AleksAndrA GjurkovA

InstItute for M AcedonIAn lAnGuAGe “k rste MIsIrkov”

ss. cyrIl And MethodIus unIversIty
skopje

conteMporAry chAnGes In MAcedonIAn

froM A socIolInGuIstIc perspectIve

Study of language change considers extralinguistic factors, as well as issues such as

linguistic inluence and interference, to be important agents in the process. Such study
is inevitably linked to the understanding of language as a social phenomenon and as
a means of communication. Language in its profoundness has developed from the
necessity to understand each other in the community, whereas the object of socio-
linguistic research in general has been deined as ‘the evolution of language in the
social context created by the linguistic community’. Consequently, language has to be
viewed in a social context in the study of those changes in it, which are related to the
linguistic community, to the status of the language, and to language policy.
The goal of this article is to address what are the main issues today regarding
the status of the Macedonian language in Macedonia and as a minority language,
and also, the changes in the language system itself. In this context, the concept of
language planning is important, as a part of the normative process in language and
of the processes of standardization, evaluation and change. Study of contemporary
changes in Macedonian is related to the recent social changes that occurred during
the process of establishing the Republic of Macedonia as an independent state. The
wider context in which these processes are viewed, is deined by several important
factors: 1. the status of Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia (from 1991), 2. the
opening of media communications and the role of language, 3. the conlict of 2001
and linguistic issues that emerged from it.
24 Aleksandra Gjurkova

The main objective of the present article is to review the contemporary changes
in Macedonian from a social perspective, with regard to the following issues: 1. the
Macedonian language in the Constitution and in the laws, 2. the status of Macedo-
nian and other language spoken in Macedonia, 3. language policy in Macedonia. As
the second main subject, linguistic changes are discussed at several levels: at the
morphological and syntactic levels, at the lexical level, and from the perspective of
linguistic inluence.

I. After the declaration of Macedonia’s independence, considerable progress can be

seen in the status of the Macedonian language and in its usage. A signiicant shift
towards opening the public space for electronic and newspaper media has occurred,
so that the domain of use of Macedonian has greatly increased, but also the aware-
ness of language has improved among Macedonian speakers. Research in the ield
of sociolinguistic topics in Macedonian, and the care for its use as the oficial lan-
guage of the Republic of Macedonia, has led to a completion and declaration of the
law for the use of the Macedonian language in 1998. Regulating the status of
Macedonian as the oficial language, declaring its use to be a right and obligation for
the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, and emphasizing its cultural and historical
meaning for the state, the Law clearly states in article 3 that:

Со овој закон не се ограничува правото на слободно творештво и развивањето на

културниот, јазичниот и верскиот идентитет на граѓаните на Републиката”1

and in article 4:

Со овој закон не се ограничува правото на припадниците на националностите

на службена употреба на јазикот и писмото на националностите во единиците
на локалната самоуправа, согласно со Уставот на Република Македонија и закон2.

The law enforces an improvement in the use of Macedonian in the domains of ad-
ministration and of public communication. By a proposal of the government and the
Ministry of Culture, the Council for the Macedonian Language has been founded,
whose activity is also regulated by the Law. The task of the Council is to issue

1
“This law does not limit the right to free creation and development of the cultural, linguistic
and religious identity of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia” (translation A. Gjurkova,
“Службен весник на Р. Македонија” бр.5/98, 30.01.1998).
2
“This law does not limit the right of the citizens which belong to ethnic minorities to
oficial use of the language and script of the minority in the local government units, in
concordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia” (translation A. Gjurkova,
“Службен весник на Р. Македонија” бр.5/98, 30.01.1998).
Contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective 25

recommendations and proposals for programmes of improvement, protection and

enrichment of the Macedonian language, including terminology in various ields.
The Council also edits publications about Macedonian and suggests programmes
regarding the improvement and enrichment of Macedonian language. As a result of
the implementation of the Law, a group of highly educated professionals and linguists
has been formed, which acts as an important and conscious factor in the process of
language planning, language policy and language use.
After the armed conlict which occurred in 2001, some signiicant changes took
place in how the Constitution regulates the status of languages in Macedonia. Fifteen
amendments to the Constitution have been made, which resulted from the Framework
agreement, the original version of which was signed in English. The signing marked
the end of the conlict, together with the change of the Preamble to the Constitutions,
including article 7 which regulates language status. Thus, according to article 7, a lan-
guage which is spoken by at least 20% of the citizens, is to be considered an oficial
language (together with its script) at the state level. The oficial status at the local level
was already provided by the Constitution of 1991. Moreover, in amendment V which
is incorporated in article 7 it is stated that

Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат

најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото
кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку
од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите
на единиците на локалната самоуправа3.

With these regulations, the institution of a second oficial language is becoming

reality, which leads to establishing the policy of bilingualism at the state level in Mac-
edonia. This process results in diminishing to a certain extent the territory of the use
of the Macedonian language. Deining and changing a language policy can be greatly
affected by minority issues. Indeed, the politics of language becomes a weapon in
itself, a weapon which can be and is misused. It is an example of direct inluence of
political motives on the deinition of institutional language status. Unfortunately, this
was the case with the denial of the Macedonian language and nation in the 19th century
and early 20th century. Milan Šipka (2006: 12−13) addresses the issue of standardi-
zation of Macedonian and the attitudes of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia (as a monarchy)
towards the Macedonian language, as it is these two countries that had control over
Macedonia. He emphasizes that apart from the two mentioned states, which did not
3
“In the local government units the language and script used by at least 20% of the citizens
is considered an oficial language, apart from Macedonian language and its cyrillic script.
The use of the languages and scripts of other citizens which constitute less than 20% of
the citizens of a local administrative unit, is to be determined by the local government”
(translation A. Gjurkova, “Службен весник на РМ” бр. 91, 20.11.2001).
26 Aleksandra Gjurkova

oficially recognize Macedonian, also linguists, such as Aleksandar Belić for example,
considered Macedonian to be a part of Serbian by regarding Macedonian dialects as
“dialects of Southern Serbia”. This shows that politics inluences not only the proile
of language but also of the language science itself. With the course of time, this has
proven to be true for Macedonia and the Macedonian language: the political positions
of certain subjects in the state, and also outside of it, have had great inluence on the
shape of certain policies. These issues are still important today, also in the discussion
on the EU integration of Macedonia.
In addition, there have been changes in the use of Macedonian and Albanian
in signage. Namely, place names are given in both languages, and in the Latin script
in the regions with 20% of Albanian population. In the meantime, a law concerning
the use of languages spoken by at least 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Mac-
edonia, was passed in 2008, regulating the domains of use of minority languages
in Macedonia (published in “Службен весник на РМ” бр. 101, 13.08.2008). This
law has been revised in July 2011(„Службен весник на РМ” бр.100, 25.07.2011), to
state that parliament representatives who speak a language other than Macedonian,
and which is also spoken by at least 20% of the citizens, are allowed to speak in their
language in the Parliament and its оrgans. While analyzing the relation to some regu-
lations of the EU, it should be mentioned that Macedonia has signed and ratiied the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which is an important step
in the process of implementation of EU standards in this domain. As for the status
of Macedonian minorities living in EU member states, we shall focus on Bulgaria
and Greece where, regrettably, Macedonian minority does not enjoy the rights of
minorities in the EU. These two member states have not yet signed nor ratiied the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In Bulgaria, Macedonians are
not recognized as a minority, and neither is their language recognized as a minority
language. In Greece, because of a naming issue, Macedonian minority is named Sla-
vomacedonian or Bulgarian – according to the Euromosaic study, which was prepared
by the European commission (1992). In the comparative summary4 of the Euromosaic
reports made in 2004 and 2008 a dificulty is noted in regard to consideration of dif-
ferent languages as dialects and in this context Macedonian is mentioned as such case
where it could be considered as Bulgarian, a Greek dialect or (Slavo-)Macedonian.
Among the member states, Romania has recognized Macedonians as a minority and
Macedonian language is protected as territorial language in concordance with the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. With regard to the possibili-
ties of integration with the EU, it should be emphasized that this process would have
a positive impact on the status of Macedonian, given that apart from being present
as a minority language in Greece and Bulgaria as EU member states, it would be

4
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/euromosaic/pdf/euromosaic-study-comparative-summary_en.pdf
Contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective 27

perceived as one of the oficial languages of the EU, according to the EU standards.
This process should constitute an improvement in the recognition of the Macedonian
language in Europe. Macedonia as an EU candidate is obliged to take further steps
in advancing this process. Linguists in Macedonia are therefore motivated to work
out strategies for promotion of Macedonian in Europe, together with other regional
languages, as well as to recognize the rights and obligations in this area.

II. As for the sociolinguistic aspect of the status of the Macedonian language, it is
to be concluded that a positive change has occurred after the proclamation of the
independent Macedonian state in 1991, when Macedonian was declared to be the
language used in every domain in the society, in public and oficial communication,
and the language of diplomacy and international communication. This change has
lent a certain stability to the status of the language, which is to be viewed as a conti-
nuation of the status it enjoyed in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, as one of the
states of SFRY, where Macedonian had the status of an oficial language alongside
(then) Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. The Macedonian language is viewed today as
being multifunctional; it is used in different functional styles where it is characterized
by a certain vibrancy, as well as by the stability of its language norm, depending on
the type of style.
In a social context, it is important to bear in mind that Skopje, the capital of Mac-
edonia, is continuously dominating as a political, administrative and cultural centre.
This situation has an inluence on the domain of language in the sense that the idiom
of Skopje has become a koine of a kind, and is being perceived as the idiom of pres-
tige. As a result of this, its characteristics in the way of pronunciation, the position of
the accent and the accentual units, are being imposed on the vernacular, i.e. on the
everyday speech. In this context, Rina Usikova (1997: 156) designates the idiom of
Skopje as the basis for establishing a Macedonian substandard. Another important
aspect of language planning is that the principle of anti-purism towards international-
isms has been accepted by Macedonian linguists, which, according to Blaže Koneski
(Cf. Minova-Gjurkova 2006a: 28), is being emphasized as a very important feature
in the process of inclusion of Macedonia into the international community.

1. The signiicant linguistic features related to the process of language change are:
several peculiarities connected with accentuation:
– Accent on the penultima of the word, although the stress of the antepenultima
is common and is a feature of standard Macedonian; examples: другáрка ‘a friend’,
задáча ‘a task’, понедéлник ‘Monday’ etc. (instead of дрýгарка, зáдача);
– Tendency to not displace the accent in words longer than three syllables; exam-
ples: пáртијата ‘the party’, собрáнието ‘the Parliament’, фáбриката ‘the factory’,
демокрáтијата ‘the democracy’ etc. (instead of партúјата, собранúето), even
28 Aleksandra Gjurkova

though the normative recommendation is to move the accent according to the rule
of antepenultimate accent.
– Decomposition of accentual units, for example: киселá-вода, сувó-грозје (both
are lexicalized), колкý-пари ‘how much money’, когá-дојде? ‘when have you come’
etc., whereas compounds with proclitics, for example: нé-знам ‘I do not know’, нé-
сака ‘he/she does not want’ are common and in regular use. This process is due to
the fact that accentual units are perceived by speakers of Macedonian as dialectal
(characteristic of the western dialect group) and therefore non-standard. Another
contributing factor is the fact that they are composed of at least two, or sometimes
three words written separately, which is important for the perception of accentual
units as a whole. Blaže Koneski in an article dedicated to these features (1993: 24),
emphasized that:

практиката на говорителите од другите дијалектни области, доведува до

резултатот што акцентирањето на составните делови во атрибутски синтагми
да не се чувствува како нарушување на нормата ни кога се работи за наследени
споеви.5

2. In the morphology, there are several peculiarities that have resulted from the
development of Macedonian in the last 50 years: the most well-known example is the
disappearance of the common case form of nouns with the ending -a. Sporadic use is
noted in personal names, such as: Петрета, Рацина etc., or in certain expressions,
such as: фала му на Бога! (‘Thank God!’), човек на човека му е волк ‘homo homi-
ni lupus’(man is a wolf to man), etc. However, these case forms can be observed in
different types of texts, and in stylistically marked contexts. In the use of verbs, the
tendency to simplify the verbal system should be mentioned as the most characteristic
feature, by linking the verbal aspect to the verbal tense. This is evident in the for-
mation of imperfect where exclusively imperfective verbs are used (e.g. спиев ‘I was
sleeping’, носев ‘I carried’, пиев ‘I drank’), while perfective verbs are used to form
aorist (e.g. се наспав ‘I slept’, донесов ‘I brang’, се напив ‘I drank’), whereas verbal
forms such as спав, носив, пив etc. – aorist forms of imperfective verbs have been
discarded and have not been used by several generations of speakers of Macedonian.
Another tendency to simplify the system is represented by the use of the l-perfect
(сум носел ‘I have carried’) in renarration i.e. to signal unwitnessed events, while
constructions with имам- (‘to have’) and сум- (‘to be’) are taking over the expression
of resultativity. The latter is considered to be a Balkan feature which “has originated
from language interference in the Balkans” (Lekov 1968: 172 cf. Minova-G’urkova

5
“The practice of native speakers from other dialectal areas results with the fact that such
stress of the compounds in nominal phrases is not perceived as a violation of the norm,
even when it comes to inherited accentual units” (translation A. Gjurkova).
Contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective 29

1998: 109). In the use of pronouns, there are several characteristic features: omission
of case sufixes, such as овега ‘this one’ (from овој) and онега ‘that one’ (from
оној). In the group of personal pronouns, there is a tendency to generalize the use of
certain forms for direct and indirect object, for example the long pronominal forms
for direct object, which are used with the preposition на, and the use of indirect ob-
ject form нејзе (instead of неа) as an exception, for example: Нејзе ја видов (‘I saw
her’); И рече на нејзе (‘he/she said to her’), etc. Another tendency related to the use
of short pronominal forms of dative, is that they are being extensively used not only
with nouns designating family and relatives: татко ми, брат ù, вујко ти, but also
with other nouns designating close relations, such as: дечко ми, девојка му, другар
ти, другарка ми (‘my boyfriend’, ‘his girlfriend’, ‘your friend’, ‘my girlfriend’) etc.
In this regard, it is particularly interesting to note the use of short pronominal forms
incorporated in nominal phrases, for example: Баже и девојка му чекаат бебе
(headline in Вест 14.09.09), (‘Baže and his girlfriend are expecting a baby’). This has
become a very common feature of the journalistic style, especially in columns and
editorials, very often to express irony, and is being perceived by linguists as a form
of stylization to the point of becoming a cliché.

3. Among syntactic characteristics, the most commonly mentioned one is the

continuing process of grammaticalization of object reduplication. This tendency
to reduplicate the object is especially strong with indeinite objects, for example:
– Можеби сето тоа му се причинило, гладот сигурно му ја заматил свеста
и некои гласови ги претворил во слики; – … македонскиот литературен јазик ги
има отклонето некои црти што повеќе би го изделиле од соседните словенски
јазици (examples from Minova-Gjurkova 2006b: 438), etc.
The most characteristic changes in syntax are related to functional stratiication
and foreign language inluence. This is mostly to be seen in noun phrases, in particular
in those composed of two nouns (the determiner and the determined noun), and is an
increasing process. This has come about as a result of copying the English model, and
can be illustrated with the following examples: арт дизајнер ‘art designer’, мејк-ап
артист ‘make up artist’, бизнис администрација ‘business administration’, таргет
група ‘target group’, револвинг картичка ‘revolving card’, стенд-бај аранжман
‘stand by arrangement’, кетеринг услуги ‘catering services’, кредит трансфер систем
‘credit transfer system’, мониторинг мисија ‘monitoring mission’, etc. The above show
the pattern by which such noun phrases are formed and used in Macedonian. In this
context, we should bear in mind that noun phrases of this type had been known to
Macedonian before, and can be found in the older layer of the language. Some exam-
ples: ветер работа ‘do something in vain’, ручек време ‘lunch time’, etc. These noun
phrases indicate the existence of a model in Macedonian which may be used as a base
for constructing noun phrases such as the following: анекс-договор ‘anex agreement’,
30 Aleksandra Gjurkova

земја-членка ‘member state’, заменик-претседател ‘vice president’, which are very

popular in the journalistic and administrative style of contemporary Macedonian.
It can be concluded that the base model which had already existed in Macedonian has
recently been revived by the English model of noun phrases.
In the domain of conjunctions and connectives in contemporary Macedonian, several
features need to be highlighted:– frequent use of adversative conjunctions али and
него as loanwords from Serbian (former Serbo-Croatian), especially in the colloquial
style; – extensive use of the connective меѓутоа in the publicistic style; – disjunctive
conjunctions eм – eм, aj – aj, a – a, ja – ja are perceived as archaic; – roadening the
use of the relative кој(што) at the expense of што, whereas што is broadening its use
in the domain of sentence relativization.

4. Lexicon and word formation: verb groups with the sufix -(из)ира have distin-
guished themselves in Macedonian as a compact group that, of course, belongs to
internationalisms. These verb forms are used with both an imperfective and a perfec-
tive meaning, and are stressed on the penultimate. Because of these two important
features, there is a tendency to form pairs of verbs with the sufix -ува, so that the
system would regain balance. Examples: верифицира pf. : верификува ipf. ‘to verify’,
квалифицира pf. : квалификува ipf. ‘to qualify’, etc. Another tendency has developed
from the same motivation, and it is to use the sufix -иса (of Greek origin) to con-
struct perfective verbs, such as: дегенерира : дегенериса ‘to degenerate’, деформира
: деформиса ‘to deform’, etc. (using the model of the verb бендиса ‘to like’). As the
process has begun as early as in the 1970’s, it is clear from today’s perspective that
the construction of aspectual pairs has not been a success, taking in regard the spo-
radicity of use of perfective verb forms. In this regard, we can adduce the following
opinion expressed by Minova-Gjurkova (2002, 65): “… with the replacement of
-(из)ира with -ува, the problem of aspect in these verbs is not solved and for this rea-
son preixation should be used” (“… со замената на -(из)ира со -ува не се решава
проблемот во поглед на видот на овие глаголи и затоа ќе треба да се пристапува
кон нивно префиксирање.”). It should be pointed out that this process needs to be
viewed as being very dynamic because of the inlux of anglicisms taking place in
this particular group of verbs. We shall mention a few examples: апдејтира ‘to up-
date’, брендира ‘to brand’, инволвира ‘to involve’, имплементира ‘to implement’,
менаџира ‘to manage’, мерџира ‘to merge’, логира ‘to login’, роамира ‘to roam’,
сејвира ‘to save’, таргетира ‘to target’, etc. These verbs are preixed with the most
common preixes used to mark the beginning, the end or the completion of an action,
its repetition, etc. Some examples: одлогира ‘to log out’, изменаџира ‘to manage’,
искешира ‘to cash in’, исконтактира ‘to establish contact’, избрифира ‘to brief’,
издемантира ‘to deny’, проанализира ‘to analyse’, продискутира ‘to discuss’, etc.
Contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective 31

The frequency of preixed verb forms in -(из)ира proves that it is necessary in the
verb system to mark the perfective versus the imperfective aspect. With regard to
the types of preixes used, it is noticeable that the preix -из(с) is in a frequent use,
a feature that requires statistical analyses to compare its frequency with those of other
preixes. However, there are also examples of higher level adaptation of anglicisms,
namely with the help of the sufix -ува to form imperfective verbs, such as: драфтува
‘to draft’, четува ‘to chat’, стримува ‘to stream’, спинува ‘to spin’, as well as verb
formations such as: сурфа ‘to surf’, рола ‘to skate’, брауза ‘to browse’, принта
‘to print’, which are used in both an imperfective and a perfective meaning. In general,
it needs to be pointed out that this group of verbs shows the scope of English inlu-
ence on contemporary Macedonian, as well as the ability of the language system to
adapt and to innovate. The verbs ending in -ира still constitute a very productive
model, and the formation of preixed verbs with -ира shows the necessity to ensure
symmetry in the Macedonian verbal system.

4.1. In the domain of word formation, the sufix -џија/-чија of Turkish origin has
established itself as very productive, which is evident from a number of nouns, such
as: кондураџија ‘maker/repairer of shoes’, гајдаџија ‘gajda player’, папуџија ‘maker
of slippers’, etc. However, it is noteworthy that the sufix has experienced a kind of
revival which can be observed especially in the publicistic style, and is often used to
express personal opinion, irony etc., and the presence of these nouns in contemporary
Macedonian is becoming signiicant. To name a few examples: филмаџија ‘ilm maker’,
театарџија ‘theatre employee / theatre lover’, моторџија ‘motorcyclist’, бурекчија
‘burek maker’, etc. From the analysis of foreign inluences in Macedonian, especially
those from English, it is evident that the number of anglicisms in active use is increasing
in the domains of popular culture, music, ilm, computer technology etc. We have exten-
sively treated this lexicon in the article Социолингвистички аспекти на македонскиот
јазик: од стандардизацијата до актуелните тенденции (Sociolinguistic aspects of
Macedonian: from standardization to the current tendencies) (Gjurkova 2008).
Among adjectives, there is a certain group that is characterized by not being marked
for gender, mainly because they are loanwords from Turkish and constitute a part of an
older layer of lexicon, such as for example: пембе, тазе ‘fresh’, etc. There is a paral-
lel to be drawn between these adjectives, and a signiicant group of anglicisms which
are frequent in contemporary Macedonian, such as: мини, макси, портабл, фер, екс,
ултра, супер, etc. With regard to the last three of these: they are commonly attached
directly to the word (noun or adjective) to modify the noun: експремиер ‘former prime
minister’, ултрамодерен ‘ultra modern’, ултратренд ‘ultra trend’, супербрз ‘super fast’,
мултикултурен ‘multicultural’, мултибренд ‘multi brand’, whereas the others are used
separately, in front of nouns, as in: тазе леб ‘fresh bread’, фер плеј ‘fair play’, etc.
32 Aleksandra Gjurkova

III. To conclude: the analyzed current tendencies in Macedonian can be viewed from
a linguistic and from a sociolinguistic perspective. When regarded from a linguistic
perspective, an overall tendency can be observed to preserve symmetry in the lan-
guage system, as is the case with the verbs ending in -(из)ира, and the tendency to
further grammaticalize, as for example object reduplication which is also performed
on indeinite objects. The second important process is the tendency to simplify cer-
tain segments, such as the narrowing of the use of pronominal forms for direct and
indirect object. Regarding the lexicon, there is a signiicant layer of anglicisms which
is present primarily in the publicistic and administrative styles, as well as in the col-
loquial language. In this regard, in the domain of language planning, it is primarily
important to make a systematic approach to this lexicon and its functional use in
different styles. Also, it is necessary to modify and/or rectify certain orthographic
rules which regulate transcription and transliteration of English words, as well as the
linguistic adaptation of anglicisms in Macedonian. This is particularly important as
the use of Latin script has gained impetus in media and advertising, a reality which
indicates an even stronger need to modify the Latin script used for Macedonian.
From a wider sociolinguistic perspective, it is important to note that the language
status of Macedonian in the period after 1991 has improved in the sense of oficial
and cultural means of communication and as a cohesive factor in society, although
the process of Constitution change in 2001 has led to regulations that seriously chal-
lenge the cohesive role of Macedonian today. The tendency towards bilingualism is
becoming a new challenge for establishing an equilibrium in the Macedonian society
which advertises itself as multicultural and multilingual.

references

Eurobarometer Special 243, 2006, Europeans and their Languages, European Commission.
Gjurkova А. [= Ѓуркова А.], 2008, Социолингвистички аспекти на македонскиот јазик:
од стандардизацијата до актуелните тенденции, “Филолошки студии” 2008/2,
www.philologicalstudies.org.
koneSki Bl. [= Конески Бл.], 1993, Македонскиот литературен јазик, [in:] Реферати на
македонските слависти за XI меѓународен славистички конгрес во Братислава,
Скопје.
lekov I. [= Леков И.], 1968, Кратка сравнително-историческа и типологическа граматика
на славянските езици, София.
Minova-G’urkova L. (ed.), 1998, Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich. Makedonski jazik,
(Македонски јазик), Opole.
Minova-Gjurkova l. [= Минова-Ѓуркова Л.], 2002, Лексиката, нормата и јазичното
планирање, [in:] Норма и речник, Зборник на трудови од научен собир, Скопје,
с. 61–68.
Contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective 33

Minova-Gjurkova l. [= Минова-Ѓуркова Л.], 2006a, Внатрешнојазични и надворешнојазични

особености на македонскиот јазик [in:] Предавања на XXXVIII Меѓународен
семинар за македонски јазик, литература и култура, Скопје, с. 27–41.
M inova-Gjurkova l. [= Минова-Ѓуркова Л.], 2006b, Граматика на македонскиот
стандарден јазик за странци, Grammaire de la langue macédonienne pour étrangers,
Скопје.
Šipka M. [= Шипка М.], 2006, Језик и политика. Социолингвистичке анализе, Београд.
uSikova r. [= Усикова Р.], 1997, Кон развојот на македонскиот јазик со оглед на јазичната
ситуација во Македонија, Педесет години на македонската наука за јазикот,
Скопје, с. 153–164.

Współczesne zmiany w języku macedońskim w aspekcie socjolingwistycznym

Streszczenie

Rozpatrywanie współczesnych zmian w języku macedońskim jest związane z ogólnymi

zmianami powstałymi po proklamacji Republiki Macedonii. Szerszy kontekst, który należy
uwzględnić w opisie tych procesów, jest deiniowany przez kilka czynników: status języka
macedońskiego w Republice Macedonii (od 1991 r.), liberalizację przestrzeni medialnej
i języka mediów, konlikt w Macedonii w 2001 r. oraz problematyzację języka.
W niniejszym artykule będą przedstawione obecne zmiany języka w kontekście społecz-
nym: język macedoński w konstytucji i przepisach, status języka macedońskiego i innych
języków, polityka językowa w Republice Macedonii. Uwzględnione zostaną również zmiany
samego języka na wielu poziomach: morfologicznym, składniowym, leksykalnym, a także
wpływ innych języków. Na podstawie zmian zaobserwowanych w języku macedońskim
można stwierdzić, że w określonych segmentach (w czasownikach, w derywacji określeń
przydawkowych, reduplikacji obiektu) widoczna jest tendencja do symetrii do istniejącego
modelu językowego, jak również do uproszczenia pewnych segmentów, jak np. uogólnienia
form biernika zaimków używanych z przyimkiem на oraz formy celownika нејзе z przyim-
kiem на. Z punktu widzenia socjolingwistyki można powiedzieć, że użycie języka w mediach
w ogóle, w pop-kulturze, a także jego popularność przyczyniają się do zwiększenia kontaktu
przede wszystkim z językiem angielskim, czego rezultaty są widoczne w języku prasy i w za-
sobach sieci internetowej. W ramach planowania językowego konieczne jest systematyczne
badanie nowszej leksyki macedońskiej, przesyconej zwłaszcza anglicyzmami. Potrzebne jest
doprecyzowanie i/lub modyikacja norm ortograicznych w zakresie transkrypcji i translite-
racji wyrazów zapożyczonych z języka angielskiego oraz adaptacji anglicyzmów na gruncie
macedońskim.