The Boyash in Hungary a Sociolinguistic Outline of Two (Romanian) Vernaculars in Decline Ioana Aminian Jazi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Boyash in Hungary A sociolinguistic outline of two (Romanian) vernaculars in decline Ioana Aminian Jazi Anglia Ruskin–Cambridge Romance Linguistics Seminars, 25th May 2021 1 Outline 1. Introduction ❖ Methods of Research ❖ Roma Groups in Hungary ❖ Research Location ❖ Origins of Boyash ❖ “Gypsy”, “Roma” or “Romanian”? 2. Sociolinguistic Profile ❖ Similarities and Differences ❖ Education ❖ Standardization Efforts 3. Comparative Grammar ❖ Phonology Greeting on the school door in Alsószentmárton ❖ Morphosyntax Introduction Methods – Comparative – Qualitative 20 Interviews (a/v): 10 in Gilvánfa 10 in Alsószentmárton in 2010, 2011, 2013 a. questionnaire – language attitudes; sociolinguistic profile Data Acquisition b. linguistic questionnaire containing 800 questions (Rusu et al. 1992) c. participant observation through community immersion 1. check out our open access multimedia collection (in work) 2. Kahl, T. and Nechiti (/Aminian) I. (2019): The Boyash in Hungary. A Comparative Study among the Arĝeleni and Munĉeni Communities. Vienna, Results Austrian Academy of Sciences. VLACH, Vol. 1. 3. Kahl, T. and Nechiti (/Aminian) I. (2012): Aschenputtel bei den Bajeschi und Rudari. Vergleich zweier Märchen anhand von Feldaufnahmen in Ungarn und Griechenland…(see bibliography) Introduction Roma Groups in Hungary 3 Main Roma groups: Romungro Vlach Roma Boyash ~ 71% ~ 21% ~ 6-8% settled around 16th/17th c. emigrated ~19th c. from emigrated ~ end 19th c. speak mostly Hungarian present day Romania from present day Romania identify themselves as speak a variant of Romani speakers of ‘archaic Hungarians or cziganyok with Romanian influences Romanian varieties’ (i.e. Gypsies) live mainly in Baranya do not self-identify as Roma! (Marushiakova 2004: 38-42) Introduction Roma groups in Hungary 3 Main Roma groups: Introduction Research Location 1 Arĝeleni - in Gilvánfa (338 inh., 2020) - in Pécs (141,843 inh., 2020) 2 Munĉeni - in Alsószentmárton (1,190 inh., 2020) (source: http://www.ksh.hu/) (Kahl/Nechiti 2019:132) Introduction Research Location – Boyash Villages © Ioana Aminian, 2011 Introduction Assumed Origins of Boyash ▪ anthropologically classified as Roma ▪ in Central and Eastern Europe since 14th century ▪ forced into slavery and serfdom in the Rom. Principalities (slavery was abolished in 1856) ▪ as ‘gold washers’, probably lived in the Apuseni Mountains, Little Wallachia (Vâlcea) or Greater Wallachia (Argeş) ▪ after liberation, forced to take up woodworking occupations ▪ → “second wave of Gypsy migration” (Zamfir/Zamfir 1993: 82-83) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apuseni_Mountains Introduction “Gypsy Slaves for Sale“ Gypsy slaves (Bucharest, 1852) Boyash (Pécs, 1956) (Neber Artekics in Artekics 2007: 245) Introduction Origins of Boyash Introduction “Gypsy”, “Roma” or “Romanian”? IN LITERATURE… • WEIGAND (1908: 174) “Romanian speaking Gypsy“ • SIKIMIĆ (2008: 227) “sometimes considered Gypsies by locals“ • ASCHAUER (2006: 65) “already-almost-no-Roma-anymore“ • MARUSHIAKOVA (1997: 99) “Romanian-speaking Roma” • BENGELSDORF (2009) “the other Gypsies” (Presenter‘s translation) Introduction “Gypsy”, “Roma” or “Romanian”? IN THEIR OWN WORDS… • a vení mulţ romîní aíća (many Romanians [Boyash] came here) (A.P., Pécs, 2012) • șî băéșii, romîní i, nu să-prićépe cu, cu gol’éţi (and the Boyash, the Romanians, don‘t get along with the Roma) (A.P., Gilvánfa, 2011) • băéș, romîní , țîganí , cum vréi (Boyash, Romanians, Gypsy, as you wish) (M.O., Pécs, 2012) • nói țîgáni, nu istém lăcătári. (We are gypsy, not Roma) (N.K., Alsószentmárton 2011) • Dácă-ǐ úngur, atúnĉa- om, dacă-ǐ țîgán, îῐ țîgán (If he is Hungarian, then he is a man, if he is a Gypsy, then he is a Gyspy) (A.P., Alsószentmárton 2011) Investigated Groups Boyash Professions Today • wood workers • spoon makers • basket weavers • seasonal workers • high unemployment © Ioana Aminian & Thede Kahl, 2010-2012 Sociolinguistic profile Similarities COMMMON TO BOTH VARIETIES • endangered varieties → private domain, as an affective language • no registered monolingual speakers of Boyash • self-denomination* țîgáń, Arĝelέń (Arĝ.)/țîgáni, Munĉέńì (Munĉ.) • Negative attitudes towards Boyash*, calling it şîşcávă (mangled) or sărácă (poor) • however, language represents a core value in their identity • reject being labelled as Roma, however, willingness to act jointly with the Roma when it comes to representing both groups at the local, regional, and even national level • both varieties looked upon as a cause of shame, ostracism, lack of integration Sociolinguistic profile Example – Denominations Urbέşĉe, urbέşĉe, ĭi urbέşĉe, noĭ sfătíń şî nu ţîgănív nu ţîgăńέşĉe, noĭ zîșeń́ bằĭeșắșĉe. D-aĭ, cîn lăcătárì zîșé pă noĭ că noĭ nu ńi-s ţîgań́ , zîșé că noĭ ńis rumîń́ , lăcătárì zîșé pă noĭ că noĭ ńis, di şe nu mirźéń acásă, în͓ Rumîńíe, anúme, ńíş no dátă şî nu ńe ţîńé pă noĭ dă ţîgań́ . Șî atúnś aíş îs munĉέńì cáre şî ĭéĭ îs băĭáş, da ĭi să ţîńé dă ţîgań́ şî zîșé , noĭ urbíń ţîgănív ĭi zîc. Atúnś ĭi şíńi-s? (2010_09_24a Anna Orsós, Pécs) (We call our language the Boyash language, not the Gypsy language. The Romani-speaking Lacatari don’t recognize us as Gypsy and ask us why we don’t go back home to Romania. And there are also the Munĉeni who say they are Boyash, but they say they speak the Gypsy language. Who are they after all?) Sociolinguistic profile Example – Language Attitudes Hᴐt , cum să-ț zîc. […] Míe mi róu că límba nɔ́ stă să pέrĝe, da ĭέșĉe lu cári nu-ǐ róu că ímba asta să pέrĝe. Iέșĉe cári-ĭ fălós că ásta s-o pérdùt ímbă. Șî mi drágă dă ímba mέ. Iέșĉe lu cárɪ nu-ĭi drag dă ímba ásta. Pέrse , că i rușîńé dă ĭé. Maĭ bíńe táșe, nu sfăťέșĉe. (2011_06_08 Joli Bogdán,Gilvánfa) (How can I put it. […] I feel very bad about us losing our mother tongue, but there are some people who don’t care at all. There are some who rather happy that they don’t speak it anymore. And I like this language. There are some who don’t like it. Because they are ashamed of it. They would rather be silent than speak it.) Sociolinguistic profile Differences Arĝeleni (Gilvánfa) Munĉeni (Alsószentmárton) • Bilingualism only above ~ 50 • Bilingualism at all ages (*not universal), trilingualism among elderli people (Croatian) • extreme loss of vocabulary and inability to • Hungarian is beginning to replace the Boyash create new words language even in everyday life • intense linguistic contact with Hungarian • Intense inguistic contact with Hungarian, Croatian and through it, with German • since 1994, the Arĝelean vernacular enjoys greater prestige (! Gandhi High School) • lack of “representation“ in standardization efforts seems to accelerate language shift Sociolinguistic profile Example – Arĝelean vs. Munĉan Noĭ maĭ întîí ań vińít şî ma nu sfătíń așá bíńe ca munĉέńì, aşá bíńe, aşá mult. Noĭ maĭ múlĉe vórbe ań lᴐt dîn͓ ímba dă únguŕ. La noĭ înĉepút nu-ĭ, noĭ ‘kizdilíń’, acoló íncă ĭέșĉe ‘înşepút’. Noĭ zîșéń ‘mirẑéń’, ĭeĭ zîșé ‘mirẑém’. Noĭ zîșéń cînd, cînd o ţîgarétă bágă-n gúră, ‘ĭo trag’, ĭeĭ zîșé , munĉέńì zîșé , ‘io bĭɔ, bĭɔ o ţîgarétă’, da. (2010_09_24a Anna Orsós, Pécs) (We were the first to come to these lands and that’s why we do not speak the language as well as the Munĉeni. We borrowed more words from Hungarian. We don’t have înĉepút [beginning], we kizdilíń, there they have înĉepút. We say mirẑéń [we go], they say mirẑém. We say, when we smoke a cigarette, ĭo trag [I drag]; the Munĉeni say bĭɔ [I drink] a cigarette, yes.) Sociolinguistic profile Education – Gandhi High School !!!Schoolbooks - written in the Arĝelean vernacular basket weavers seasonal workers © Ioana Aminian & Thede Kahl, 2010-2012 © Thede Kahl, 2010 Sociolinguistic profile Examples of Writing in Boyash Private song collection of Gyöngyi Kalányos (Pécs) with Croat symbols In Romanian orthography, this would be: un câine -> 7 câini (1 dog → 7 dogs) mult/multă/mulți/multe (‘many’ in dif. Inflections) cățălu nostru-i dă 7 luni © Ioana Aminiancățălu nostru & Thede d ăKahl, 7 luni 2010 îi -2012 © Ioana Aminian,© Thede 2010 Kahl, 2010 Sociolinguistic profile Language Standardisation Efforts We use few of these books because they [the Arĝeleni] speak a different dialect. They aren’t quite willing to accept our dialect either. They believe that the only good dialect is Arĝelean, and the Munĉan one is not so important (2011_06_07 József Lenkó, Alsószentmárton; translated from German) © Ioana Aminian, 2011 Sociolinguistic profile Linguistic Landscape After-School centre, Gilvánfa Town hall sign, Alsószentmárton © Ioana Aminian, 2011 Hungarian vs. Romanian orthography Comparative Grammar Phonology: Accentuation Accentuation deviating from standard Romanian especially in third-conjugation verbs with the infinitive in [-e] as in a merge ‘to go’ Arĝelean Munĉan Standard Romanian English merźéń merźém mérgem we go priśepéń priśepém pricépem we understand mága mácar măcár at least rắtund rắtund rotúnd round cávε cávε cafeá coffee ĉíniva, śiniva ĉíniva cinevá somebody ĉéva ĉéva cevá something (Kahl/Nechiti 2019: 142) Comparative Grammar Phonology: Vowels Velarization of vowels Vowel Phonetical Arĝeleni Munĉeni Standard English phenomena Romanian [a] [a] > [ă] dăzbrắc dăzbrắc dezbrac I undress [ă] [ă] > [î] pîmî́nt (cf. pîmắnt) pământ earth In the Munĉan vernacular we can observe a general tendency toward velarization of the final [-e] in plural nouns, articulated with the definite article -le: (cf. fétiľe) fétilɪ fetele the girls (Kahl/Nechiti 2019: 143) Comparative Grammar Phonology: Consonants Palatalization of consonants in the Arĝelean vernacular Arĝelean