Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Boundaries and Borders in Balkan Slavic - Victor Friedman

    Uploaded by

    TeodoraVuković
    33 views8 pages
    paper on south slavic dialectology

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    paper on south slavic dialectology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    33 views8 pages

    Boundaries and Borders in Balkan Slavic - Victor Friedman

    Uploaded by

    TeodoraVuković
    paper on south slavic dialectology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SLAVIC LINGUISTICS AND POETICS XLIV-XLV 2002-2003 jirnbaum In Memoriam Henrik EDITED BY MICHAEL S, FLIER VJACHESLAV VSEV. IVANOV f JOS SCHAEKEN DEAN S. WORTH ‘SLAVICA “Teas, RL. 1993. A dltionary of gramematialtrms in linguists. London Routledge. Waldo, Alois et Hofmann, J. B. 1938-40, Latinisches crymoloischey Worterbuch v.12 Weekly, Emest 1967. An etymological dictionary of Modern English v.1-2, ‘London: Constable & Co. Boundaries and Borders in Balkan Slavic Victor A Friedman tn aseries of artis, Henk Bimbaum (1965, 1966, 1968) dicused the ques oa of South versus Balkan Slavic (this latter term introduced n Birnbaum {6, ct Alexander 20027), the poston of the Tota dialects of Sebi il the poston of arcal linguistics within explanatory models (ee also Birnbaum 1968), His delegation of language contact wo secondary satus as a rl for language clssiictio (in opposition to genetic o ypoogia actos ‘Comrie 198 vs Hamp 1977) finds echoes in some currents of modern Pain aad Creole toes (¢, Mulwene 2001, Prgznan 2002), where the argument is nade thatthe distinction between internal snd external motivations of lan- ne change is both cific to draw and not neces qualitatively diferent fom language change as such, Nonethees, Birnbaum’ (1966) agreement with (1963) concerning the Tolak dialects of Serban specifically Balkan vs 0 rest of Serbian keeps Trubetzkoy’s (1923, 1928) casi dtintion be rn getstic and areal change relevant, albeit ina secondary lassificatory po ‘At the same time, Birnbaum (1966) apres with Ive (1963) that the rik dialects are basically Serbian, in contrast to Hamm (1965), who labes the Balkan features of Torlak ‘Bulgarian’ from what he calls "ingustle ‘of view” (bu ef, Sobolev 1982, 1993, 1994, 1996. Part ofthe problem the equation of ‘Balkan’ wih “Bulyaia’ The rcent publication ofa ulgarian dialect atlas (Ko8ev 2001) that defines Bulgarian according to the dares given in Mladenov (1925), treating mot (Dut not all) of Balkan Slavic as Bulgarian, can be viewed as a throwback to the bepinning of the tventicth century, when linguistic boundaries were invoked in disputes sbout lta boundaries. Whi in recent decades Bulgarian linguists have wrelent- apy climed Macedonian dialects s Bulgaria (claim that the wording ofthe February 199 agreement between Bulgaria and Macedonia leaves room fo), Belgian clans on Serban dialects ave varied overtime. Heark was con cerned with precision of terminology sin Bibaum (1966, which teats the femporal delimitation of Proto Slave vs Common Slave, The question of ‘tuning in Baan Slavic dalectlogy i both spatio-temporal and infloeneed by ‘err linguistic factors, and the essentaliaton of ioglsses inthe invocation of “purely linguistic” criteria raises questions of linguistic methodology and Polis, In this article I wish to futn fo an issue that would have concerned erates! oul of Svc Lingus aed Pots 4-45: 161-173, 2002-03. Henrik himself were he stil with ws to discus t,namaly the question of wes. ‘em entent for Balkan Slavic andthe seemingly endless debate concerning where to draw the lin, a it wore "The position of Torak has been the subject of debate almost since the lect region wat fist described as such by Beli (1905) Beli’ northern ang ‘ester boundaries forthe Prien-Timok dale ate rough the same as thoxe Sill ecopized in South Slave dalectoogy today except hatin the 195 work he stopped st what was then the Serbian Turkish horde south of Pode tn srest of Mesived, i, basically omitting the dialects of southern Koso, ‘When Beis was writing, Serbian and Bulgarian were recognized a separate languages and in ther andard versions, weve functioning as the Vehicles of power in their respective nation-state, The trsitoses of those nation sates, however, were considerably smaller than they would latr become during the ‘Course ofthe twentieth century, and even those horde that had been dava ‘were contested. Bulgaria continued (and to some extent continues) to smart Under the diplomatic defeat ((rom a Bulgarian point of view) of the Treaty of Berlin? and both Bulgzian and Serbian lnguists an poltcians instrument ine dialetology aa to! for making terior claims. Thus, for Bei (cited <#stourells de Constant 1914: 29), Serbian extended roughly tothe tives {ski and Struma in western Bulgaria, while for Mladenov (1925), the nother ‘and westem Bulgarian boundary began atthe White Drn on the Alban border then went to Prizren, then north af Sup, south of Kataik, north ta Gojlane, and routh to Preevo, turning north to Zita Potok, Prokuph Deligad then ess to Boljevee, and along the Cena and Timok (but st cross the bend tat dis south to Zajta) tothe Danube Aside from compet ing claims between Bupsran and Serbian ator for hegemony over the Tot dlalects, here is also the debate within Serbian linguistic cles over the rly tion of Torlak to other sales ofthe former Serbo-Croatian. Reftar (I already raised the ite of ving Tol Separate status onthe same onder Kajkavian vis-ve Stokavian and Cakavion, and while Wi (1956) inctses Torin with Stokavian, Iv (1958) does not, and Ii (1963 assigns the Torak alot a spel pace (posebno meso) within Stokavian, ‘Avissue here i a fundamental methodological question of diachronic and sychrone linguistics, ramely the role tributed to language change in ier Gatiimes and in efferent parts ofthe grammar. At Birnbaum (1960) has ‘uted, the conflict over Torlak ithe elasic competition between the “ree rave" modes of linguistic differentiation, of rather, between to tmp ‘aly siferent waves. The olde, which already discernible he oles Slavic {ext mainly phonological and morphological and dtfrentiates West South ‘Shave and Fast South Slave. The ner which dats fom he late medieval and tarly modern periods, primarily morphosyatactc and distinguishes Balkan from Non-Balkan Slave (€. Alexander 183). The situation of Torak sin thie respect, comparable to the stuation of Macedonian, and thas tis worth cing Valls description ofthat debate (he translation s mine) The problem of Macedonian Slavic that of its place within South Slavic and its relation with the two neighboring linguistic groups of Sebian and Bulgarian ad ts membership in one ofthese groupe. The ‘gestion i hotly debated, which demonstrates that it not obvious to everyone. Some bring up Bulgarian traits of Macedonian, others ‘Serbian ones Tey battle freely, brandishing the posipoed artile ot the treatment of é delivering blows with jrs or the nasal vowel the battle is confused and unmethodial .. and ft demonstrates that Macedonian furnishes arms to both camps (1938 196-97) i one were 1o add in phrases sucha ‘loss of tonelength distinction’ and ‘analytic declension’, one could easly subttate "Tolar ‘Macedonian’. The patterning of soploses runs through Torlk in tighter bundle and then fans out through Macedonia (fv 1988: 35-39), bu of eonccm tous her not just the dtnction between gialet and language but also that between ioglose snd teritoril claim From is earliest mappings, the representations of Torak have bse inl caced by poles. As noted above, when Belié dew his first map in 1905, those ialects that were spoken in what was stil Turkey were not included. Maenov's (1928) definition of Bulgarian appears to follow the definite article ‘oplss aros part of Kosovo and then sitches to the ioglos or theelmina- tion of voclic length when i gets tothe Serbian border (ef. Viskadinovi 1996 199-202), This methodology basal follows the border mapped bythe testy of San Stefano from the White Drinaross Mt, Sarto Skopska Cra Gora, bu, whereas the western San Stefano boundary included Veana and Piot but not [NW and Zajedar and ended atthe contluoce of the Tinok and Danube (hich ‘salso the northwest comer of the modern Bulgarian border, Mladenovs ‘boundary went north to Prokupje nd Deigrad then ran northeast through "Some cts in he region were desided or mentioned i ear works — se Ive (Ga85 126-36 fr Nblopaphy bat He's the est eompebenive, seal wrk See Alexander (1950-1, 2000 25-38) fra een survey up to that peo. Fe ‘ional deals nthe Forlak dbs ad ch graphy tee Alexander (200-7 (Soe ae wll a Pld tet «Mt (1989), 2A cece ary 203, Uh the quip "Bali the oly ‘nile in scontet hat wa ony along hom tht or ws eros A Ft - Boljvac and north of Zajeéar before folowing the Timok.? Some modern ver ‘Sone run even farther north encountering the Danube across from Turmy ‘Severn in Romani (e. Vee 1998). “The treatment of Torlak in Hi (1956, 1988, 198) rests in lange parton ‘Beli (1903) pioneering work, but with some modifications based on ater ‘ta and analysesé The Base northern and western sglos for Ii is deter. Iie (Vidoeski 1986, pace Alexander 20: 19-20), fixed antepenltimate fine the asec of pode eng and tone) eavingnly ses aad [ges gae Alexander 20:2) ad sca the ele of he ack sl OF tintve promod feature” This boundary begins on the Albanian border just those three, fed anepenulist srs is alo found in Sretotka Zapa, just to hen northeast to Mt. Osogovo defines Transitional Macedonian diets, The ‘oplos fF fa asthe refles of Common Save ack nasal eth one cmon factor that units this repion (ef. Vidoes 1952-43 98 and Sobolev 194: 229)° nthe cas of the change of status of Gora,» numberof ioglosss justified is ssspnment to Macedonian: three-way opposition ia pestposed indefinite tout of Detani and goes to Obie at the coauence ofthe Lab and Site, the east of Gora and south of Stpéc, but this remains assigned to Serbian ast {hen follows the Lab portheast then ture eat to the south of Podyjevo, north lacks the postposed article, and ack nas consistently gives /! in roots to Stal (west of Prokuplj) then cast across Mount Rta, south ofthe Crna (avon 1938:41), td continues to the Bulgarian border south of Zajetar. Between Ii (1956) “Turning now 1 Ko&ev (98K: 15) and Ko¥ev (2001: 5), we se differences find 1 (1988), however, two changes la the demarcation of the southern and that resemble changes in Serbian dlectology, but from the other direction. tern Torlak boundaries canbe observed. In Ii (196) the southern and MMR Thus, the northern border of Bulgarian in Koger (1988 follows the northern ‘sera boundary follows the Macedonian-Kosove-Bulgrin political bode, border of the Republic of Macedonia to Skopska Cra Gora, then northeast ‘mitng the Dinntrovgrad (Caribrod) and Bosileprad(Bosigrad) districts bt tetweon Bela Planka and Piot to Midor onthe Bulgarian border, while the Sacluing the region in Serbia east of Trin (Trn) between the Vlasina River boundary in Kofev (200) begins atthe Albanian border north of Gora to the saat he Bulgarian border, Thu, the Gora district the southwest corner ofl plical border between Macedonia and Kosovo, then (apparent long the Fes een Dragad southward) is icluded as prt of Torlak, as a smal MME border between Serbia and Kosovo, north to Stalag and straight across Rian ‘ites onthe Bulgarian border between the Dimitovgrad and Bosiered i MME and the Cra and Timok rivers to the Danube, Le, Mladenov' intsion of cae ich late are ethically and therefore linguistically ideatied 1s MMMM Calan is omitted. With respect tothe Tora dalecs, Kote (198) resem ‘le at ranatna to Serbian). In Tie (198), however the southern MME ls I (1985), although from jst south of Pio, KoBe’s Bulgarian extends aan aay bepas a the Albeian border north of Gora thea {OLE eyond the river Viana but nota fata the Morava te aan a ocnsae sober potial border othe Boscerad dist, then MMM Zapanj subgroups (south of Prot and ear ofthe Southern Moray ae i ortho the Bulgarian Serbian pola! border north of Diitovgrad wi ded, but not Timok and Svajig (north of Prot and east ofthe Southern {cluding the sip of tnitor est ofthe Vlsin. Here, Gora ike the Gost Morava). Kofev (2001) however, includes al ofthe Timok Lica and Sve: region (Upper Poog) is left blank, i. identified as Macedonia, and i Zaplane dialects 8 well asthe South Morava dialects of Serbia, but not of Dimitrovprad and Boslgraddntrics are connected by a thin sip of tern Kosovo. As in Mladenoy (1925), the boundary alo appears to follow the aanere yes part ofthe Cana Trava set west of Tron Its worth pong course ofthe Crna tothe Tinok tothe Danube without making he ai 1 x Rat ine Dimtrovgrad and Bosilegrad discs as well ax BologradSk ad clade Boljevac and Zajetar, bat the topography soo simplified and unmatkod [Breznik in Bulgaria are defined by I (1986 1985) as Transitional Bulgarian ME be certain, ‘Ghlets, and the Macedonian dialects between the northern state border at Mt ‘When we look atthe linguistic features on which these divisions ae sop- sane in romning south of Tetovo through Skopie south of Sveti Nikole MMM posed to be based, we ing that there is a conasion on Koes pat Betweea teal and typological features. Kofew (200: 55) gives alist of ten “obit lipologién osobenostt na Bilgrskte govortv tehniteistorieski grant” ‘an Sita Bogus abo ced Kol, wich iso Kosovo the map append ‘mmnon typological features cf the Bulgarian {othe 179 Bulgatantenaon of Maden (192), Katara ec, tut ha typological features of the Bulgarian dialects in thei historia bo: ‘Se Mounanry jogs north to Gangs a oath a seo before esting north o 2 —— — ok ‘or Tension! Mocedoia, ky fa pls jr well cha fom oth stronger ‘Soe Alexander (1975 mn 195) for details of subasiaton ated om Fos. {ot re ao cmon fates Tha ts or a ox of te Tato Semen Remete (198) on grobens of ponsopea! epreenaton of OME Bepran ialcs as wc, bat the former i rca tom few dts (ep Hoard ty - ‘Belogredix), and the liter extends into other Bulgarian dialects. ‘ ris _ Boxes 0 BONDS Bean SAE 12, 1. preservation of las a rtlex of vocal Ito a greater or lesser extent {qrcaterin the east, lesa inthe west) Joss ef length, 0 tone, fee stress simplified decension 2 3 44 nalticcomparstive s ders’ Of hes ten features numbers 3-10 correspond to those listed in Kage (986 15) except that utile forms for past and future tenses i formal in terms of preservation ofthe imperfect and aris. expiratory stress acent and absence of pitch fbsence of vcaic quantity Snalyial nominal sytem (substantive and adjective) ‘etn article ject redptction fnayte comparison of nouns, verb and adverbs faye infinive with daelause ‘utile forms for past an futur tenses alte fate wing a particle 10 presence ofthe reported mood in the verb los of nfntie fuse fa clases]

    You might also like