroom is Russian, however, according to the observations of native speakers, Russian also dominates in the communication during breaks. The results of participant observation showed that in a number of families in Dzhalgan, Mitagi-Dzhalgan language is used when communicating with preschool children. At the same time, speakers note that in some families there is a tendency to choose Russian instead of Dzhalgan when communicating with younger children. Currently, in Dzhalgan, Azerbaijani is taught at school as a “native language”. Many speakers note that they mastered Azerbaijani at school, without encountering it in everyday life. At the same time, according to the recollections of speakers, their parents and grandparents often had a good proficiency in Azerbaijani and used it as a language of interethnic communication.

In Nizhny Dzhalgan (lower village, founded in 1960), both migrants from the upper village (Dzhalgan) and other peoples (Azerbaijanis, Lezgins, Tabasarans and others) live. In this regard, the Russian language dominates in most domains, gradually displacing Mitagi-Dzhalgan even from the domains of intra-family communication. Many young children in the village speak their native language with a large number of Russian borrowings.

Unlike (the upper) Dzhalgan, Mitagi (the upper village) is not mono-ethnic and mono-lingual. In the village, people speak fluently not only the Mitagi variety of the Mitagi-Dzhalgan language, but also the Azerbaijani language. Respondents note that there are numerous interethnic marriages in the village, where the wife is Azerbaijani, and, as a rule, from the village of Rukel. In such families, the Azerbaijani language usually dominates, and children (both older and younger) speak it better than Mitagi dialect of Mitagi-Dzhalgan. The respondents also note that many schoolchildren from Mitagi-speaking families switch to Azerbaijani when communicating with their classmates. Participant observation also showed that some representatives of the older generation also choose to speak Azerbaijani when communicating within the family if a native speaker of Azerbaijani appears in the family. Thus, in the village of Mitagi, a gradual linguistic shift into Azerbaijani language is observed. At the same time, a new trend towards the dominance of Russian is being formed. Thus, participant observation showed that in some families, adults try to address preschool children in Russian. At the same time, many people over 75 years old do not speak Russian at all and continue to use Azerbaijani in any situation of interethnic communication.

As for the Azerbaijani language in Derbent, it is being actively replaced by the Russian language. In Derbent, Azerbaijanis traditionally live compactly in "mahals" (Russ. “магалы”) — the historical part of the city, where the bazaar (market) was previously located and goods delivered along the Great Silk Road were sold. People came there not only from all over the city, but also from the surrounding villages. In this part of the city, the Azerbaijani language is currently best preserved. Participant observation has established that the middle and older generations use Azerbaijani both within the family and when communicating with neighbors, and in public places on the territory of the mahals. However, the language competencies of the younger generation are quite low, the language shift in favor of the Russian language emerges. Thus, many senior school students (approximately 16-18 years old) know Azerbaijani and speak it, younger teenagers and children (approximately 11-14 years old) understand Azerbaijani, but speak it with difficulty or do not speak it at all, and many preschoolers and primary school children do not understand Azerbaijani and speak only Russian. This situation is observed not only in multi-ethnic, but also in mono-ethnic Azerbaijani families. Outside the mahals, the displacement of the Azerbaijani language occurred even earlier.

4. Language ideologies and language attitudes

According to the survey results, in each language community (in Dzhalgan and Mitagi, as well as in the community of Derbent Azerbaijanis) there is a positive attitude towards multilingualism and language diversity. There is also a strong need for support and development of the native language. At the same time, some speakers of Azerbaijani language in Derbent hold the view that supporting the local version of the Azerbaijani language is difficult on the one hand, and ineffective on the other, cf. "the moment has already been lost, the language is doomed."

In this section, I will focus on various practices that shape attitudes toward the native language and the neighboring languages.

In the village of Dzhalgan, respondents note the following feature of the language policy within their community: traditionally, in Dzhalgan, it was required to use the Dzhalgan language variety in interethnic marriages. That is, if a bride came from another village, she had to learn the local language as soon as possible. Until this moment, all remarks addressed to her and conversations in her presence were conducted in Dzhalgan, and her remarks in her native language were ignored. According to the speakers, several months were enough to master Dzhalgan at the everyday level of proficiency. Currently, there is a tendency to use the Dzhalgan dialect for intra-family communication in inter-ethnic marriages, but the practice described above is no longer widespread. Thus, there are interethnic families where Russian has become the language of intra-family communication.

In the villages of Mitagi and Mitagi-Kazmalyar, according to native speakers, there was no such practice. Learning the Mitagi variety was encouraged, but was not considered mandatory for women from other villages. As one of the respondents said, to master the local language, a family could ask a bride / daughter-in-law to listen in on the conversations of the elders and, if possible, to maintain the conversation, but nothing more. Under this system, it took 2-3 years to successfully master the language. Due to a more lenient language policy and the widespread use of Azerbaijani as a lingua franca, many multi-ethnic families (including the older generation) eventually switched to Azerbaijani if ​​a daughter-in-law spoke this language. This process of displacement of Mitagi language variety is still ongoing.

Native speakers of the Mitagi-Dzhalgan language note that the Azerbaijani language is still useful to them as a language of interethnic communication in the market (bazaar), since in some cases (when communicating with older people) the use of Azerbaijani allows one to express an idea more precisely and be understood more quickly, that is, it ensures successful communication. In some cases, the use of the Azerbaijani language acts as a kind of cultural marker and allows people to buy goods at a better price.

In most cases, local communities do not stick to the idea of linguistic purism. In in-depth interviews among the Dzhalgan and Mitagi communities, few people note cases when they received negative remarks for using the language incorrectly, or made such remarks to someone. Speakers emphasize that they need languages primarily for successful communication, and not as a marker of belonging to the community. This language ideology has several consequences. Firstly, speakers often do not notice how they switch between languages ​​and do not control this moment. The initiative for code-switching belongs entirely to their interlocutor. Secondly, nowadays, all local communities stick to the idea that the Russian language must be used in intra-ethnic communication, and, furthermore, in the presence of representatives of other peoples. The respondents consider the use of any language in the presence of a person who does not understand this language to be a manifestation of disrespect for the person and his / her culture.

In contrast to the above, some Azerbaijani teenagers and young people (around 17-20 years old) note the dominance of the Azerbaijani language at school outside of school hours (during the breaks), as well as the absence of a taboo on speaking their native language in the presence of people who do not speak it.

An Azerbaijani language community of Derbent is accustomed to focusing on the literary norm. All interviewed speakers assess the difference between Derbent and literary Azerbaijani as significant and sometimes complicating communication. At the same time, the community broadcasts the attitude that every language variety that differs from the literary norm is incorrect, spoiled and distorted. Some speakers contrast their native dialect and “cultural Azerbaijani” / “real Azerbaijani” (the literary version is implied).

Unlike the Mitagi and Dzhalgan communities, in interviews, Derbent Azerbaijanis often mention negative remarks about the use of language that they addressed to someone or, conversely, were addressed by someone. Thus, the most frequent remark is "you speak Azerbaijani so badly / incorrectly that it is better if you did not to speak it at all". In the situation of video / audio recording, some speakers try to normalize their speech, bringing it closer to the literary version. At the same time, speakers feel the foreignness of the literary norm and compare its study at school with learning a foreign language.

Many speakers note the connection and contact between the linguistic and ethnic community of Derbent and Baku, both numerous short trips and marriages. Some respondents (Azerbaijanis from Derbent) note that they were either taken for native speakers of the Lezgin language, and the differences between the Derbent version and the literary norm were interpreted as mistakes, or called illiterate. Thus, they are more likely to characterize the attitude of speakers of the Baku variety towards the Derbent variety of Azerbaijani language as negative.

Due to historical reasons, the dialects of the villages of the Derbent region differ even more from the literary Azerbaijani than the Derbent version. City dwellers also generally demonstrate a rather negative attitude towards these features. Below are quotes from speakers of the Derbent dialect: "I don't like Derbent variety of Azerbaijani, but the rural one is totally disgusting", "we joked about the rural people that they have a village accent; our <Derbent> language is more cultural".

5. Domains of language use

All the interviewed speakers note that they have enough means (vocabulary, special grammatical constructions etc.) in their native language varieties to express any thought and maintain a conversation on any topic. At the same time, many speakers note problems as it comes to writing down words and expressions in their native languages / dialects.

According to the Constitution, "the Tat and Azerbaijani languages ​​have their own written language and function as state languages". Traditionally, as stated above, the term "Tat language" refers to two separate languages: Judeo-Tat and the Muslim Tat (that I call here Mitagi-Dzhalgan language for the reasons explained above). However, Mitagi-Dzhalgan is essentially unwritten, since its phonemic composition has not been studied before; it has no literary tradition and is not still taught anywhere. Nevertheless, speakers use it when communicating via messenging apps both in voice messages and in writing. In the latter case they use Cyrillic characters intuitively, without any unified writing system (“it is written as it sounds”).

The older generation of Azerbaijani speakers studied writing based on the Cyrillic alphabet, while in modern schools Azerbaijani is studied in the Latin script. Some speakers of the middle and older generation emphasize that they practically do not understand the Latin writing system, while the younger generation notes that they are uncomfortable with the Cyrillic one. In messengers, speakers prefer voice messages.