1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2452-1949
  • E-ISSN: 2452-2147
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the meaning-form interface in the Balkan (BS), by researching five different languages: Italian, Russian, , Romanian, and Greek. I consider two models that account for recurring properties of the relevant languages in the : convergence and diglossia. If convergence is the cause behind shared features typical of the BS, that predicts that Bulgarian and Romanian would be more transparent than Russian and Italian. Under the diglossic analysis, Koine Greek is assumed to be the source of shared features, which predicts that the BS languages, Romanian, Bulgarian and Greek, would be similar. To compare the two models, I investigate twenty-four opacity features, divided into five categories: Redundancy (one-to-many), Fusion (many-to-one), Discontinuity (one meaning split in two or more forms), Form-based Form (forms with no semantic counterpart: zero-to-one), and a group of typical BS features. The results are consistent with the diglossia model: Romanian, and Greek manifest similar features, which points in the direction of diglossia as the underlying cause of language similarity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/le.20003.seg
2023-05-07
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altbaev, Mary
    2003Judeo-Spanish in the Turkish Social Context: Language Death, Swan Song, Revival or New Arrival?Istanbul: The Isis Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blatt, Franz
    1957 Latin influence on European syntax, Travaux du Cercle Linguistqiue de Copenhague111: 33–69. 10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01050206.1957.10420495 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boretzky, Norbert and Brigit Igla
    2004Komentierter Dialektatlas des Romani21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Civjan, T.
    1965Imja suščestviteljnoje v balkanskih jazykax [The Noun in the Balkan Languages]. Moskva: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1979Sintaktičeskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cizevskij, Dimitrij
    2000Comparative History of Slavic Literatures. Vanderbilt University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coteanu, Ion, Lucreția Mareș and Larisa Avram
    eds. 1998Dicţionarul Explicativ al Limbii Române (DEX), 2nd ed. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahl, Östen
    2004The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.71 [Google Scholar]
  9. Décsy, Gyula
    1973Die linguistische Struktur Europas. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz;
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dik, Simon
    1978Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dindelegan, Gabriela. P.
    2013The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
    eds. 2006Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Ion Giurgea
    2013A Reference Grammar of Romanian. Volume 1. The Noun Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.207
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.207 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dombrowski, Andrew
    2011 Phonological Aspects of Language Contact along the Slavic Periphery. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.
  15. Fishman, Joshua A.
    1967 Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues23(2): 29–38. 10.1111/j.1540‑4560.1967.tb00573.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00573.x [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedman, Victor A.
    2003Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2006 Balkans as a linguistic area. InKeith Brown, ed.Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed.Oxford: Elsevier. 657–672. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00178‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00178-4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Friedman, Victor. A.
    2011 The Balkan languages. The Annual Review of Anthropology401: 275–291. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑081309‑145932
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145932 [Google Scholar]
  19. Frîncu, Constantin
    1969 Cu privire la “uniunea lingvistică balcanică. Înlocuirea infinitivului prin construcţii personale în limba română veche. [On the linguistic unity in the Balkans. The replacement of the infinitive by finite constructions in old Romanian]. Anuar de lingvistică şi istorie literară201: 69–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gołąb, Z.
    1984The Arumanian Dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hengeveld, Kees
    1998 Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. InJohan van der Auwera, ed.Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335–420. 10.1515/9783110802610.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.335 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011 Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. Linguistics in Amsterdam4(2): 110–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hengeveld, Kees and Lachlan J. Mackenzie
    2008Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hill, Virginia
    2013 The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive. The Linguistic Review30(4): 547–583. 10.1515/tlr‑2013‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0016 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffman, Christina. N.
    1989Romanian Reference Grammar. Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Dept. of State, Washington D.C.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton
    2004Greek: An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203802380
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802380 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kalkandjieva, Daniela
    2014 The Bulgarian Orthodox Church. InLucian N. Leustean, ed.Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth Century Southeastern Europe. New York: Fordham University Press. 164–201. 10.5422/fordham/9780823256068.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823256068.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kallulli, Daliana and Liliane Tasmowski
    2008Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.130 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kopitar, Jernej
    1829 Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache, Jahrbücher der Literatur461: 59–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kortmann, Bernd
    1998 Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. InJohan van der Auwera, ed.Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 457–562. 10.1515/9783110802610.457
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.457 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kusters, Wouter
    2003Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Leake, William Martin
    1814Researches in Greece. London: John Booth.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Leufkens, Sterre
    2013 The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages28(2): 323–362. 10.1075/jpcl.28.2.03leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.28.2.03leu [Google Scholar]
  35. 2015Transparency in Language: A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindstedt, Jouko
    2000 Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. InDicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne and Jos Schaeken, eds.Languages in Contact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 231–246. 10.1163/9789004488472_023
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004488472_023 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lupyan, Gary and Rick Dale
    2010 Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE5(1). 10.1371/journal.pone.0008559
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallinson, Graham
    1986Rumanian. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Matras, Yaron
    2009Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809873
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809873 [Google Scholar]
  41. Miklosich, Franz X.
    1861 Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen. Denkschriften der Wiener Akad. Phil.-hist. Cl.Vol. 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Olthof, Marieke
    2017 Transparency in Norwegian and Icelandic: Language contact vs. language isolation, Nordic Journal of Linguistics40(1): 73–115. 10.1017/S033258651700004X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651700004X [Google Scholar]
  43. Sandfeld, Kristian
    1930Linguistique Balkanique. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sava, Viorel
    2013 The liturgical language in the Romanian Orthodox Church: A historical, theological and cultural perspective. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi. Teologie Ortodoxă21: 145–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Scatton, Ernest A.
    1984A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus OH: Slavica Publishers Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Seguin, Luisa
    2020 Transparency in language contact: The case of Haitian Creole, French and Fongbe. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages35(2): 218–252. 10.1075/jpcl.00060.seg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00060.seg [Google Scholar]
  47. . n.d.Transparency in Language Contact: A Features Database. https://transparencyinlanguagecontact.wordpress.com/. 10.1075/jpcl.00060.seg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00060.seg [Google Scholar]
  48. Seuren, Pieter and Herman Wekker
    1986 Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. InPieter Muysken and Norval Smith, eds.Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 57–70. 10.1075/cll.1.05seu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.1.05seu [Google Scholar]
  49. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
    1994Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Solta, Georg Renatus
    1980Einführung in die Balkanliguistik mid besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Stojanov, Stojan
    1964Gramatika na bŭlgarskija knižoven ezik. Sofia: NI.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Timberlake, Alan
    2004A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tomić, Olga Mišeska
    2006Balkan Morpho-Syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑4488‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4488-7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Velzen, Lorenzo
    2016 Transparency in Italian: A diachronic study. Linguistics in Amsterdam11(2): 130–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Waldman, Carl and Catherine Mason
    2006Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Facts on File.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Weigand, Gustav
    1928 Texte zur vergleichenden Syuntax der Balkansprachen. Balkan ArchivIV1: 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/le.20003.seg
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/le.20003.seg
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Balkan Sprachbund; Bulgarian; diglossia; Greek; language contact; Romanian; transparency
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error