Victor A. Friedman

University of Chicago (United States)

Romani dialectology from the perspective of Turkish

Turkish influence is one of the salient features of the Romani dialects of the Balkans. The role of Turkish in these Romani dialects has varied from limitation to lexical borrowing through calquig and grammatical borrowing to complete language-shift in some formerly Romani-speaking groups. Turkish influence on Romani dialectal grammatical systems is considerably more varied than is the case for the influence of other languages of the Balkans. The integration of Turkish grammatical structure in various Romani dialects thus provides important examples of the possibilities of grammatical borrowing and at the same time gives test cases for numerous variables in bi- and multi-lingual adaptation. In this paper, I shall attempt a comparative typological dialectology of Romani in the Balkans based on the degree of the integration of Turkish into Romani linguistic structure. In so doing, I hope to contribute to both the understanding of Romani, the position of Turkish in the modern Balkans, and the theoretical literature on the effects and possibilities of language contact. At issue will be particularly questions of stability versus language shift and relative hierarchies of contact-induced language-change. At the same time, the sociolinguistic variables in the relationships of Turkish to Romani will also be considered.

Viktor Elšík

Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic)

Romani dialectology of a microregion: the “transitional” North–South Central Romani dialects of Gemer, Slovakia

After the descriptive boom of the late twentieth century, mainstream Romani linguistics has reached a general concensus regarding the taxonomical classification of Romani dialects without having reached, however, a concensus regarding the historical interpretation of this classification (cf. Elšík 2006). A model that assigns a decisive significance to speaker migrations in its reconstruction of the dialect history of Romani (Boretzky & Igla 2004) competes with a model that emphasizes the role of geographic diffusion of linguistic structures without speaker migration (Matras 2002, 2005). This methodological controversy is also directly relevant to the dialect situation of Romani in Slovakia (cf. Boretzky 1999, Elšík et al. 1999, Elšík 2003). The migration-based model assumes that the South Central and the North Central groups of Romani dialects, which are divided by an isogloss cluster running through southern Slovakia, result from separate migration waves of Romani speakers from the Balkans. The diffusion-based model, on the other hand, maintains that differentiation of the two dialect groups could have taken place in situ.

The present paper will contribute to the migration vs. diffusion issue by focusing on as yet undescribed “transitional” North–South Central Romani dialects in a particular microregion of Slovakia. These dialects are spoken around the major isogloss cluster between the North Central and the South Central dialects and are “transitional” in that they exhibit a mixture of typical structural features of both dialect groups. The paper will summarize the geographical distribution of selected linguistic-structural and cultural features within the microregion and beyond, and evaluate it in terms of the migration vs. diffusion dichotomy. A historical scenario for the development of the North–South isogloss cluster and of the “transitional” dialects will be proposed. The paper is based on the author’s fieldwork in 16 localities of the microregion.

References

• Boretzky, Norbert. 1999. Die Gliederung der Zentralen Dialekte und die Beziehungen zwischen Südlichen Zentralen Dialekten (Romungro) und Südbalkanischen Romani-Dialekten. In: Halwachs & Menz 1999, 210–276.
• Boretzky, Norbert & Birgit Igla. 2004. Kommentierter Dialektatlas des Romani. Teil 1: Vergleich der Dialekte. Teil 2: Dialektkarten mit einer CD Rom. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
• Elšík, Viktor. 2003. Interdialect contact of Czech (and Slovak) Romani varieties. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 162, 41–62.
• Elšík, Viktor. 2006. Review of [Boretzky & Igla 2004]. Romani Studies 5, 16, 105–111.
• Elšík, Viktor, Milena Hübschmannová & Hana Šebková. 1999. The Southern Central (ahi-imperfect) Romani dialects of Slovakia and northern Hungary. In: Halwachs & Menz 1999, 277–390.
• Halwachs, Dieter W. & Florian Menz (eds.) 1999. Die Sprache der Roma. Perspektiven der Romani-Forschung in Österreich im interdisziplinären und internazionalen Kontext. Klagenfurt: Drava.
• Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Matras, Yaron. 2005. The classification of Romani dialects: a geographic–historical perspective. In: Schrammel, Barbara, Dieter W. Halwachs & Gerd Ambrosch (eds.) General and applied Romani linguistics: Proceedings from the 6th International Conference on Romani Linguistics. Munich: Lincom Europa. 7–22.

Peter Wagner

Charles University, Prague (Czech Republic)

Lexicon of two Romani dialects acquired after a distinct contact history in a common language space

In Austria two major Roma groups are living with joined current and recent donor languages, but differing in older contact layers. Both the speakers of the Burgenland Roman and Lovari have lost direct contact with Hungarian, after being living in a Hungarian speaking environment for another at least three generations. Apart from this period, Roman (as non Vlax) and Lovari (as Vlax) are known to differ considerably in their more ancient history.

The aim of the paper is to compare some borrowing patterns visible on the lexical level in both dialects in the post-Byzantine period. For this purpose, borrowed elements from text samples in both dialects are compiled and confronted with dictionary entries of the second dialect. Being a first step, the analysis is restricted to a testing field of narratives, which are viewed at as core stock of a traditional language, more resistant to external influence.

As a major outcome of the study, the adaptation processes to the more recent environments (Hungarian and German) seem to have proceeded independently. While the all over extend of borrowings differs not too much, the character of the borrowed material shows up significant differences. Common borrowed etymons are equilibrated by number with words found only in one dialect, the same holding true once again for the other dialect. The bulk of common etymons dues to Hungarian influence, some are old common South-Slavic or new German, some are belongings of the whole area. Even after a common choice of input material, different adaptation mechanisms come into place like sound projections, adaptation morphs, gender selection and semantic shifts. Syntactic and several phonologic structures were not examined for methodical reasons.

The main reason for separate ways of adaptation is seen in low inter-Romani contact, resulting in isolated innovations simply driven by bilinguism with a dominant prestigious culture. Decisively not during the initial contact, probably neither in the further presence in a joined cultural space, no kind of language pool arose necessary to accommodate language behaviour.

Anton Tenser

University of Manchester (United Kingdom)

Romani dialects in Ukrained and Moldova: reconciling linguistic and ethnographic data

This past year has seen the first attempt to conduct fieldwork in Romani linguistics in Ukraine and Moldova using the RMS questionnaire. On this occasion the linguistic questionnaire was enhanced with the ethnographic questions compiled in cooperation with ethnographers working on Romani culture . The presentation will serve as a preliminary field-report from Ukraine and Moldova, including the basic dialectological analysis of the data collected in both countries and an attempt to tie this analysis with the ethnographic information gathered in the field.

In particular, it will be argued that the various groups of Roma in Moldova, defined by their respective endonyms, like Churari, Laeshi, Chokonari, Kalderari etc., form one linguistic group (except for the Ursari), that might be classified as a member of the North Vlax group of Romani dialects. I will suggest that the linguistic differences among the Romani population in Moldova are a reflection of a geographical continuum rather than of belonging to the specific group, i.e. the Chokonari or the Churari. A classification system of the various Romani groups in Moldova will be proposed, that consists of four independent layers.

As for Ukraine, there are three types of dialects that I found that will be matched against the dialects described by Baranikov (1934). Furthermore, the various dialects of Ukraine, like Servy, Vlaxurja, Plaschuny, Gimpeny, etc., will be categorized within the classification system found in Matras (2002).

By comparing the ethnographic and the linguistic data from Ukraine it is apparent that the divisions based on the dialectal differences do not correspond directly to the divisions in the names applied to the groups. In other words, there are groups that speak varying dialects by call themselves by the same name, i.e. Servy. Accordingly, I would like to reaise the question of the relative weight that the linguistic and the non-linguistic factors have in defining the Romani groups.

Lev N. Čerenkov

Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage, Moscow (Russia)

Who are the Lithuanian Roma?

In spite of the rapid development of the romology and the romistic dialectology in particular, the Roma of the northeastern Europe for a long time remained out of the frames of the anthropological and linguistic researches. Of course, if not to take in account some studies, published predominantely in Russia, such as those of A.Barannikov, V. Sergievsky and T. Wentzel. Only in the last decades is observed growing interes to norrtheastern dialects, first of all in the works of prof. Matras and his team. In the post-Soviet countries one can find some publications on this theme (e.g. Kalinin in Byelorussia). In one Moscow publishing house the manual for self-taught of North-Russian Romanes is prepared for publication (author dr Victor Shapoval). None the less the unit of the northeastern dialects on the large territory from the western borders of the former USSR till to Kamchatka and the Far East are less studied. The problem of the researching and description of these dialects is complicated by the lack of more or less articulated borders between them and by the fact, that the speakers of these dialects represent themselves under very distinct names. Furthermore in the Roma communities are used very various exonyms for the speakers of these dialects (sometimes with the pejorative connotation), thus the general scene of the linguistic situation in those areas liooks very vague.

In connection with the aforesaid the author analyses the problem of the identification of the community named Litovska Roma, using historic, ethnographic and linguistic data. The markers for the characteristic of the Romani dialects in given areas are proposed.

Jorge Bernal

unaffiliated scholar, Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Kalderash language in Bulgaria

The objective of the present paper is to present some particular features belonging to one of the more picturesque variants of the Kalderash dialects spoken in Bulgaria, with its two internal varieties, which differ mainly due to the region to which the speaker belongs and to the external influences, e.g.: other Romani dialects and the Turkish and Bulgarian languages. The Kalderasha in Bulgaria mostly call themselves Kardarasha (in singular Kardarashi) and also Rrom Tsigeniyake (Rrom who preserve and are part of the Tsigeniya-Rromaniya: the Romani law and traditions).

Some impressions of the Kalderash Dialect in Bulgaria

• Characteristics: The Kalderasha use their own distinctive Romani dialect with its own internal variants, which belongs to the so called Vlach dialects of the second level or New Vlach dialects.
• Phonology of the dialect: The Kalderash dialects have been widely described. The most important phonological feature which differentiates this variant is that the phoneme represented by Rr in the words Rrom, Rromanés, etc. is pronounced like the Spanish multiple vibrant r/rr of robar, ratón, roto, perro etc.
• Bulgarian and Turkish loanwords: perdeáva (courtain Blg. perde from Turkish), kilím (rug, Blg. From Turkish), hich (at all, Blg. localism from Turkish), néshto (something Blg.), obrazuvanyáva, obrazuványe (education, Blg.), poluchív (to receive Blg.), chekmedjáva (drawer Blg. and Turkish), voináva (war Blg.).
• Some particular terms not found in other Kalderash dialects: khayshí/fíteso (something, other Bulgarian and Western Kaldarasha use váreso), fítekay (somewhere), hérsavo/sáko (each, every), ni (verbal negative particle, don’t/doesn’t, others chi), fáya (narrow carpet), mesheriáva (tribunal, Romani court, verdict).