The Balkans As a Linguistic Area
Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use
This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non- commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
Friedman V A (2006), Balkans as a Linguistic Area. In: Keith Brown, (Editor-in- Chief) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, volume 1, pp. 657- 672. Oxford: Elsevier. Balkans as a Linguistic Area 657
Hunter T M (1988). Balinese language: historical back- Sutjaja I G M (2000). Practical Balinese-English–English- ground and contemporary state. Ph.D. diss., Michigan Balinese dictionary. Denpasar: Bali Post. University. Sutjaja I G M (2003). Kamus sinonim bahasa Bali. Kersten J (1970). Tatabahasa Bali. Flores: Arnoldus. Denpasar: Lotus Widya Suari/Universitas Udayana. Kersten J (1984). Bahasa Bali. Ende-Flores: Nusa Indah. Sutjaja I G M (2004). Kamus Indonesia-Bali-Inggris. Mbete A M (1990). Rekonstruksi protobahasa Bali-Sasak- Denpasar: Lotus Widya Suari/Universitas Udayana. Sumbawa. Ph.D. diss., Universitas Indonesia. Van Der Tuuk H N (1897). Kawi-Balineesch-Nederlansch Oka Granoka I W, Udara Naryana I B & Jendra I W (1985). Woordenboek. Batavia: Landsdrukkerij. Tata bahasa Bali. Denpasar: Proyek Pengembangan Warna I W et al. (1993). Kamus Bali-Indonesia. Denpasar: Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah Departemen Dinas Pendidikan Dasar Propinsi Dati I Bali. Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Wechsler S (1999). ‘HPSG, GB, and the Balinese Bind.’ In Pastika I W (1999). Voice selection in Balinese narrative Kathol A, Koenig J-P & Webelhuth G (eds.) Lexical and discourse. Ph.D. diss., Australian National University. constructional aspects of linguistic explanation. Stanford: Shadeg N (1977). A basic Balinese dictionary. Denpasar: CSLI. 179–195. Dharma Bhakti. Wechsler S & Arka I W (1998). ‘Syntactic ergativity in Simpen I W (1985). Kamus Bahasa Bali. Denpasar: PT Balinese: an argument structure based theory.’ Natural Mabhakti. Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 387–441.
Balkans as a Linguistic Area V A Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Balkan ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The use of the term ‘Balkan’ (from Turkish, balkan ‘forested mountain’, also the name of a mountain Definitions range in Central Bulgaria) to refer to the peninsula also known as Southeastern Europe dates from the Sprachbund 19th century, when European attention turned to Among the proposed glosses for sprachbund are ‘lin- Ottoman Turkey, which then included most of what guistic league’, ‘linguistic area’, ‘convergence area’, became the Balkan states. As a geographic entity, the and ‘diffusion area’, but here I will treat sprachbund Balkan peninsula is unproblematically defined on as a loanword into English, like the French genre,so three sides as the land mass defined by the Adriatic, henceforth it will be neither capitalized nor italicized. Mediterranean, and Black Seas, but the northern geo- In modern terms, a sprachbund is understood as two graphic boundary cannot be set in any nonarbitrary or more geographically contiguous and genealogical- way that is applicable without qualifications in terms ly different languages sharing grammatical and lexi- of either politics or linguistics. In modern geopolitical cal developments that result from language contact terms, from the 1920s to 1991, the Balkans were rather than a common ancestral source. (Some lin- most frequently understood as comprising Albania, guists set the minimum number at three, but I would Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Turkey in Europe, and argue that the convergent and diffusion processes former Yugoslavia. consitutive of a sprachbund are the same for two lan- The Balkan Languages guages as for three.) In his original formulation of the concept, first in 1923 in a Russian journal article and For linguistics, the Balkan sprachbund has tradition- again in 1928 atAuthor's the first International Congress Personal of ally consisted of Albanian, Copy Greek, Balkan Romance Linguists, N. S. Trubetzkoy used Bulgarian as his (BR), and Balkan Slavic (BS). Albanian is divided into example of a language that belongs to the Slavic two dialects, Gheg north of the river Shkumbi and linguistic family and at the same time to the Balkan Tosk south of it. The modern standard is based on sprachbund. In the case of the Balkan sprachbund, northern Tosk. Mainland Greek is also divided be- the languages are in fact all Indo-European (exclud- tween northern and southern dialects at the Gulf of ing Balkan Turkic), but they belong to groups that Corinth and the northern frontier of Attica, the were separated for millennia, and thus, upon coming southern dialects of the Peloponnese being the basis back into contact, had become sufficiently distinct of the standard vernacular Dhimotiki. During the for contact phenomena to be distinguished from 19th century, Modern Greek was still called Romaic, inherited phenomena. i.e., ‘Roman’, a reference to Byzantium as the second
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
658 Balkans as a Linguistic Area
Rome. BR consists of Romanian, Aromanian, dialects of Romani take their name from the fact that Megleno-Romanian (MR), and Istro-Romanian. Dal- they took shape in Romania, but they are now dis- matian, a remnant of West Balkan Romance, whose persed all over Europe and beyond. In the Republic of last speaker died in 1898, is rather poorly attested Macedonia, a Romani standard is emerging on the and generally does not figure in Balkan linguistic basis of the Arli dialect of the Balkan group. Unless accounts. Istro-Romanian is, like Arbe¨resh (the otherwise specified, references to Romani refer to Albanian of Italy) and Asia Minor Greek (until the those dialects spoken in the Balkans. exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey in 1923), outside the Balkan geolinguistic area (see Turkish Balkan Turkish is divided into two major ‘Balkan Languages vs. Languages of the Balkans’). dialect groups: West Rumelian Turkish (WRT) and The Romanian standard is based on the Wallachian East Rumelian. The boundary between the two cor- dialects of the south, as is the standard of the Repub- responds roughly to the east-west line of Bulgarian lic of Moldova, which at various times has called its dialects. The Christian Gagauz of Bulgarian and official language Moldovan or Romanian. (At present Romanian Dobrudja and Gagauz Yeri in Moldova [31 October 2004] the official name is Moldovan.) and adjacent parts of Ukraine speak a language in Aromanian, spoken in Albania, Greece, the Republic the Oghuz group – to which Turkish also belongs – of Macedonia, and southwestern Bulgaria (with a which was recognized as official in the USSR in 1957. large diaspora in Romania, especially Dobrogea) is Although most Balkan linguistic studies treat Turkish divided into north/west dialects of Albania and west- as an adstratum, contributing lexicon and phraseol- ern Macedonia and south/east dialects of Greece and ogy but very little else (aside from evidentiality, see eastern Macedonia. A standard based primarily on ‘Evidential’ below), WRT and Gagauz also partici- the eastern dialect is in use in the Republic of Mac- pate to a certain extent in the Balkan sprachbund. edonia. MR survives in seven villages near Gevgelija Most of Gagauz, however, ended up in the former in the southeast of the Republic of Macedonia and Russian Empire, due to migration and border across the border in Greece. During the 19th century, changes. As a result, most of Gagauz is now more BR was often called Wallachian. The term ‘Vlah’ can influenced by Russian, while the dialectal Gagauz be used as a convenient cover term for BR south of the remaining in the Balkans is in need of description. Danube (Aromanian plus Megleno-Romanian). BS consists of Bulgarian, Macedonian, and the southeast Jewish Languages Judezmo, the language of the Serbian (Torlak) dialects. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, became the major- (BCS) together with Slovene, form the West South ity language among Balkan Jews, overwhelming Slavic group, and Macedonian and Bulgarian com- Judeo-Greek (Yavanic, Yevanic), which survived in prise East South Slavic. The Bulgarian standard is the Romaniote liturgy and some enclaves in Epirus. based on its eastern dialects, the Macedonian stan- (A written version of Judezmo based on literal trans- dard on its west-central dialects. The northern and lation from Hebrew is known among scholars as western boundaries of Torlak as a Balkan dialect Ladino.) Although most speakers of both Judezmo are variously defined using phonological or mor- and Judeo-Greek were murdered in the Holocaust, phological criteria. The narrowest definition is these languages survive as endangered languages morphological, e.g., the isogloss for the presence of and also participated in Balkan linguistic processes. the postposed definite article; the broadest definition is phonological, e.g., the absence of distinctive vocalic Balkan Languages vs. Languages of the Balkans length and tone. During the 19th century, BS was There are many other languages spoken in the often called ‘Bulgarian,’ and Bulgarian and Serbian Balkans in enclaves with varying social relations, linguists and armiesAuthor's fought over where to draw Personal a line e.g., Armenian, Circassian Copy (until 1999), German, between Bulgarian and Serbian. Unable to adjust to Hungarian, Ruthenian, Tatar, Ukrainian, Yiddish, etc. modern times, many Bulgarian linguists still cling to Aside from the dialects spoken in Romania, most of the 19th-century practice. these are outside the geolinguistic Balkans, which for our purposes has a northwest boundary defined by Romani Despite having been summarily dismissed contiguous Albanian dialects that join the major by traditional Balkan linguists, Romani in the Bal- Torlak isoglosses continuing to the Danube. (Such a kans displays many of the same contact-induced definition includes the southernmost Slavic dialects of structural phenomena and is increasingly present in Montenegro as well as the Slavic dialects of northern Balkanological works. Two of the four main dialectal Kosovo, neither of which fall in the Torlak group. In groups of Romani are spoken in the Balkans: Balkan terms of the Balkan sprachbund, these dialects do show and Vlax (not to be confused with Vlah). The Vlax some important transitional features, which will be
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
Balkans as a Linguistic Area 659 noted.) For the most part, the enclave languages were The next real advance in the development of late arrivals or outside the area of intensive diffusion/ Balkan linguistics was F. Miklosich’s 1861 article on convergence and did not participate in the type of Slavic elements in Romanian, which added genitive- complex Balkan multilingualism that characterizes dative merger (see ‘Genitive-Dative Merger’), object the sprachbund as a whole. We can thus distinguish pronoun doubling (see ‘Resumptive Clitic Pronouns Balkan languages, i.e., those in the sprachbund, from [Reduplication, Replication]’), and the formation of languages of the Balkans, i.e., languages spoken in the teens (see ‘Numeral Formation: The Teens’). Miklosich Balkan peninsula. accorded more attention to Greek and was also the first to adduce a number of phonological changes, including the development of stressed schwa (see History of Balkan Linguistics ‘Vowel Reduction and Raising’) and the raising of unstressed /a/ and /o/ to schwa and /u/, respectively 1770–1861 (see ‘Stressed Schwa’). The earliest collections of Balkan linguistic material 1861 Onward were intended to eliminate Balkan linguistic diversity. The 1770 Greek-Aromanian-Albanian vocabulary The next six decades were characterized by the of T. Kavaliotis and the 1793 or 1794(?) Greek- gathering of materials relating to specific Balkan lan- Aromanian-Macedonian-Albanian lexicon of Daniil guages or specific aspects of individual or pairs of of Moschopolis (Albanian Voskopoja) were explicitly Balkan languages. The 1920s saw the basic syntheses aimed at the Hellenization of the speakers of other and theoretical formulations that continue to inform Balkan languages. The first was republished in 1774 the field. Trubetzkoy’s contribution has already been by J. Thunmann, who was the first to suggest that described. In 1925, A. Selisˇcˇev attempted a balanced Albanians and Romanians were descended from account of Turkish, Slavic, Latin, Greek, and substra- Illyrians, Dacians, and Thracians, thus laying the tum languages as the sources of various Balkanisms, groundwork for the substratum theory of Balkan lin- i.e., the similarities among the Balkan languages that guistics. The second was republished in 1814 by can be attributed, at least in part, to shared, contact- M. Leake, who suggested that similarities among induced change. Sandfeld (1930) tried to attribute Albanian, BR, and Greek were due to BS influence. almost all the commonalities of the Balkan sprach- His one concrete example was the postposed definite bund to the influence and prestige of Byzantine article. It was this same phenomenon that most Greek. Other scholars have laid particular emphasis impressed J. Kopitar, whose 1829 characterization on Balkan Latin as the primary causal factor, while of BR, BS, and Albanian as drey lexikalisch verschie- our knowledge of the pre-Latin non-Hellenic lan- denen, aber grammatisch identischen Sprachen ‘three guages of the Balkans remains too meager for almost lexically distinct but grammatically identical lan- any serious speculations beyond the lexicon. guages’–which he attributed to the influence of a While the 1920s saw the establishment of Balkan Thraco-Illyrian substratum – is taken as the earliest linguistics as a subdiscipline within linguistics, the formulation characterizing the Balkan sprachbund. period from 1930 to 1960 was characterized by Kopitar also noted the replacement of infinitival slow growth and was also the period when the with subjunctive constructions and the formation of insights gained in Europe finally came to the attention the future using ‘want’ as shared with Greek and of North American linguists. From the 1960s on- Serbian as well. ward, there has been a constant increase in the pro- A. Schleicher is sometimes cited as the first to for- duction of studies pertaining to the Balkan languages mulate the Balkan sprachbund in 1850, when he and Balkan linguistics. At the same time, studies of writes of Albanian,Author's BR, and BS saying eine Gruppe Personalsuch contact-induced phenomenaCopy as creolization, aneinandergra¨nzender Sprachen zusammengefunden code switching, and language shift have led to the hat, die bei stammhafter Verschiedenheit nur darin identification of contact linguistics as an overarching u¨ bereinstimmen, dass sie die verdorbensten ihrer field of study. More recently, in the past decade or so, Familie sind (‘a group of propinquitous languages a renewed interest in linguistic typology has brought has coalesced that, being of different lines of descent, forward questions of the extent to which the Balkan agree only in the fact that they are the most corrupt sprachbund is or is not part of a larger European in their families’). However, since he gives no indica- linguistic area, defined more by typological profile tion of the causes of this ‘corruption’, his formula- without necessarily identifying specific paths of diffu- tion differs from Kopitar’s mainly in its ideology of sion or convergence. We will return to the question language change as degeneration. of Eurology vs. Balkanology in ‘Causation’.
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
660 Balkans as a Linguistic Area
Balkanisms western peripheral dialects also lack stressed schwa. Most of Bulgarian has stressed schwa, but not the This section surveys some of the principal Balkanisms Teteven-Erkech and central Rhodopian dialects. In (see ‘1770–1861’) as identified during the course of Albanian, stressed schwa develops from nasal aˆ only the past two centuries. Although system, not mere in Tosk, but it is incorrect to characterize all of Gheg inventory, must be the basis of detailed study, and a as lacking stressed schwa, since it also occurs in cen- given surface phenomenon may function differently tral Gheg as a result of later processes. Romani has in different systems, it is nonetheless convenient to schwa when in contact with languages that have it. use lists as a kind of shorthand for the systemic rela- WRT has a tendency to lower and front the high back tions that can yield the most insights. We do not want unrounded vowel to schwa. to fetishize the labels for these systemic manifesta- tions, assigning numeric values to them and tallying up the number of points a language ‘scores’. Rather Other Vowels Most Balkan languages lack front these labels stand for complex interrelations that in- rounded vowels, but most of Albanian has /u¨ /, or, clude differences as well as similarities that must be in West Central Gheg, /o¨ /. Southern Montenegrin elucidated in their larger contexts (cf. Friedman in dialects in contact with Albanian also have /u¨ /, but Reiter, 1983). East Central Gheg, which is mostly in Macedonia, unrounds /u¨ / to /i/, as does southernmost Tosk (Lab, Phonology C¸ am, Arvanitika), in contact with Aromanian and In contradistinction to linguistic areas such as the Greek (which also merged /u¨ / with /i/, a change that Caucasus, the Northwest Coast, and South Asia, had not yet been completed in the 10th century). where phonological features such as glottalization Similarly, WRT tends to eliminate /o¨ / by merging it and retroflexion are among the most salient common- with /o/ or /u¨/ (more rarely /e/), and /u¨/ (like /u/ and /ı/) alities, there are no truly pan-Balkan phonological becomes /i/ word finally. Other vocalic phenomena features. Rather, there are articulatory tendencies of that have been suggested are relatively localized. greater or lesser extent.
Vowel Reduction and Raising The reduction of un- Consonants The alternation of clear /l/ before front stressed vowels to schwa or nonsyllabic elements (and vowels and velar /ł/ elsewhere is characteristic of BS thence sometimes to zero) as well as the raising (including Torlak but not the rest of BCS), Northern of unstressed mid-vowels (/e/ and /o/) to high vowels Greek, Balkan Romani, and Vlah, but not Albanian, (/i/ and /u/, respectively) can be treated as Balkan, where the two sounds are in phonemic contrast, nor albeit not pan-Balkan. Both Albanian and BR show Daco-Romanian and Southern Greek, where only a tendency to reduce unstressed vowels as early as clear /l/ occurs. Aromanian has Greek and Albanian the Latin period, e.g., Lat. impera¯tor > Albanian interdental and Greek voiced velar and palatal frica- mbret and Romanian ˆımpa˘rat ‘king’. While shared tives in loanwords from Albanian and Greek, but phonological tendencies in Albanian and BR, these tend to be replaced by corresponding stops like shared vocabulary of pre-Latin origin, are attrib- and the palatal glide by speakers who do not uted by some scholars to substrate influence, the evi- know Greek or Albanian, particularly the younger dence of vowel reduction in Western Romance leads generation in Macedonia. other scholars to suggest that this is a typological Aside from Greek, most Balkan languages have an rather than an areal feature. Nonetheless, the raising opposition between strident palatal affricates, on the and/or elimination of unstressed vowels is character- one hand, and mellow palatals, dorso-palatals, or istic of southeastern Macedonian, eastern Bulgarian, palatalized velars, on the other. The opposition is northern Greek,Author's BR, and Gheg, although the detailsPersonalneutralized in Albanian, Copy BS, and WRT dialects in differ among these languages. Kosovo, parts of Western Macedonia, and along the Serbo-Bulgarian border. Northern Greek has palatals Stressed Schwa All the Balkan languages and their lacking in the south. dialects possess the classic European five vowel sys- In western Macedonia, the velar fricative is tem /a, e, i, o, u/, at least under stress. A phenomenon generally lost or replaced in Albanian, Macedonian, common in the Balkans is the existence of a stressed and WRT, a phenomenon that extends into parts schwa, but its status as a contact-induced phenome- of Kosovo, as well as adjacent Serbia, much of non is not pan-Balkan. Greek lacks stressed schwa Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the altogether. In Macedonian, almost all the dialects preservation of BCS /x/ is characteristic of Muslim outside the west-central area have stressed schwa, and some Catholic dialects now Bosnian and Croa- but of different origins in different areas, and some tian, respectively.
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
Balkans as a Linguistic Area 661
In the northern Gheg of Male¨sia e Madhe, final older definite/indefinite opposition survive in West devoicing is a phenomenon shared with adjacent South Slavic adjectives, and traces of the morphology Montenegrin dialects. It is worth noting that final occur in BS, e.g., Macedonian star ‘old INDEF. devoicing is atypical for most of the rest of BCS and MASC’, stariot ‘old DEF.MASC’, where the /i/ indi- Gheg, and it appears rather to be a Macedonian fea- cates that the newer definite article has been suffixed ture extending into this region. Such influence also to a definite adjectival form. Scandinavian and dia- seems to be the case in the transitional Gheg and lectal North Russian also have postposed definite northern Tosk dialects. Some of the Romani dialects articles of pronominal origin, and Czech, which has in this region also have final devoicing, and in the been in close contact with German, has uses of its WRTof these regions final devoicing, which is usually deictics that are basically articular. These typological limited to stops in Turkish, extends to fricatives. Five parallels and historical antecedents, however, do not of the seven MR villages also have final devoicing. change the fact that the BS postposed definite article developed during the period of its contact with BR Prosody Although prosodic distinctions of length, and Albanian. and in some cases pitch, were present in the attested Greek and Romani have preposed definite articles, ancestors of the Balkan languages, the modern Bal- both based on native material. In the case of Greek, kan languages are generally characterized by the ab- the pronoun that became an article was still mostly sence of length and tone and the presence of a stress demonstrative and was facultative except with proper accent that usually does not move further back in the names in Homeric, but it was obligatory in Attic. word than the antepenultimate syllable. If stress does Romani articles look like borrowings from Greek, move further back, there is usually a secondary stress e.g., MASC NOM SG o FEM NOM SG i, but the on one of the last three syllables. However, Northern oblique forms /le/ and /la/ in Vlax dialects demonstrate Gheg and Southern Tosk preserve Common Albanian that the Romani articles are derived from native length, and Southeastern Macedonian has new long demonstratives, reflecting the regular change of vowels as the result of loss of intervocalic consonants *t > l, which occurred prior to contact with Greek. and elision. Similar new long vowels occur in Gora, a It was contact with Greek, however, that triggered string of Slavic-speaking Muslim villages along the the transformation of native material into definite western and northern slopes of Mounts Korab and articles, and Romani usage patterns very much like Sˇar in northeastern Albania and the southwestern Greek. Romani dialects outside the Balkans in contact corner of Kosovo. The most significant isoglosses with languages lacking definite articles tend to lose (fixed antepenultimate stress, postposed article, etc.) them. link Goran with the northwest Macedonian dialects The use of an atonic form of the numeral ‘one’ rather than with the Serbian of Prizren. as an indefinite article is characteristic of the Balkan languages and, even though such developments are Morphosyntax common in many languages, is arguably a Balkanism. Grammaticalized Definiteness In BS, BR, and ‘One’ was not used in this function in OCS, Ancient Albanian, native demonstrative pronouns have been Greek, or Latin, but it was so used in Orkhon Turkic encliticized or suffixed to nominals (normally the first (8th century C.E.). To this we can add the fact that such in the noun phrase) and become definite articles. The usage does not occur in East Slavic. Usage in Turkish, article follows a plural marker, if any, and in BS the Albanian, and BR is at a similar level of frequency to clitic-like nature of the article is seen in that it does that of English, although details in individual gram- not trigger certain morphophonemic alternations, mars will cause some lack of isomorphism. Usage in e.g., Macedonian starec ‘old man’, starci ‘old men’ BS and in Greek is approximately half that of the but starecot ‘theAuthor's old man’ and not *starcot. HampPersonalother Balkan languages, Copy while usage in Romani in (1982) adduces evidence suggesting that the au- the Balkans patterns with BS and Greek, and Romani tochthonous language that became Latinized into elsewhere patterns like its contact languages. An indi- Romanian and with which the ancestor of Albanian cation that this is an areal phenomenon despite the was in contact might already have had a postposed occurrence of such usages in Western Europe and definite article by the time of contact with Latin. elsewhere is the fact that, as one moves north and Common„ Slavic already had a postposed relative pro- east through West South Slavic territory, the usage noun *jı affixed to adjectivals to denote definiteness, becomes increasingly restricted. as this phenomenon is attested in Old Church Slavon- Finally, we can mention here the phenomenon of ic (OCS; 9th–11th centuries), and the morphology double determination, i.e., the presence of a definite (but not the grammatical meaning) survives in Slavic article on a noun modified by a demonstrative pro- outside the geopolitical Balkans. Remnants of this noun. Such usage occurs in Greek, BR, BS, Albanian,
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
662 Balkans as a Linguistic Area and Romani, although the rules and relative fre- The first three of these expressions are facultative and quencyand acceptability of the construction vary. In could be replaced by tatko mi, majkata na carot Greek it is obligatory, e.g., auto´ soa´nthro¯ pos or o (majka is definite), and im, respectively. The redupli- a´nthro¯ pos auto´ s but not *auto´ sa´nthro¯ pos ‘this per- cation serves to emphasize or focus the referent of the son’. In Romanian, the article is not used if the deictic reduplicated pronoun. The last set of reduplications, is preposed, but is used if it is postposed (and the mu ... na deteto and gi ... knigite, are obligatory in deictic takes the so-called deictic particle -a): omul standard Macedonian and, for the most part, in the acesta but acest om ‘this person’, cf. Aromanian aista˜ western dialects on which it is based. The norm carte, cartea aista˜ ‘this book’. Megleno-Romanian requires reduplication for definite direct objects and has frequent double determination tsista lup-u ‘this all indirect objects. In practice, however, even the wolf-DEF’, but indefinite nouns also occur tsista dra¯c most normative grammar shows that specificity or ‘this devil-INDEF’. In Albanian, the deictic is pre- topicalization rather than definiteness is the trigger posed to either the indefinite or definite: ai njeri, ai (Koneski, 1967: 232): njeriu ‘this person’. In BS, double determination kako vistinski ja dozˇivuvame edna situacija occurs but is considered dialectal, Macedonian ovoj how truly it.ACC experience. one situation cˇovekov (vs. ovoj cˇovek) ‘this person’, or Torlak taja 1PL.PRES starata ‘that old [lady]’. Romani permits but does ‘how we actually experience a [given] situation’ not require the use of a definite article with a demon- strative, in which case the article must precede Pronominal object doubling occurs in all of BS (and the substantive but the demonstrative can precede or southern Montenegro), BR, Albanian, Greek, and follow: kova manusˇ, kova o manusˇ, o manusˇ kova Romani. It is conditioned by discourse factors such ‘this person’. Double determination or the order as emphasis or focus and can be compared to the use noun-determiner is pragmatically more thematic in of subject pronouns. Just as the fact that the subject the discourse. is marked on the verb makes the subject pronoun redundant unless there is a need for emphasis or specification, so, too, the clitic pronominal object, Resumptive Clitic Pronouns (Reduplication, which is the required form if the object is a pro- Replication) Balkan languages are characterized by noun, makes the full form redundant except under the use of clitic or weak resumptive object pronouns similar discourse-bound circumstances. The absence that agree in gender, number, and case with the nonc- of such doubling from the rest of BCS is a diagnostic litic/strong pronoun or substantive they refer to. This separating Balkan from non-Balkan Slavic. phenomenon is called (object/pronoun) reduplication/ The clitic replication of oblique nominals shows doubling in Balkan linguistics and is connected to how grammatical change can enter a language expressions of definiteness, referentiality, and animacy: via discourse phenomena and at the same time sup- the first candidates for reduplication are personal ports Topolin´ ska’s observation that analytic markers pronouns (inherently definite and, in the first two per- of referentiality are characteristic of convergent sons, usually human), then indirect objects (usually development. Object reduplication is another scalar human, often topicalized), then definite direct objects, Balkanism. It is rare in Torlak and used only for and finally specific or topicalized direct objects. emphasis and thus separates East from West South From a morphosyntactic point of view, there Slavic. Similar conditions hold for Romani except in are four types of reduplication: pronominal object possessive constructions. Object reduplication is more doubling, substantival object replication, pronomi- pragmatically conditioned and less grammaticalized nal possessive doubling, and substantival possessive in Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek, where the phe- replication. All four phenomena can be illustrated Author's Personalnomenon signals topicalization, Copy focus, or emphasis, in the following Macedonian sentence: and is restricted by factors such as animacy (or human- Tatko mi moj i majka ness) and degree of referentiality (definiteness, specific- father me.DAT my.M and mother ity, determinacy, etc.). In Albanian, Vlah, and West mu na car-ot im rekoa Macedonian, reduplication has become grammatica- him.DAT to king-the them.DAT said.3PL.AOR lized. It is most frequent in Macedonian, where, unlike nim da mu gi in the other Balkan languages, it can even occur (facul- them.DAT SP him.DAT them.ACC tatively) with indefinite indeterminate pronouns such dadat knigi-te na dete-to as nikoj ‘nobody’. give.3PL.PRES books-the to child-the While it lacks a definite article, Turkish does have a ‘My father and the king’s mother told them to give special accusative marker used for definite or speci- the books to the child.’ fied direct objects. The following proverb illustrates
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
Balkans as a Linguistic Area 663 how the Turkish definite accusative is rendered by Genitive-Dative Merger Albanian, BS, BR, and Balkan object reduplication. Note that Greek and Greek have no formal (i.e., surface) distinction be- Bulgarian have reduplication with an indefinite tween the shape of the genitive and the shape of the object, indicating its specificity: dative, the dative having replaced the genitive except in Greek, where the genitive replaced the dative. The Turkish: Yava ba ı kılıc¸ kes-mez (Turkish) gentle head- sword cuts-not same forms thus do double duty for marking posses- DEF.ACC sion and indirect objects. Romani and WRT maintain Bulgarian: Pokorena glava sabja ne ja secˇe the genitive/dative distinction, and the situation is bent head sword not it.ACC cuts more complicated in Albanian and MR. Albanian Greek: Kefa´li proskyne¯me´no spath`ı dhe`n has merged genitive and dative but has a distinct head bent sword not to` ko´ vei ablative. The dative is used as the object of a verb, it.ACC cuts the genitive is preceded by a particle of concord, and Romanian: Cap-ul plecat nu l taie sabia the ablative is the object of certain prepositions or in head- bent not it.ACC cuts sword. apposition to another substantive. In the indefinite DEF DEF plural, however, Albanian has a special ablative Albanian: Koke¨n e falur yatagan-i head PART.F.DEF.ACC bent sword-DEF form in -sh. Pronominal declension also has a distinct nuk e pret ablative form used with certain prepositions, NOM not it.ACC cuts nga une¨/djali ‘from me/the boy’, ACC pe¨r mua/djalin ‘A/The sword does not cut off a/the bent head’ ‘for me/the boy’,DATme¨ tha mua/i tha djalit ‘he told (¼ Keep your head down.) me/the boy (with initial clitic reduplication)’, ABL Possessive doubling is a more restricted phenomenon. prej meje/djalit ‘from me/the boy’. MR preserved a The use of dative clitics to indicate possession in remnant of the genitive-dative distinction, albeit only Macedonian is limited to kinship terms, Aromanian in the speech of the oldest generation: cari ‘who’ has special possessive clitics that can only be used pe cari ‘whom.ACC’, la cari ‘to whom.DAT’ but al with kinship terms, and Albanian also has special cruj ‘of whom, whose’. Elsewhere, the dative and possessive constructions for kinship terms. In Bulgar- accusative are distinct, and the genitive is identical ian, possession is usually signaled by a dative clitic to the dative. following the definite form of the noun, and posses- sive adjectives, which are the norm in Macedonian, Analytic Case Relations All the Balkan languages are more emphatic in Bulgarian. In Greek, clitic da- have simplified their inherited patterns of inflection. tive pronouns after the definite form of the noun is the Eastern Macedonian and colloquial Bulgarian have normal manner of indicating possession, and empha- gone the farthest, completely eliminating all traces of sis is rendered by adding the appropriate form of the case morphology other than accusative personal pro- adjective diko´ s ‘[one’s] own’ immediately before the nouns and accusative vs. dative clitics. The marking pronoun. However, pronominal doubling is also used of nonclitic dative objects is by means of the preposi- colloquially for emphasis: tion na and the accusative pronoun. All other case to vivlio mou mena relations are likewise indicated syntactically through- the book me.GEN me.GEN out BS, usually by a preposition but sometimes just by ‘my book’ apposition. Western Macedonian preserves a distinc- Romanian also has such clitic doubling colloquially: tive set of dative synthetic pronouns, and, in the dialects that serve as the basis for the standard, a propria-mi mea semna˘tura few remnants of animate singular masculine accusa- own.FEM-me.DAT my signature.DEF ‘my very own signatureAuthor's’ Personaltives. As one moves further Copy to the periphery of BS in the southwest and north, the complexity of case Substantival possessive replication occurs in all the marking increases to include feminine accusatives, Balkan languages, but the details differ from language masculine datives, feminine datives, and eventually, to language. The Turkish construction of genitive in Gora and Torlakia, oblique plurals. In the Torlak possessed plus pronominal suffix on the possessor is dialects and the Macedonian dialects around Korc¸a the normal pattern: in Albania, case marking also occurs in the definite kral-ın anne-si article. The other Balkan languages all retain at king-GEN mother-his least three distinct cases (nominative, accusative, ‘the king’s mother ¼ the mother of the king’ and genitive-dative).
Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672
664 Balkans as a Linguistic Area
Balkan Romani and WRT both preserve their full in Romani (generally the marker of the main contact inflectional systems, but with tendencies toward sim- language, but Slavic po and Turkish da[h]a are both plification that show an intersection between the more widespread). Remnants of a synthetic compar- areal and typological. From a typological point of ative in -eder also survive in some Romani dialects, view, it is the peripheral cases that are expected to but generally those spoken outside the Balkans. Given be lost first, and this is precisely what happens. Thus, that Romani entered the Balkans some time between WRT exhibits dative-locative confusion: the 10th and 13th centuries, and given that during this same period Slavic preserved its inflectional sys- gittı-k Selanik-te tem of adjectival gradation, it would appear that BS went-1PL.AOR Salonica-LOC ‘We went to Salonica’ and Romani were undergoing this shift at about the same time, and those dialects that left the Balkans did There is also a tendency to eliminate case marking in so before its completion. locational postpositions: In general, the standard of comparison is an abla- u¨ rti u¨ sti [vs u¨stu¨ -n-de] kedi-ler tive marker, which is synthetic in Turkish and most of blanket top top-its-LOC cat-PL Romani but prepositional (lexical ‘from’) in BS, BR, ‘on top of his blanket [there were] cats’ Greek, some Romani, and Albanian, particularly Tosk. Albanian can also use relative se and BR can Romani dialects in contact with BS tend to replace the have relative ca. Clausal comparisons (e.g., ‘to eat is locative with the dative and the dative, locative, and better than to sleep’) in Albanian, BR, and BS involve ablative with prepositional constructions derived quantifiers, se [sa] ‘that [how much]’, de.cˆıt ‘from. from case affixes, themselves of postpositional origin: how much’, ot.kolko[to] ‘from.how much [that]’, jekh-e aindzˇ-a-te vs. jekh-e aindzˇ-a-ke > k-i jekh aindzˇ respectively. Greek has para´ ‘contrary to, despite’. one- field- one- field- to-FEM one There is a bifurcation in the superlative between OBL OBL- OBL OBL- field Turkish and BS, on the one hand, and Greek and LOC DAT Albanian on the other, with BR and Romani occupy- ‘in a field’, ‘to a field’‘in/to a field’ ing a middle ground. In Turkish and BS, the relative aindzˇ-a-tar ¼ tar-i aindzˇ superlative is purely analytic and uses native mar- field-OBL-ABL from-FEM field ‘from a field’. kers: Turkish en,BSnaj. In Greek and Albanian, the relative superlative is expressed by the definite of the Outside the pronouns, a distinct Romani accusative is comparative. (Greek also has a synthetic absolute limited to animate (or in some dialects referential) comparative in a few adjectives.) Romanian and most nouns, while in Turkish accusative marking is limited of MR pattern like Albanian, whereas Aromanian to definite or specific direct objects (see ‘Resumptive and the MR of Tsa˜rnareka have borrowed Slavic naj. Clitic Pronouns’ [Reduplication, Replication]). The expression of analytic adjectival gradation The vocative survives in all the Indo-European Bal- in Turkish is attested in the oldest monuments kan languages, and some argue that this preservation (8th century). The Greek dialects of Epirus, Thrace, is a shared archaism, reinforced by contact, which is Asia Minor, and of the Sarakatsan (transhumant consistent with the direct encounters that lead to Hellenophone shepherds) use the comparative mark- contact phenomena. It runs counter to the tendency er [a]ko´ m[a] ‘yet, still’, calquing exactly Turkish daha toward analytism, however. (Table 1). In Moldavian Gagauz, sam ( Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 Balkans as a Linguistic Area 665 Table 1 Balkan adjectival gradation Turkish daha bu¨ yu¨ k ablative en bu¨ yu¨ k Romani (Arli) po/da[h]a baro ablative en/naj baro Bulgarian po- goljam ot naj-goljam Macedonian po golem od najgolem Aromanian kama mari di nai mari MR (Tsa˜ rnareka) mai mari di naimar[l]i most big MR mai mari di tsa˜ l mai mar[l]i Romanian mai mare de[cıˆ t] cel mai mare Albanian (Tosk) me¨ i madh nga me¨ i madhi Greek pio mega´ los apo´ o pio mega´ los more big from the more big ‘bigger than’ ‘biggest’ Table 2 Balkan teens and tensa–f other Balkan languages have the analytic subjunc- OCS edinu˘ na dese( te tive. Romanian and MR still have remnants of the Romanian un spre zeci Latin infinitive that can be used in some traditional Aromanian una˜ spra˜ [dza˜ tse] infinitival functions. The BR infinitive is strongest in MR un spra˜ ts Maramures¸, the northernmost Romanian region and Albanian (Tosk) nje¨ mbe¨ dhjete¨ the one in most contact with infinitive-using lan- one on ten Greek enteka (en[a] deka) guages (Ukrainian, Hungarian, formerly Yiddish). one ten BR in general also preserves Latin infinitives in -re Romani desˇ u jekh as verbal nouns. Greek has a morphological remnant ten and one of the infinitive, but its only living function is to Turkish on bir represent the main verb in perfects and pluperfects. ten one ‘eleven’ Bulgarian has a very marginal remnant of the Slavic infinitive limited to subordination to a tiny number of aSlavic gender in numerals: dva (MASC) dve (FEM) ‘two’. verbs. The infinitive has disappeared completely from b Romanian gender in numerals: doi (MASC) doua˘ (FEM) ‘two’. Torlak except in some folk songs. Macedonian and cAlbanian gender in numerals: tre (MASC) tri (FEM) ‘three’ (dy Romani have eliminated all traces of earlier infini- [MASC], dy [FEM] ‘two’).„ dOCS 10 ¼ MASC duva dese( te ‘twenty’. tives. Thus the replacement of infinitives with sub- eRomanian 10 ¼ FEM doua˘ zeci ‘twenty’ (zece ‘ten’ < Lat. decem). junctives is not uniform but scalar. At one end fAlbanian 10 ¼ FEM tri dhjete¨ ‘thirty’. is Gheg, followed closely by Romanian, then Tosk, Bulgarian, Greek, and Vlah, with Torlak, Romani, and Macedonian at the other end. borrowed lexicon among the three, Hamp suggests New infinitival constructions have arisen in Romani that this innovation occurred at a time when the Indo- outside of the Balkans in contact with infinitive-using European dialects that became Slavic, Albanian, and languages. In Macedonian, some uses of the verbal the language that Latinized into Romanian were part noun can replace SP-clauses and thus function as a of a Northwest European sprachbund prior to their kind of new infinitive, although these constructions, respective migrations to the Balkans (Table 2). which are highly colloquial, are merely alternatives. Author's PersonalThe option of using an SP-clauseCopy rather than an in- Analytic Subjunctive The analytic subjunctive finitive is available to all of BCS, but there is a ten- formed by means of a subordinating particle (SP), dency for such usage to become more frequent usually of pronominal origin, plus a finite verb agree- as one moves from northwest to southeast in the ing with its subject (omitted if the same as in the main direction of Torlak. Since 1991, Croatian language clause, specified if different) replaces older nonfinite planners have identified SP-clauses with Serbian complements (infinitives) in all Balkan languages to and infinitives with Croatian, as a result of which varying degrees. Gheg has a new infinitive employing Croatian speakers are now discouraged from using the preposition me ‘with’ and a short participle in SP-clauses. In Serbian and Bosnian, however, the two contexts where Tosk uses the analytic subjunctive, but constructions continue to coexist amicably (Table 3). Gheg also has uses of the analytic subjunctive, and Tosk In WRT, optatives have expanded at the expense has some nonfinite participial constructions where of infinitives owing to the influence of the other Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 666 Balkans as a Linguistic Area Table 3 Balkan SP clauses Table 4 Balkan futures Romani mangav te hramonav Romani ka dzˇ a[s] Albanian (Tosk) dua te¨ shkruaj Albanian (Tosk) do [te¨ ] shkojme¨ Albanian (Gheg) [due me shkrue] Greek tha pa´ me Greek the´ lo¯ na gra´ fo¯ Bulgarian sˇ te tru˘ gnem Bulgarian iskam da pisˇ a Macedonian k´ e odime Macedonian sakam da pisˇ uvam Torlak cˇ e odime Torlak ocˇ u da pisˇ em Romanian (Colloquial, South) o sa˘ mergem Romanian vreau sa˘ scriu Aromanian va s- neadzim Vlah voi s(i) scriu MR si, sa˜ neadzim gloss I.want SP I.write [MR-Tsa˜ rnareka a˜ s neadzim] WRT isterim yazayım English we will go gloss I.want I.write.OPT ‘I want to write’ The ‘will’ þ infinitive construction survives (with Balkan languages. The usage in Table 3 was a possi- modified or new infinitives) in Romanian, northwest- bility in older Turkish, but, in a classic case of ern Gheg (near and in Montenegro), in Bulgarian convergence via feature selection, the WRT optative dialects (with postposed auxiliary), and MR (for now occurs where Turkish would normally have a speculations and threats). This form also survives in nonfinite construction: all the non-Balkan Sˇtokavian dialects of BCS and connects them with East South Slavic. In fact, much ben seni ist-er-im s¸imdi bir of Sˇtokavian ended up in its current location as a I you.ACC want-PRES-1SG now one result of northward migrations during the 15th– mu¨ neccim ol-a-sın 18th centuries. The rest of Slavic developed the astrologer be-OPT-2SG Now I want you to be an astrologer perfective of ‘be’ as a future marker. The next stage was ‘will’ þ SP þ conjugated present tense verb (Greek Similarly, Balkan Judezmo, which preserves the 14th century, Slavic 15th century). This stage also Spanish infinitive, nonetheless has some uses of survives in BCS, including Torlak. The third stage, its subjunctive, e.g., in questions, that calque Balkan which overlaps the second, is the transformation of SP-clauses and do not occur in Modern Spanish or ‘will’ into an invariant particle þ SP þ conjugated North African Judezmo: main verb. This type of construction is still the main kwando ke te vengamoz a tom-ar? one in Tosk and parts of Gheg, especially in the (Balkan Judezmo) northwest and southeast peripheries; it is characteris- when that you.ACC we.come to take-INF tic of southern Romanian and survives in Torlak and Po´ te na ‘rthou´ me na se pa´roume? (Greek) in certain modal uses in East South Slavic, but not in when SP we.come SP you.ACC we.take Greek. The fourth stage is the elimination of the SP so Koga da ti dojdeme da te zemame? (Macedonian) that the future is marked by an invariant particle plus when SP you. we.come SP you. we.take a conjugated verb. In addition to being the standard DAT ACC future in Balkan and southern Vlax Romani, Greek, Cua´ndo quieres que vengamos a recog-er-te? and BS, it is common in colloquial Tosk. In MR, the (Modern Spanish) future marker merged with SP, producing a new par- when you.want that we.come to take-INF-you ticle, a˜s,inTsa˜rnareka, but eliminating a distinct ‘When do you want us to come to get you?’ future marker in the other villages. Romani outside All Balkan languagesAuthor's use the independent analyticPersonalthe Balkans has other meansCopy of forming or expressing subjunctive to express wish, desire, or a milder form the future, and it appears that the Romani develop- of imperative. Albanian also has a synthetic optative ment in the Balkans occurred in concert with the used mostly in formulae. other Balkan languages (cf. ‘Analytic Gradation of Adjectives’)(Table 4). Futures in ‘Will’ and ‘Have’ When Slavic entered Conjugated ‘have’ þ infinitive, attested for early the Balkans (6th–7th centuries C.E.), there was com- stages of all the traditional Balkan languages, remains petition between the auxiliaries ‘have’ and ‘want the predominant future in most of Gheg. Conjugated (will)’ þ infinitive to mark futurity in Latin and have þ SP þ present is still used in Romanian, and Greek, with Latin favoring ‘have’ and Greek favoring invariant ‘have’ (which can also be an existential in ‘want’. OCS used the perfective of ‘be’ in addition to all the Balkan languages with lexical ‘have’,cf.French ‘want’, ‘have’ and various forms of ‘begin’ þ infinitive. il y a)isusedinArbe¨resh and occurs with modal Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 Balkans as a Linguistic Area 667 Table 5 Negated futures Table 6 The Balkan conditionals Macedonian nema da odime Romani ka keravas* Bulgarian njama da hodime Greek tha´ e´ grafa Aromanian noare s’ neadzim Macedonian k´ e napravevu not.has SP we.go Aromanian va [s] fa˜ ceamu Romani na-e amen te dzˇ a[s] Albanian (Tosk) do te¨ be¨ ja not-is we.ACC SP go.IPL.PRES FU SP do.IM.ISG WRT yok-tur gid-elim MR vr a si am fat(a˜ ) not-is go-OPT.1PL want.PRES.3SG SU do.PERF.1SG English we won’tgo Bulgarian sˇ tjah da napravja sˇ c´ asˇ e/sˇ c´ esˇ e da napravim/ radim want.3SG.IM SU do.PRES.1SG Albanian (Gheg) [kishna me baˆ ] functions in BS. In East South Slavic, the ordinary I.have with do.PART negated future uses this negative existential þ SP þ pre- Romanian as¸ fi fa˘ cut present, and this type is calqued into Aromanian, COND be.INF do.PAST.PART Romani, and WRT. Since Turkish and most of Roma- Turkish yap acak tı m ROOT FU PAST 1SG ni lack lexical verbs meaning ‘have’, their calques use ‘I would have done’ their negated existentials, which also code possession (Table 5). *Arli has a new imperfect formed by the long present+imperfect of ‘3SG/PLbe’, e.g. kerava sine. Future in Past as Conditional The combination of a future marker with a past tense marker to form a Perfect in ‘Have’ The use of ‘have’ as an auxiliary conditional, especially irrealis, is a classic Balkanism, with a nonfinite main verb to form an analytic perfect although its realization differs among the various is attested for Greek and Latin at the end of the Balkan languages. (The construction itself can ancient period and is characteristic of Albanian, BR, have a variety of related meanings, e.g., ‘X almost and Greek, while such constructions (and lexical happened/was about to happen’, iterative-habitual, ‘have’) are absent from WRT and most of Romani. anterior future, and languages and dialects can be In BS ‘have’ þ past passive participle (or its descen- differentiated on the basis of which of these meanings dant) forms resultative constructions ranging from a are encoded.) Greek, Macedonian, and Romani all fully grammaticalized perfect (with an invariant neu- use the invariant future marker plus the imperfect. ter verbal adjective) that has completely replaced the Tosk and Aromanian are almost the same, but they inherited perfect (‘be’ þ old resultative particle in -l) still have the SP, at least optionally. MR has an in extreme southwestern Macedonian and spreading invariant ‘will’ marker (vr a) þ SP þ present or per- north to Mt. Sˇar and east to the Vardar and beyond, fect (see ‘Perfect in ‘‘Have’’ ’). In Bulgarian, Torlak, to resultative syntagms with ‘have’ þ past passive par- and other dialectal BCS, however, it is ‘will’ that ticiples agreeing with their direct objects and limited conjugates in the imperfectþSPþpresent, and Gheg to transitive verbs with human subjects in most of has the conjugated imperfect auxiliary ‘have’ þ in- Bulgaria. finitive. The Balkan construction extends into BCS Given the geography and history of the ‘have’ as far as southern Croatia and southwestern Serbia, perfect in BS, it is clearly a calque on one of the and the southern Montenegrin dialects have the wid- non-Slavic contact languages. Although Greek and est range of uses for the construction, thereby being Albanian have been proposed as the possible models, most Balkan. In Turkish, the future participle plus a Goła˛b’s arguments in favor of Aromanian are the past auxiliary [i]diAuthor'sor [i]mis¸ has the same nuances Personal of most convincing. In Aromanian, Copy the feminine parti- irrealis conditional (Table 6). ciple is selected as the invariant, since in BR (as in In Greek, Albanian, and Vlah, conditional construc- Albanian) the feminine gender is unmarked (neuter tions normally have a form of the ‘will’ morpheme. is obsolete). The Macedonian invariant neuter In BS, the Balkan conditional is in competition verbal adjective therefore corresponds exactly to the with the inherited conditional using the old optative Aromanian in terms of unmarked gender. In Greek, of ‘be’ (invariant bi in Macedonian, conjugating the main verb is a remnant of the infinitive and in in Bulgarian and Torlak) þ old resultative participle. Albanian the participle does not mark singular gen- Romani dialects in contact with Slavic also use in- der. Thus the BR construction most closely resembles variant bi þ present as a conditional. In Romanian, the Macedonian. An additional argument in favor of a special conjugation of ‘have’ þ infinitive serves as a BR as the model is evidence of Macedonian and Vlah conditional-optative. mutual calquing in other resultative constructions. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 668 Balkans as a Linguistic Area Table 7 Aromanian (Fa˜ rsha˜ lots, Bela di Supra˜ and Albanian indicatives (3sg ‘work’) Nonadmirative Admirative Present lukra˜ punon lukracka punuaka Perfect ari lukrata˜ ka punuar avuska luktrata˜ paska punuar Pluperfect ave lukrata˜ kish punuar – paske¨ sh punuar 2nd Pluperfect avu lukrata˜ pat punuar – – Double perfect ari avut lukrata˜ ka pase¨ punuar ari avuska lukrata˜ paska pase¨ punuar Double plup. ave avut lukrata˜ kish pase¨ punuar ave avuska lukrata˜ paske¨ sh pase¨ punuar 2nd Dbl. plup. avu avut lukrata˜ pat pase¨ punuar – – Table 8 The Novo Selo probabilitive ‘see’ Megleno-Romanian uses an inverted perfect þ Present 1 gla*da` cˇ a˘ m gla*da` cˇ a˘ mo auxiliary construction in a similar function. The 2 gla*da` cˇ a˘ sˇ gla*da` cˇ a˘ ta˘ Romanian presumptive mood formed with a future, 3 gla*da` cˇ a˘ gla*da` cˇ a˘ ju subjunctive, or conditional marker þ invariant fi Future cˇ a˘ gla*da` cˇ a˘ m, etc. ‘be’ þ gerund (or past participle) is a similar Past buda` cˇ a˘ m bı` cˇ a˘ m gla˘ da` l, etc. marked nonconfirmative, as is the probabilitive mood (based on a BCS-type inverted future) of Novo Selo Bulgarian, a dialect spoken across the Danube from Romania and a few kilometers east of Evidential In a Balkan context, evidentiality (infer- Serbia (Table 8). ential, distance, mode of indirect narration, indirec- The Judezmo of Istanbul uses the pluperfect as a tive, status, French me´diatif ) is a grammatical calque on the Turkish past in -mis¸: category encoding the speaker’s evaluation of the Kuando esta-v-an en l’ Ame´rika, les narrated event, often, but not always, predicated when be-IM-3PL in the America them.DAT upon the nature of the available evidence. Evidentials av-iy-a entra-do ladro´ n can be of two types: confirmative (vouched for, ‘wit- have-IM-3SG enter-PAST.PART thief nessed’) and nonconfirmative (not vouched for, ‘When they were in America [i.e., absent], a thief broke into ‘reported’, ‘inferential’). The nonconfirmative can be (Turkish girmis¸) their house.’ felicitous (neutral report or inference) or infelicitous, in which latter case the nonconfirmative expresses Other Many other features too numerous to discuss either acceptance of a previously unexpected state here are cited as Balkanisms, e.g., the conflation of of affairs (i.e., surprise, admirativity sensu stricto)or adverbs of location and motion (‘where’/‘whither’), rejection of a previous statement (i.e., sarcasm, dubi- purposives in ‘for’ þ SP þ verb and other prepositional tativity). The opposition confirmative/nonconfirma- parallelisms, a distinction between realis and irrealis tive was already encoded in the Turkic simple past in complementizers, and absolute relativizers and inter- -di (confirmative) and the perfect participle in -mis¸ rogatives as complementizers, this last being a feature (nonconfirmative) at the time of the earliest monu- that has spread to WRT: ments. In East South Slavic, the old synthetic pasts are cˇovek-ot sˇto go vid-ov (Macedonian) markedly confirmative (this same meaning is also person-the what him.ACC see-1SG.AOR sometimes identified in Torlak). By contrast, the old adam ne cu¨ r-d-u¨m (WRT) perfect using the resultative participle in -l has become man what saw-PAST-I an unmarked past,Author's with a chief contextual variantPersonalgo¨ r-du¨ g˘-u¨m adam Copy (Standard Turkish) meaning of nonconfirmative. In Albanian, the in- see-PART-my man verted perfect (participle þ ‘have’) has fused into a ‘the man that I saw’ marked nonconfirmative present paradigm called admirative, which can then function as an auxiliary to form analytic past tenses. The Frasheriote Aroma- Word Order nian dialect of Bela di Supra˜ has reinterpreted Clitic Ordering Greek, Albanian, and BR all permit the 3SG.PRES Albanian admirative marker as an absolute initial pronominal clitics when the first admirative suffix, which it adds to a masculine plural stressed element is a finite verb, but in BS only Mace- imperfect participial base to form a new admirative donian (especially the western dialects) permits this. (Table 7). Bulgarian keeps pronominal clitics bound to the verb Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 Balkans as a Linguistic Area 669 but either requires the verb or some other element in the eastern Balkans also have preposed adjective as initial position. BCS, including most of Torlak, still the standard order. follows Wackernagel’s law and has clitics in second position. Lexicon, Semantics, and Derivational Morphology Az cˇesto mu go davam. (Bulgarian) The etymological commonalities of the Balkan lexi- I often. him.DAT it.ACC give.1SG.PRES con received considerable attention during the forma- Ja mu ga cˇesto dajem. (Serbian) tive years of Balkan linguistics, whereas more recently I him.DAT it.ACC often give.1SG.PRES. the focus has been on shared grammatical features. ‘I often give it to him’ Miklosich’s 1861 survey of Balkan grammatical com- Davam mu go (Bulgarian) monalities occupied only 4% of what was basically a give.1SG.PRES him.DAT it.ACC study of the Slavic lexical influence on Romanian. Mu go davam (Macedonian) Sandfeld (1930) devotes 40% of his book to the him.DAT it.ACC give.1SG.PRES lexicon, whereas Asenova (2002) allots 10% of her ‘I give it to him’ text to such issues. Although the lexicon is the most Romani pronominal clitics follow the verb. WRT is salient surface manifestation of linguistic influence, basically suffixal, like the rest of Turkish, and clitics words can travel between languages without the aid always follow the stressed element, but elements of communal multilingualism, whereas the diffusion that can be fused or separated are more likely to be or convergence of grammatical structures is a more separated and less likely to show vowel harmony in complex process that requires at least a core commu- WRT. nity of bi- or multilingual speakers. In terms of the definition of a sprachbund, it is the shared grammati- cal features rather than shared vocabulary that is the Constituent Order Balkan languages are character- key determiner, although shared vocabulary is usually ized by relatively free constituent order with certain part of the picture. patterns being favored for various types of syntactic There are common loanwords from each of the and narrative strategies (emphasis, topicalization, component language families in the Balkan lan- focus, contrastive thematization, etc.). The unmarked guages. Words shared by Albanian and Romanian of word order tendency is SVO in all the Indo-European pre-Latin (substrate) origin are often connected with Balkan languages. Unlike most of Turkish, where the domestic items or husbandry, e.g., Albanian shtrunge¨, tendency is verb-final, WRT and Gagauz show SVO BR strunga˘, BS (Macedonian and west Bulgarian) tendencies. Similarly, BR, BS, Albanian, and Greek all strunga, Greek (Epirus and Sarakatsan) strou´ gka have the basic order head-genitive, while Turkish and ‘dairy’. Greek, Slavic, and Romance (especially Bal- Romani are genitive-head. Romani dialects in the kan Latin and Venetian Italian) were all languages of Balkans and WRT, however, also have head-genitive power in the Balkans at various times during the constructions: Middle Ages and contributed a variety of lexemes m-e phral-es-k(er)e kher-es-k(or)o vudar (Romani) and even derivational affixes to the common Balkan my-OBL brother-OBL- house-OBL- door lexicon, e.g., the Latin agentive suffix -arius, the GEN GEN Slavic feminine suffix -ica , and the Greek aorist ‘the door of my brother’s house’ o vudar e kher-es-ko marker -s- (used in deriving verbs). As the language the.MASC.NOM door the.OBL house–OBL-GEN of administration, the market place, and urban life m-e phral-es-kere (Romani) in general, Turkish dominated the Balkan peninsula my-OBL brother-OBL-GEN for more than half a millennium. By the 19th century, Baba-si Ali-nin (WRT) the shared Turkish lexicon in the Balkan languages father-his A.-GENAuthor's Personal Copy Tatkto mu na Ali (Macedonian) was of considerable size. The rise of Balkan standard father him.DAT to Ali languages, however, entailed the stylistic lowering Baba-i i Ali-ut (Albanian) and marginalization of many Turkish loanwords, and father-DEF PC.MASC.NOM.SG A.-Def.GEN as many of these items were of Arabo-Persian origin, Ali-nin babasI (Standard Turkish) they were discouraged by Turkish purists as well. The Ali-GEN father-his Turkish agentive -ci, attributive -li, qualitative or con- ‘Ali’s father’ crete -lik (with adjustments for vowel harmony, voicing Adjectives generally follow their heads in Albanian assimilation, and adaptation) continue to be produc- and BR, but precede in BS, Greek, WRT, and Romani. tive as derivational affixes, e.g., Macedonian puberte- In all of these languages, the opposite order is possible tlija ‘adolescent (ironic)’ Albanian partiakc¸i ‘party in various discourse functions. Albanian enclaves in hack’,Judezmohanukalik ‘Chanukah present’,etc. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 670 Balkans as a Linguistic Area The Balkan languages also share numerous idioms, collocations, and calqued expressions; e.g., the use of ‘eat’ to mean ‘undergo something unpleasant’ as in ‘eat wood’ ¼ ‘take a beating’ or ‘it doesn’t cut his mind’ ¼ ‘he doesn’t understand’. There are a vari- ety of shared discourse particles and conjunctions (e.g., Turkish am[m]a ‘but’, Greek bre ‘hey, vocative particle’) that also form part of the common Balkan lexicon. Figure 1 Schematic linguistic social/political hierarchy (Ottoman Period). Sociolinguistics Factors such as power, prestige and religion have speakers of Turkish were Muslim, but there was still influenced directions and degrees of Balkan contact plenty of linguistic contact via religious conversion. phenomena. Throughout the Ottoman period, Turk- Jews and Roms, however, were endogamous along a ish had high prestige as the language of the state and combination of linguistic and other social lines. This the town, Greek had prestige among Christians as the boundary maintenance is reflected linguistically in language of the (Orthodox) church with its own liter- Romani, where there is a clear opposition between ary tradition (and history of power, i.e., Byzantium) the relatively open systems of adjectival comparison and was also a language of commerce. BS had less and modality on the one hand to the conservative prestige in the southern Balkans, but its history of nominal, pronominal, and tense-aspect systems on medieval literacy and political competition with the other. Byzantium gave it some limited prestige. Although Figure 1 illustrates the relative prestige of the vari- BR was descended from Latin, another language of ous languages during the Ottoman period. Height empire and conquest, the local varieties that devel- symbolizes prestige, while incline indicates relative oped after the Slavic invasions did not have that level (never absolute) directionality. The directionality is of prestige and, like Albanian, were associated mainly reversed in the case of slang and secret languages, with rural contexts. In Wallachia and Moldavia, where it is the covert prestige of languages further Church Slavonic was the liturgical language for cen- down on the social scale that is reflected in patterns of turies, and Romanian was written in Cyrillic until the lexical borrowing. In the case of Judezmo, knowledge mid-19th century. Aromanian speakers in southern of Turkish was most widespread, while knowledge Balkan towns used Greek outside the home. Romani of other Balkan languages would depend on the was at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but particular (urban) environment. Judezmo was outside it. This is reflected in 19th- century Macedonian folklore collections, where char- Causation acters in ethnic jokes, including Roms (Gypsies), speak in their own languages, except Jews, who For most of the history of Balkan linguistics, causa- speak Turkish, not Judezmo. For both Romani and tion has been sought in the influence of (interference Judezmo, multilingualism was unidirectional, i.e., from) one of the languages, e.g., Greek, Latin, or a Roms and Jews learned other languages but heard pre-Latin non-Hellenic substratum (e.g., Illyrian, their languages spoken by others rarely, if ever. At Thracian, and/or Dacian – all so poorly attested that the opposite end of the prestige scale, speakers of we do not have so much as a single sentence in any of Greek and Turkish were less likely to learn less pres- them). More recently, however, an ecological model tigious languagesAuthor's but were more likely to hear Personal their of feature selection arguesCopy that those grammatical languages spoken by others. Those languages in the developments more suitable for effective communica- middle of the hierarchy (BS, BR, and Albanian) had tion that might be already present in the language, the highest degree of multidirectional multilingualism i.e., more adaptive, are more likely to be selected for and show a higher degree of congruence. further development and spread (cf. ‘Resumptive Marriages could be freely contracted across linguis- Clitic Pronouns [Reduplication, Replication]’). In tic lines but not religious ones, so that multilingual such a model, languages can utilize native resources households were a commonplace. Although speakers that are reinforced by their occurrence, or potential of BS, BR, and Greek were mostly Christian and for occurrence, in the contact languages. Mechanisms speakers of Albanian were usually Muslim, each of such as fusion, metatypy, and code copying are all these religions also had significant communities potentially relevant. At the same time, sociolinguistic speaking the other languages. Except for Gagauz, factors such as those adduced in ‘Sociolinguistics’ can Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 Balkans as a Linguistic Area 671 influence directions of change. The diffusion of bor- See also: Africa as a Linguistic Area; Albanian; Albania: rowingsand the development of convergences are Language Situation; Areal Linguistics; Articles, Definite thus compatible parts of a larger picture of a sprach- and Indefinite; Bilingualism; Bosnia and Herzegovina: bund in which languages come to be similar without Language Situation; Bulgaria: Language Situation; Bul- garian; Case; Clitics; Contact-Induced Convergence: Ty- becoming identical. It is worth emphasizing here the pology and Areality; Ethiopia as a Linguistic Area; Europe insight of Joseph (2001), namely that the move from as a Linguistic Area; Evidentiality in Grammar; Greece: lexical via phraseological to syntactic borrowings Language Situation; Greek, Ancient; Greek, Modern; Lan- that characterizes the contact-induced changes of a guage Change and Language Contact; Language Politics; sprachbund such as the Balkans are quintessentially Latin; Macedonia: Language Situation; Macedonian; Me- surface phenomena. tatypy; Mood and Modality in Grammar; Nationalism and Although some scholars have argued against the Linguistics; Old Church Slavonic; Romani; Romanian; Ro- idea of a Balkan sprachbund since the 1930s, the mania: Language Situation; Sanskrit; Serbian–Croatian– argument that the Balkans are basically just part of Bosnian Linguistic Complex; South Asia as a Linguistic a larger European linguistic zone coincides roughly Area; Southeast Asia as a Linguistic Area; Turkey: Lan- with the recent rise in interest in contact linguistics guage Situation; Turkish. and typology. In the case of the Balkans, however, while it is clear that Kopitar’s formulation is an exag- geration, it is equally clear that Trubetzkoy’s original Bibliography insight captures facts about language relationships. Alexander R (2000). ‘Tracking sprachbund boundaries: Of particular significance is the manner in which word order in the Balkans.’ In Gilbers D, Nerbonne J & patterns map such that the languages that surround Schaeken J (eds.) Studies in Slavic and General Lin- the Balkan sprachbund do not share the most salient guistics 28: Languages in contact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. features. The fact that English and Western Romance 9–27. have gone even further than most of the Balkan lan- Asenova P (2002). Balkansko ezikoznanie. Osnovni pro- guages in some changes does not contradict the blemi na balkanskija ezikov sa. juz (Balkan linguistics: hypothesis that the Balkan sprachbund is precisely Basic problems of the Balkan linguistic league) (2nd edn.). Sofia: Farber. (Resume´ in English, French, and that, i.e., a product of the process of language con- Russian). tact. If some of those contact-induced changes are the Atanasov P (1990). Le me´gle´no-roumain de nos jours. result of shared feature selections, having parallels (Balkan-Archiv Neue Folge – Beiheft 8). Hamburg: Buske. elsewhere, that may contribute to identifying likely Belyavski-Frank M (2003). The Balkan conditional in directions of language change, but it does not vitiate South Slavic. Munich: Otto Sagner. the sprachbund as a historical and sociolinguistic Friedman V (2003a). ‘Evidentiality in the Balkans.’ In phenomenon. Aikhenvald A & Dixon R (eds.) Studies in evidentiality. In a sense, a sprachbund is more like a dialect chain Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189–218. than a linguistic family: as features spread over areas, Friedman V (2003b). Turkish in Macedonia and beyond: they may do so with differential impact. Thus, while studies in contact, typology, and other phenomena in the it is possible to define a sprachbund in terms of lan- Balkans and the Caucasus. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Friedman V (2004). Studies on Albanian and other Balkan guages displaying a coalescence of a number of such languages. Peja: Dukagjini. features, it is not necessarily the case of an ‘all and Friedman V & Joseph B (2006). The Balkan languages. only’ phenomenon. Moreover, the transition from Cambridge: Cambridge University. pragmatic to syntactic (grammaticalized) to morpho- Goła˛b Z (1984). The Arumanian dialect of Krusˇevo in logical sometimes maps onto the territory of the SR Macedonia SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian sprachbund itself, moving from periphery to core. Academy of Arts and Sciences. Like dialects, thereAuthor's can be a transitional effect, Personal and Goła˛b Z (1997). ‘The ethnicCopy background and internal a given language, e.g., BCS, can participate in the linguistic mechanism of the so-called Balkanization of changes to a greater or a lesser extent. For both the Macedonian.’ Balkanistica 10, 13–19. dialect and the sprachbund, politics can have a crucial Ga˘la˘bov I, Georgiev V & Zaimov J (eds.) (1968). Actes du effect in setting boundaries that favor internal consis- premier congre`s international des e´tudes balkaniques et sud-est europe´ens (vol. 6). Sofia: Ba˘lgarska Akademija na tency and external differentiation. Just as the very Naukite. concept of language vis-a`-vis dialect (e.g., to which Hamp E (1982). ‘The oldest Albanian syntagma.’ Balk- language a given dialect ‘belongs’ or which isoglosses ansko Ezikoznanie 25, 77–79. will be chosen as defining one dialect in opposition Hamp E (1992). ‘Albanian.’ In Gvozdanovic´ J (ed.) to another) can be a complex of intersecting factors, Indo-European numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. so too can the definition of sprachbund. 835–921. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672 672 Balkans as a Linguistic Area Hinrichs U (ed.) (1999). Handbuch der Su¨ dosteuropa- in Su¨ dosteuropa und Osteuropa. Wiesbaden: Harrasso- Linguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. witz. 195–210. Ilievski P (1988). Balkanolosˇki lingvisticˇki studii (Balkano- Nikolaeva T (1996). Prosodija Balkan: Slovo – vyskazyva- logical linguistic studies). Skopje: Institut za makedonski nija – tekst (Prosody of the Balkans: Word – Utterance – jazik. Text). Moscow, Nauka. Joseph B (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Bal- Reiter N (ed.) (1983). Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik kan infinitive: a study in areal, general, and historical (Balkanologische Vero¨ ffentlichungen, Vol. 8). Berlin: linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osteuropa Institut an der Freien Universita¨t Berlin. Joseph B (1987). ‘A fresh look at the Balkan Sprach- Sandfeld K (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Klinck- bund: some observations on H. W. Schaller’s Die sieck. (1926. Balkanfilologien. Copenhagen: Luno.) Balkansprachen.’ Mediterranean Language Review 3, Sawicka I (1997). The Balkan Sprachbund in light of 105–114. phonetic features. Torun˙ : Energeia. Joseph B (2001). ‘Is Balkan comparative syntax possible?’ Schaller H (1977). Bibliographie zur Balkanphilologie. In Rivero M & Ralli A (eds.) Comparative syntax of Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Balkan languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sobolev A (2005). Malyj dialektologicˇeskij atlas balkanskih 17–43. jazykov. (Small dialectological atlas of the Balkan lan- Katicˇic´ R (1976). Trends in linguistics, state-of-the-art guages). Marburg: Biblion Verlag. report 4, 5: ancient languages of the Balkans (2 vols). Solta G (1980). Einfu¨ hrung in die Balkanlinguistik The Hague: Mouton. mit besonderer Beru¨ cksichtigung des Substrats und Koneski B (1967). Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche jazik (Grammar of the Macedonian literary language). Buchgesellschaft. Skopje: Kultura. Topolin´ ska Z (1995). ‘Convergent evolution, creolization Lindstedt J (2000). ‘Linguistic Balkanization: contact- and referentiality.’ In Hajicˇova´ E et al. (eds.) Prague induced change by mutual reinforcement.’ In Gilbers D, Linguistic Circle Papers, vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nerbonne J & Schaeken J (eds.) Studies in Slavic 239–247. and General Linguistics 28: Languages in contact. Varol M-C (2001). ‘Calques morphosyntaxiques du turc en Amsterdam: Rodopi. 231–246. jude´o-espagnol: me´canismes et limites.’ In Donabedian A Matras Y (1994). ‘Structural Balkanisms in Romani.’ In (ed.) Faits de langues: langues de diaspora. Paris: Ophrys. Reiter N (ed.) Sprachlicher Standard und Substandard 85–99. Balochi P O Skjærvø, Harvard University, Cambridge, broadcast from Zahedan in Iranian Balochistan and MA, USA from Quetta and Karachi, formerly also from Kabul. ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. There are, by one count, six principal dialects of Balochi, characterized by differences in grammar and lexicon. The western dialect of Raxsˇa¯n¯ı is the largest, Balochi (or Baluchi, in several dialects) is spoken the principal subdialect being Sarhadd¯ı, by the Baloch in eastern Iran and western Pakistan Balochi belongs with the North(west) Iranian lan- (Baluchistan), but also in southern Afghanistan, guages, differently from Persian, which is a Southwest Turkmenistan, and the Arab Gulf States (totaling Iranian language; compare, for instance, Balochi asin 6–8 million speakers?). The Baloch are first men- ‘iron,’ an- [dZan-] ‘strike,’ zird ‘heart,’ versus Persian tioned in literature about 1000 C.E., but the language a¯han, zan-, dil. It is a phonetically conservative lan- did not becomeAuthor's a written one until the 20th century,Personalguage, having preserved Copy much of the Old Iranian although the earliest known manuscript dates from consonant system intact, notably intervocalic stops the early 19th century. On the other hand, the Baloch and affricates, for instance, Bal. pa¯d ‘foot,’ a¯p have an oral poetic tradition with historical themes ‘water,’ rocˇ [ro¯ tS] ‘day’ (Pers. pa¯, a¯b, ru¯ z). Among reaching back to the 15th century, but especially innovations are the development of initial w- to productive in the 19th century. Modern literature g(w) (OIran. wa¯ta- ‘wind,’ Bal. gwa¯t, Pers. ba¯d), xw- and publications are centered in Quetta in Pakistani to w- (OIran. xwara- ‘eat,’ Bal. war-, Pers. xVor-), and Baluchistan and in Karachi. A Balochi Academy was the change of fricatives into stops (Bal. na¯kun ‘nail,’ founded in Quetta in 1959 and still publishes Balochi Pers. na¯xon; Bal. gipta ‘seized,’ Pers. gereft). literature and supports Balochi language and culture Balochi has retroflex consonants in words bor- in various ways, and the University of Quetta offers a rowed from Indo–Aryan, including originally English Balochi Studies program. Balochi radio programs are words, for instance, d. re¯war (d. =[B]) ‘driver.’ Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 1, pp. 657–672