Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Ecology
Vol. 4:2 (2020) ► pp.151–174

Language contact in the Balkan Sprachbund

A study of transparency in Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, Italian, and Greek

| University of Maryland, College Park
This study investigates the meaning-form interface in the Balkan Sprachbund (BS), by researching five different languages: Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Greek. I consider two models that account for recurring properties of the relevant languages in the Sprachbund: 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, Bulgarian and Greek manifest similar features, which points in the direction of diglossia as the underlying cause of language similarity.
Keywords: transparency, language contact, Balkan Sprachbund, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, diglossia
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Transparency and language contact
  • 2.The Balkan Sprachbund
    • 2.1The features
    • 2.2Explanations of properties pertaining to the Balkan Sprachbund
      • 2.2.1Kortmann’s theory
    • 2.3Hypothesis and predictions
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Functional Discourse Grammar
    • 3.2Transparency in FDG
    • 3.3The features
      • 3.3.1Morphosyntactic features
        • 3.3.1.1Dependent verbs
        • 3.3.1.2Analytic future and subjunctive formation
        • 3.3.1.3Grammaticalized definiteness
        • 3.3.1.4Clitic doubling
        • 3.3.1.5Case morphology
    • 3.4Materials and methods
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/le.20003.seg
References (56)
References
Altbaev, Mary. 2003. Judeo-Spanish in the Turkish Social Context: Language Death, Swan Song, Revival or New Arrival? Istanbul: The Isis Press.Google Scholar
Blatt, Franz. 1957. Latin influence on European syntax, Travaux du Cercle Linguistqiue de Copenhague 111: 33–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert and Brigit Igla. 2004. Komentierter Dialektatlas des Romani 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Civjan, T. 1965. Imja suščestviteljnoje v balkanskih jazykax [The Noun in the Balkan Languages]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
1979. Sintaktičeskaja struktura balkanskogo jazykovogo sojuza [The Syntactic Structure of the Balkan Language Union]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cizevskij, Dimitrij. 2000. Comparative History of Slavic Literatures. Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Coteanu, Ion, Lucreția Mareș and Larisa Avram, eds. 1998. Dicţionarul Explicativ al Limbii Române (DEX), 2nd ed. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Décsy, Gyula. 1973. Die linguistische Struktur Europas. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz;Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dindelegan, Gabriela. P. 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. 2006. Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen and Ion Giurgea. 2013. A Reference Grammar of Romanian. Volume 1. The Noun Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dombrowski, Andrew. 2011. Phonological Aspects of Language Contact along the Slavic Periphery. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2): 29–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 2003. Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2006. Balkans as a linguistic area. In Keith Brown, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. 657–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor. A. 2011. The Balkan languages. The Annual Review of Anthropology 401: 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 literară 201: 69–116.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Z. 1984. The Arumanian Dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera, ed. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Epilogue: Degrees of transparency. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 110–114.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Lachlan J. Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2013. The emergence of the Romanian subjunctive. The Linguistic Review 30(4): 547–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Christina. N. 1989. Romanian Reference Grammar. Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Dept. of State, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 2004. Greek: An Essential Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalkandjieva, Daniela. 2014. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In Lucian N. Leustean, ed. Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth Century Southeastern Europe. New York: Fordham University Press. 164–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Daliana and Liliane Tasmowski. 2008. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopitar, Jernej. 1829. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache, Jahrbücher der Literatur 461: 59–106.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1998. Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera, ed. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 457–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Leake, William Martin. 1814. Researches in Greece. London: John Booth.Google Scholar
Leufkens, Sterre. 2013. The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(2): 323–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transparency in Language: A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In Dicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne and Jos Schaeken, eds. Languages in Contact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 231–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, Gary and Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, Graham. 1986. Rumanian. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miklosich, Franz X. 1861. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen. Denkschriften der Wiener Akad. Phil.-hist. Cl.Vol. 12.Google Scholar
Olthof, Marieke. 2017. Transparency in Norwegian and Icelandic: Language contact vs. language isolation, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40(1): 73–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandfeld, Kristian. 1930. Linguistique Balkanique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
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 Ortodoxă 21: 145–162.Google Scholar
Scatton, Ernest A. 1984. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus OH: Slavica Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Seguin, Luisa. 2020. Transparency in language contact: The case of Haitian Creole, French and Fongbe. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 35(2): 218–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter and Herman Wekker. 1986. Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith, eds. Substrata versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Solta, Georg Renatus. 1980. Einführung in die Balkanliguistik mid besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Stojanov, Stojan. 1964. Gramatika na bŭlgarskija knižoven ezik. Sofia: NI.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga Mišeska. 2006. Balkan Morpho-Syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Velzen, Lorenzo. 2016. Transparency in Italian: A diachronic study. Linguistics in Amsterdam 11(2): 130–177.Google Scholar
Waldman, Carl and Catherine Mason. 2006. Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Facts on File.Google Scholar
Weigand, Gustav. 1928. Texte zur vergleichenden Syuntax der Balkansprachen. Balkan Archiv IV1: 53–70.Google Scholar