Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:36:28.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2010

Evangelia Adamou
Evangelia Adamou
Affiliation:
CNRS (French National Center for Scientific Research), LACITO (Oral Tradition Languages and Civilizations), 7, rue Guy Moquet, 94801 Villejuif, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the influence of language ecology on bilingual speech. It is based on first-hand data from two previously undocumented varieties of Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish in Greek Thrace; in both cases Turkish is an important language for the community's identity. This analysis shows how the Romani-Turkish “fused lect” was produced by intensive and extensive bilingualism through colloquial contact with the trade language, Turkish. In addition, it shows how semi-sedentary Pomak speakers had limited, institutional contact with Turkish, resulting in more traditional codeswitching and emblematic lexical borrowings. (Language contact, bilingual speech, fused lect, language ecology, Pomak, Romani, Turkish, Greece)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 147 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamou, Evangelia (2010). Le marquage différentiel de l'objet en nashta et en pomaque (slave, Grèce): Revenir sur l'hypothèse du contact de langues. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 105(1): 383–410.Google Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia (in press). Deixis and temporal subordinators in Pomak (Slavic, Greece). In Bril, I. (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: The syntax and pragmatics interface. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia, & Drettas, Georges (2008). Slave. In Adamou, E. (ed.), Le patrimoine plurilingue de la Grèce, 107–32. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) (2007). Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter (1998). From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 6:1–28.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter (1994). Michif, the Cree-French mixed language of the Métis buffalo hunters in Canada. In Bakker, P. & Mous, M. (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 13–33. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, & Matras, Yaron (1997). Introduction. In Matras, Y., Bakker, P., & Kyuchukov, H., (eds.), The typology and dialectology of Romani, 7–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, & Mous, Maarten (1994). Introduction. In Bakker, P. & Mous, M. (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 1–11. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, & Igla, Birgit (1994). Romani mixed dialects. In Bakker, P. & Mous, M. (eds.), Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 35–68. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, & Igla, Birgit (2004). Kommentierter Dialektatlas des Romani. Teil 1, Vergleich der Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cech, Petra, & Heinschnink, Moses (1996). Sepečides-Romani. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Elšík, Viktor (2000). Dialect variation in Romani personal pronouns. In Elšík, V. & Matras, Y. (eds.), Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase, 65–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elšík, Viktor, & Matras, Yaron (2006). Markedness and language change. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor (in press). Compartmentalized grammar: The variable (non)-integration of Turkish verbal conjugation in Romani dialects. In Elšík, V. (ed.), Anthropological approaches to Romani Linguistics. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor, & Dankoff, Robert (1991). The earliest text in Balkan (Rumelian) Romani: A passage from Evliya Çelebi's Seyahat nameh. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 5th ser., 1.1:1–20.Google Scholar
Gilliat-Smith, B. J. (1915). A report on the Gypsy tribes of north east Bulgaria. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, n.s. 9:1–55, 65–109.Google Scholar
Glemch, George, & Glemch, Sharon (1987). Commercial nomadism: Occupation and mobility among Travellers in England and Wales. In Rao, Aparna (ed.), The other nomads: Peripatetic minorities in crosscultural perspective, 133–53. Cologne: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude (1993). The language builder. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igla, Birgit (1996). Das Romani von Ajia Varvara – Deskriptive und historisch vergleichende Darstellung eines Zigeunerdialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kopitar, Jernej (1829). Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache. Jahrbücher der Literatur (Vienna) 46:59–106.Google Scholar
Kozaitis, Kathryn (2002). Embrace of shelter: The cultural hybridism of Athenian Roma. In her Oi Roma stin Elladha, 137–68. Athens: Elliniki Etairia Ethnolojias.Google Scholar
Loveday, Leo J. (1996). Language contact in Japan: A socio-linguistic history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36:281–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron (2002). Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron (2005). The classification of Romani dialects: A geographic-historical perspective. In Halwachs, D., Schrammel, B., & Ambrosch, G. (eds.), General and applied Romani linguistics, 7–26. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In Matras, Y. & Sakel, J. (eds.) Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic survey, 31–73. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklosič, Franz (1861). Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 12:1–70.Google Scholar
Miklosič, Franz (1872–1880). Über die Mundarten und Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europas. Vol. 3. Vienna: Karl Gerold's Sohn.Google Scholar
Miller, Carol (1975). Machwaya Gypsy marime. In Rehfisch, (ed.), Gypsies, tinkers and other travelers, 41–54. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko (2008). Colonization population contacts and the emergence of new language varieties: A response to Peter Trudgill. Language in Society 37:254–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993a). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol (1993b). Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in Codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paspati, Alexander (1870 [1973]). Etudes sur les tchinghianés de l'empire ottoman. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana (1980). Sometimes I'll start a conversation in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18:581–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Sankoff, David (1988). Code-switching. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N. & Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics, 2:1174–80. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rusakov, Alexander (2001). The North Russian Romani dialect: Interference and code switching. In Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages, 313–338. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, Kristian (1926). Balkanfilologien. Copenhagen. French translation, Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Kliensieck, 1930.Google Scholar
Sechidou, Irene (2005). Finikas Romika: A Greek Para-Romani variety. Romani Studies 5,15/1:51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalàn, Carmen (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah (1995). Language mixture: Ordinary processes, extraordinary results. In Silva-Corvalàn, C. (ed.), Spanish in four continents: Studies in language contact and bilingualism, 15–33. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah, & Kaufman, Terrence (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troubetzkoy, Nicolay (1928). Actes du 1er Congrès International des Linguistes. La Haye.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (1989). Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In Bervik, Leiv Egil & Jahr, Ernst Hakon (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 227–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (2008). Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: On the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in Society 37:241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C. F.; Voegelin, F. M.; & Schultz, Noel W. (1967). The language situation in Arizona as part of the Soutwest culture area. In Hymes, Dell & Bittle, Willima E. (eds.), Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics, 403–51. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weyrauch, Walter O. (ed.) (2001). Gypsy law: Romani legal traditions and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel (1953). Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, & Wohlgemuth, Jan (2008). Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Stolz, T.Bakker, D. & Palomo, R. Salas (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on romancisation processes, 89–121. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar