THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LIBRARY ELECTRONIC COURSE RESERVE THE FOLLOWING FILE IS PROTECTED BY SECTION 17 OF THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT CODE. CZWPTER THIRTEEN Linguistics, Nationalism, and Literary Languages: A Balkan Perspective Victor A. Friedman Nake: ‘I?$ ma&id may bc protea by yF Ho %Hght fmw CTkJa I 7 U.S. Code). I ” 1. Introduction 6’ The processes which led to and continue to affect the formations of the modem literary languages of the Balkan peninsula have their parallels in Western Europe and elsewhere in the world, and yet the Balkans constitute a unique ‘living laboratory,’ because of both the great diversity of languages and ethnic groups and the fact that these processes are well documented, relatively recent, and ongoing. The relationship of linguistics to the developments in these languages has undergone a number of changes. In this article, I wish to document some of these and comment on their significance. 2. Historical Background I will begin with a few remarks on the historical background of the linguistic composition of the Balkans. The Albanians speak a language which is often claimed to be descended from Illyrian, which may have been the language spoken on the territory of present-day Albania (and western Yugoslavia) in ancient times. Recent studies of the evidence of toponymy and vocabulary, however, indicate that Albanian may be descended from a Dacian or Thracian dialect which was being spoken in what is now eastern Serbia up to the time the Slavs crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans (ca. A.D. 550-630). At that time, the linguistic ancestors of the Albanians would have been pushed south- west into present-day Albania (cf., e.g., Fine 1983:10-l 1). The Greeks came to the Balkans some time around the second millenium B.C., displacing or absorbing other Indo-European and/or non-Indo-European peoples (cf. Gindin 1967, Neroznak 1978). From the third or second century B.C. through the first century A.D., the Romans gradually annexed most of what is now the Balkans south of the Danube, and the second century A.D. saw their relatively brief (107-271) oc- cupation of Dacia (roughly, modem Transylvania and western Wallachia). Stud- ies of the language of inscriptions indicate that Roman linguistic influence ex- tended to the so-called JireEek line, running from the coast of central Albania, 287 288 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN across Macedonia south of Skopje to Sofia and across the Balkan mountains in significant I central Bulgaria (cf. Rosetti 1938). South of this line, the dominant language was well as a c( Greek. Romanian in its various forms (e.g., Daco-Romanian and Aromanian, other langu see below) is descended from the language of Roman colonists and Romanized which is rel peoples north of the JireEek line and east of Dalmatia. A hotly contested issue the Indic s between the Romanians and Hungarians, however, is the question of whether the millenium Romanian of present-day Romania, especially Transylvania, is descended from in the Balk the language of Romanized Dacians (and hence ‘autochthonous’), or whether it ing from Ii is descended from the language of Romans and Romanized peoples living south tion-whil of the Danube who did not cross over the Danube (or at least into Transylvania) the Balkan until after the arrival of the Magyars in the late ninth century (cf. Fine 1983:lO). As was mentioned earlier, the Slavs came to the Balkans south of the Danube during the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. They did so in two main groups. One group-the East South Slavs-settled in what is now Bulgaria and Macedonia I will thus and penetrated all the way to the tips of the Peloponnesian peninsula. Those Romance, Slavs on the territory of modem Greece have been gradually Hellenized, a one or mor process which continues into the present day. The second group (leaving to one these lang side the Slovenes) consisted of a single tribe, probably the Slaveni, who were Greek, Oh divided and ruled by two Iranian military aristocracies, the Serbs and the Croats, ry into the who were Slavicized but whose names have remained as ethnonyms to this day 1914:29), (cf. Fine 1983:53,56-57). These West South Slavs eventually occupied the rest preserving of what is now Yugoslavia (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro). action of i The Ottoman Turks spent the second half of the fourteenth century conquering languages, the Balkans, a process which continued into the fifteenth century and reached its the natiom peak during the sixteenth. i It can be argued that it was the Turkish conquest twentieth which created the Balkans as the geopolitical and sociocultural entity we know ‘refrigerat today. From the Turkish conquest to the nineteenth century, the region was opments I generally known as Turkey in Europe. As the Ottoman Empire disintegrated Before during the nineteenth century, this term became increasingly inapplicable to the linguistic area and distasteful for much of the rest of it, and ultimately the term Balkan, day thinki based on the Turkish name of the mountain chain running through central Bul- minants c garia (Slavic Star-a Planina, Greek Haimos, Latin Hdemus) came to replace it.2 however, Nonetheless, it is the common heritage of the so-called ‘Turkish Yoke’ which Ottoman : gives a background to the various Balkan national consciousness.3 church he There are many other peoples living in the Balkans, e.g., Armenians, who ‘Greek,’ were first brought there by the Byzantines in the ninth century, Ladino-speaking Islam, we Jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition for the relative tolerance of the Ottoman privileged Empire in the fifteenth century, Circassians transplanted by the Turks, Hun- and Serbi, garians, Saxon Germans, Ruthenians, etc. The literary languages of these and all c groups, however, are based outside of the Balkans, and they have not, for the ‘Greeks’ most part, participated in the intense multilingualism which resulted in the for- Albanoph mation of the Balkan Spl-achbund, i.e., the linguistic league comprising the Moslem / Albanian, Greek, Balkan Slavic, and Balkan Romance languages, which show it can be .an mountains in .mt language was well as a common background of Turkish influence (cf. Sandfeld 1930). These and Aromanian, other languages will therefore not be discussed here.4 One other ethnic group and Romanized which is relevant to the present discussion, however, is the Roms (Gypsies), i.e., : contested issue the Indic speakers who entered the Balkans at the beginning of the second rn of whether the millenium A.D. (Ventcel’ and Cerenkov 1976283). Many Roms have remained descended from in the Balkans to this day, their dialects show significant Balkan features result- :‘), or whether it ing from linguistic contact, and the process of Romani literary linguistic forma- ples living south tion-while also taking place elsewhere in Europe-has a very strong center in to Transylvania) the Balkans. Fine 1983:lO). th of the Danube 3. Literazy Language and Ethnicity lain groups. One i and Macedonia I will thus be considering six language groups in the Balkans: Greek, Turkic, jeninsula. Those Romance, Albanian, Slavic, and Indic. Each of these groups is represented by y Hellenized, a one or more literary languages ranging from well established to nascent. Some of 3 (leaving to one these languages have claims to older written traditions, e.g., that of ancient I\,eni, who were Greek, Old Church Slavonic, etc., but as the International Commission of Inqui- ; and the Croats, ry into the causes of the Balkan Wars wrote (d’Estoumelles de Constant et al. nyms to this day 1914:29), ‘I. the Turkish conquest came, leveling all the nationalities and occupied the rest preserving them all alike in a condition of torpor, in a manner comparable to the a, Montenegro). action of a vast refrigerator.” In terms of the study of the formation of literary ~tury conquering languages, this leveling resulted in a break of continuous development, so that as J and reached its the nationalities came out of their ‘torpor’ during the course of the nineteenth and -urkish conquest twentieth centuries, they found that their literary languages had likewise been entity we know ‘refrigerated.’ It is the process of ‘thawing’ which resulted in the diverse devel- the region was opments I am about to discuss. ire disintegrated Before doing so, however, I should note here that the additional extra- applicabie to the linguistic factor of ethnicity must be taken into account. According to present- ie term Balkan, day thinking, language, i.e., mother tongue, is one of the most important deter- .igh central Bul- minants of ethnicity. An important factor in the leveling alluded to above, le to replace it.2 however, was the use of religion as the definer of.millet ‘nationality’ in the sh Yoke’ which Ottoman Empire. Under this system, all adherents of the Orthodox Christian S3 church headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople (i.e., Greek Orthodox) were \rmenians, who ‘Greek,’ while all adherents of the State religion of-the Turkish Empire, i.e., ,adino-speaking Islam, were ‘Turks.’ The Greek Orthodox church gradually took advantage of its of the Ottoman privileged position in Constantinople to eliminate the autocephalous Bulgarian :je Turks, Hun- and Serbian churches (in 1765 and 1767, respectively). Thus Bulgarians, Serbs, uages of these and all other orthodox peoples in European Turkey were treated as ethnic ave not, for the ‘Greeks’ who happened to speak some other language, e.g., Slavophone Greeks, Jlted in the for- Albanophone Greeks, as opposed to Hellenophone Greeks. Likewise, the comprising the Moslem Albanians, Bosnians, Pomaks, TorbeS, etc. were all ‘Turks.‘5 From this es, which show it can be seen that while mother tongue is generally taken as the primary deter- 290 VICTOR A.