Greenberg, Robert D.

Juznoslovenski filolog

English

Serbian Academy of Science and Arts Digital Archive (DAIS)

rYU ISSN 0350-185x, LVI, (2000), p. (295-300)UDK 800.87 (497.17 : 497.16)2000.ROBERT D. GREENBERG(Chapel Hill)THE DIALECTS OF MACEDONIA AND MONTENEGRO: RANDOMLINGUISTIC PARALLELS OR EVIDENCE OF A SPRACHBUND?Linguists of many nationalities have described the peculiarities ofthe Balkan linguistic community, or the so-called Balkan Sprachbund.This Sprachbund usually includes the languages and dialects of Macedo-nia, Bulgaria, Southeastern Serbia, Albania, Romania, and Greece.' How-ever, not all linguists have agreed on the precise boundaries of a Balkanspeech territory. Most of the debates have centered on the boundary be-tween "Balkan South Slavic" and "non-Balkan South Slavic." Birnbaum(1965:59) considers the Slavic dialects of these areas to be "full members"("Vollmitglieder") of the Balkan Sprachbund, and considers the non-Tor-lak Serbian dialects to be partial members of the Sprachubund? In a previ-ous study (Greenberg (1994), I discussed some Balkanisms, which extendbeyond the traditional Balkan Slavic speech territory. In that study, I fo-cused primarily on appellative forms. My further research has shown thatseveral additional features support the thesis presented in the earlier paperon the existence of southwest Balkan speech community, which would bea subset of the broader Balkan Sprachbund. Such a Southwest area wouldinclude dialects of Western Macedonia, Albania, and SoutheasternMontenegro. I suggest that the parallels, especially among the Slavic dia-lects in this area are not random phenomena, but evidence of prolongedlinguistic contact. Such a claim, therefore, would extend the understand-1 For just a few of the works on the subject, cf. Sandfeld 1930, Belie 1936, Fried-man 1983, Banfi 1985, Asenova 1989, Reiter 1994 .2 Most of the scholars who research the Balkan characteristics of the South Slavicdialects have considered the geographic areas where Macedonian, Bulgarian and SerbianTorlak dialects are spoken. Alexander (1984-1985) defines "South Slavic" in terms ofdiachronic linguistics, while for her "Balkan Slavic" refers to the realm of areal linguistics(cf. Alexander, Schallert, Friedman, Golab, and others).C. Broader Balkan features(5) PhonologyDevoicing of final consonants(6) Morphology and syntaxa. Analytic forms for comparative adjectivesb. Strong tendency towards case syncretismB. East South Slavic Features(3) Phonologya. Tendency to eliminate pitch accentb. Epinthetic lj does not develop from labial_+ j sequences(4) Verb Morphologya. 3. pI. aorist endings in -hub. End-stress in the 2.13. aoristc. Forms of the aorist and imperfect are productiveing of a Balkan Sprachbund to the Stokavian dialects spoken in Southeast-ern Montenegro and the Sandzak,In earlier studies, linguists have described several key linguistic fea-tures, which extend from the traditional Balkan speech territory intoMontenegro (cf. Ivic 1956, Belyavski-Frank 1983, Pesikan 1984, andGreenberg 1994). In Table 1 below, I have grouped these features in threecategories: (1) features limited to a narrower Southwest Balkan speechterritory; (2) features shared by the Montenegrin dialects and other EastSouth Slavic (Balkan) dialects; and (3) features shared with othernon-Slavic Balkan languages.Jy)l(HOCJIOBeHCKH <pHJIOJIOr LVI (2000)296Table 1: Balkanisms in Montenegro and Sandzak DialectsA. Features limited to Macedonian and Montenegrin (Zeta-Lovcen)Dialects (1)PhonologyTendency to retract the accent from open final syllables(2) Pronounsa. first and second person plural clitic pronouns differenti-ated: (dat.) ni, vi vs. (ace.) ne, veb. Use of third person sing. synthetic dative pronouns (e.g.njemu)(3) Verb Morphology and derivation-uva- suffix used for iterativesThe Dialects of Macedonia and Montenegroc. Future-in-the-past (e.g., Mrkovici ease doci)d. Infinitive replacemente. Confirmative vs. non-confirmative distinctionsf. Use of the possessive dativeg. Admirative forms297The features shown in Table 1 are most productive in the Zeta-Lov-cen old Stokavian dialects, especially in the southern and southeastern di-alect points, i.e., those dialects, which have come into prolonged contactwith Albanian. Phonologically, the virtual neutralization of pitch accent dis-tinctions, for instance, is documented for the dialect of Mrkovici, which ad-mits only two "accents" -long falling and short falling. Hence, in this dia-lect point, the rising/falling opposition is neutralized, and only length dis-tinctions are phonologized. Moreover, in the entire Zeta-Lovcen dialectarea, while final stressed syllables are allowed, in many instances they areretracted, especially to a previous short syllable (e.g., sestra 'sister').The admirative and non-confirmative forms in some Zeta-Lovcendialects are rendered by the participle without an auxiliary for third personforms.I e.g. (Novi Pazar/Sjenica), Umro Vukosav, umro! Kad umro? Kakoumro? To ne moze bit kad sam ga video pre 2 sata zdrava 'Vukosav died!When did he die? How did he die? It can't be, as I saw him healthy just 2hours ago!' (Barjaktarevic 1966:134).4While the above features have been covered in detail in previousstudies, in the remaining section of this paper, I would like to present ad-ditional features, which correspond to those listed under A in Table 1, i.e.,narrower Southwest Balkan features previously largely neglected in theliterature. Once again, I classify these features in terms of phonological,morphological, and syntactic characteristics.Common Phonological FeaturesIn the Southwest Balkan speech area, I have identified the followingtwo phonological features shared by Montenegrin, Macedonian, Amma-nian, and Albanian dialects.>3 I have not found second person admirative/non-confirmatives in the Zeta-Lovcen di-alect studies. It would be perhaps a worthwhile subject of future field work research. It wouldalso be of great interest to study the speech of Montenegrins living in Northern Albania.4 According to Barjaktarevic, such forms denoting surprise were also found inPivalDrobnjak in Northwest Montenegro.5 In this paper, I present only examples from the Southeast Montenegrin and WesternMacedonian dialects. For the remaining sections of the paper, I use the following abbrevia-tions to denote specific dialect points: Macedonia: OR - Ohrid; KI -Kicevo; TE -Tetovo. Montenegro: MR - Mrkovici; NP - Novi Pazar / Sjenica; GA - Galicnik,The one morphological feature, I have discussed in a previous study(Greenberg 1996), involves the spread of the -u ending in the vocative formasculine nouns in both Western Macedonian (4a) and SoutheasternMontenegrin/Sandzak (4b). Examples include:(l) the development of l, l '; and (2) the rise of the phoneme dz. Theproliferation of various non-standard pronunciations of l is found mostprominently in the dialects that have come into contact with Albanian,which admits a dark l and a clear i. Otherwise, the clear l is often inter-preted in the Slavic dialects as a combination of l + j or a palatallj (1b). Insome of the Slavic dialect material the dark l is rendered by a velar l (1b).Otherwise, the Slavic dialects lose palatal lj, replacing it with a dark 1(lc). The phoneme dz may have arisen in all these dialects from a Ro-mance substratum (2). Examples of these phenomena include:'brother-in-law''brother-in-law''people''freak, monster'Jy)l(HOCJIOBeHCKH <pHJIOJIOr LVI (2000)zetu/zetedeveru/deverenarodu/narodeizrodu/izrode298(la) (NP) misljit 'to think'(MR) cipelje 'shoes'(GA) mcl'is(lb) (NP) slama 'straw'(MR) mogila 'grave'(GA) glava 'head'(Ie) (MR) kluc 'key'prijatel 'friend'(KI) kluc 'key'kosula 'shirt'(2) (MR) dzeleno 'green'dzubi 'teeth'(NP) jedzero 'lake'brondzin 'bronze'(KI) dzvezda 'star'(OH) nodze 'legs/feet'Common Morphological Feature(4a) (TE)(KI)(4b) (EM)The Dialects of Macedonia and Montenegro 299Common Syntactic FeaturesI have identified three additional common syntactic features, whichserve to unite the Zeta-Lovcen dialects with those of Western Macedonia.These features include the use of the past passive participle in the expres-sion of a new perfect tense (5), the tendency to grammaticalize pronounreduplication (6), and the frequent use of the narrative imperative (7).(5) (MR) Kuca-mu-je izgorela/izgoreta 'His house has burned down'(KI) Imat zboreno. 'They have said.'(OH) Imam dojdeno. 'I have come.'Ovde sum dojden. 'I've come here.'(6) (MR) Ujak mi e mene Besir 'My uncle is Besir '(KI) Bil kaj nimi, ama nego go ne nasi. 'He's been to theirplace, but he didn't find him.'(7) (MR) leto cera} grozd}e, mesi vino i peci rakiju 'All summer hetends the vines, makes wine and brews rakiya'(EM) On ti procita ono pismo, pa odma napisi drugo. 'He readyou that letter and immediately wrote another.'(GA) Toko edni izmini a drugi cekaj, se rasipuvat blagozinieto.'So by the time some leave, and others wait, beauty is lost.'ConclusionThe evidence from this paper suggests that from the earliest migra-tions of the Southern Slavs to the Southwest Balkans, the populations oftoday's Montenegro, Albania, and Macedonia had been in prolonged lin-guistic contact. The numbers of similar features shared by the Monte-negrin and Macedonian dialects are not simply parallel linguistic develop-ments, but probably resulted from the existence of an uninterrupted Slavicspeech continuum from Montenegro through the Sandzak, Northern Alba-nia, and Kosovo to Western Macedonia. In this respect, the Vardar River,distinguishing Western and Eastern Macedonian dialects was a significantdividing line between "Southwest Balkan" and "Southeast Balkan." Thepolitical boundaries, which arose after the Second Balkan War played amajor part in interrupting the Southwest Balkan speech continuum, andstymied further direct linguistic contacts between Montenegro and Mace-donia.In the next phase of this research, it would be worthwhile to examinethe dialects spoken in Northern Albania. Such a study - of Albanian,Montenegrin, and Macedonian dialects - would most likely reveal fur-ther similarities and convergent tendencies. While such research was diffi-WORKS CITEDcult to carry out during the latter half of the twentieth century, I wouldhope that a future Balkans without borders would once again allow forfurther research in this direction. The evidence I presented in this papersuggests that such a future research project could be rich in new data andlead to a clearer understanding of historical dialectology and contempo-rary Sprachbund phenomena in the Southwest Balkans.Alexander, Ronelle. 1984-1985. "Areal linguistics and South Slavic linguistics: thecase of Balkan Slavic." Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku Matice srpske27-28:39-47.Asenova, P. 1989. Balkansko Ezikoznanie. Sofia.Banfi, E. 1985. Linguistica balcanica. Bologna.Barjaktarevic, Danilo. 1966. "Novopazarsko-sjenicki govori." Srpski dijalektoloskizbornik 16:1-177.Belie, Aleksandar. 1935. Galicki dijalekat (= Srpski dijalektoloski zbornik 7). Bel-grade.Belyavski-Frank, Masha. 1983. "Morphological Features in Southern Serbian Dia-lects." Makedonski jazik 34:213-230.Birnbaum, Henrik. 1965. "Balkanslavisch und Sudslavisch. Zur Reichweite derBalkanismen im sudslavischen Sprachraum." Zeitschrift fiir Balkanologie3:12-63.Friedman, Victor A. 1983. "Grammatical Categories and a Comparative Balkan Gram-mar." Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik, ed. by N. Reiter, 81-93. Berlin.Greenberg, Robert. 1994. "Southwest Balkan Linguistic Contacts: Evidence fromAppellative Language." Journal ofSlavic Linguistics 2/2:275-283.Greenberg, Robert. 1996. The Balkan Slavic Appellative. Munich.Ivic, Pavle. 1956. Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika: uvod i stokavsko narecje.Novi Sad.Pesikan, Mitar. 1984. "Neke zetske dijalekatske paralele pojava u makedonskomglagolskom sistemu." Makedonskijazik 35: 117-121.Reiter, N. 1994. Grundziige der Balkanologie: Ein Schritt in die Eurolinguistik.Wiesbaden.Sandfeld, K. 1930. Linguistique balkanique. Paris.Stamatoski, Trajko. 1957. "Gradskiot tetovski govor." Makedonskijazik 8/1:91-115.Stevanovic, Mihailo. 1933-1934. 1933-1934. "Istocnocmogorski dijalekat." Juino-slovenskifilolog 13:1-29.Vidoeski, Bozidar, 1957. "Kicevskiot govor." Makedonski jazik 8/1:31-90.1984. "Ohridsko-struskite govori." Prilozi na Makedonskata akademija na naukite iumetnostite 9/1:6-30.Vujovic, Luka. 1969. "Mrkovicki dijalekat." Srpski dijalektoloski zbornik 18:73-400.Jy)l(HOCJIOBeHCKH qmJIOJIor LVI (2000)300

The dialects of Macedonia and Montenegro: Random linguistic parallels or evidence of a sprachbund?

http://dais.sanu.ac.rs/bitstream/id/20837/3177.pdf

The dialects of Macedonia and Montenegro: Random linguistic parallels or evidence of a sprachbund?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Serbian Academy of Science and Arts Digital Archive (DAIS)