In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Christina Y. Bethin, ed. American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008. Vol. 1: Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 131–48. Balkan Slavic Dialectology and Balkan Linguistics: Periphery as Center Victor A. Friedman 1. Introduction Much of the effort in Balkan linguistics has been dedicated to discovering the unity in Balkan diversity. The former Serbo-Croatian (henceforth BCS) has generally been seen as marginal to the Balkan linguistic enterprise, while Bulgarian and Macedonian have been viewed as central to it, and indeed served as the classic example of the distinction between membership in a language family and in a linguistic league (Slavic and Balkan, respectively). Today, the southeastern dialects of BCS are sometimes included in Balkan linguistic accounts, although representations of distributions of features occasionally follow political boundaries rather than actual isoglosses (e.g., in southwestern Kosovo, where many representations have routinely followed the political border with Macedonia although the most significant isoglosses run into Gora, north of !ar Planina). I argue that Balkan Slavic is best understood at the intersection of internal developments and external contacts at the dialectal level, and that peripheries can be central to this understanding. In doing so I examine three types of Balkan linguistic phenomena: 1) Classic Balkanisms as dialectal features: future formation and object reduplication1 2) Sites of resistance to contact-induced change in the Balkans: deixis 3) Phonological Balkanisms as micro-areal phenomena and linguistic emblems I shall conclude that recent typological approaches to Balkan linguistics must be refined , and that ecological and epidemiological approaches to language contact combined with an increased attention to Balkan Slavic dialectology, contacts with nonSlavic Balkan languages, and comparisons with non-Balkan Slavic dialects demonstrate that peripheries can be central to our understanding of contact-induced change. 1 By Balkanism, I understand a feature of linguistic structure shared among at least some of the languages/dialects of the Balkans that can be attributed either to structural borrowing or the mutual reinforcement of feature selection resulting from multilingual contact. Crucial evidence is a combination of the absence of the feature from earlier attested stages and the absence or lesser degree of development in related extra-Balkan languages. 132 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN 2. The Future Marker The Balkan future using an invariant particle derived from a verb meaning ‘want’ or ‘will’ was one of the first Balkanisms to be identified as such (Kopitar 1829). In both Balkan Slavic and Albanian dialects, the degree of the grammaticalization of the ‘will’ future is more complex than that presented in handbooks and surveys.2 Moreover , Albanian peripheries in contact with Slavic are centers of innovation. In Albanian, ‘have’ and ‘want’ futures still appear to be in competition in the oldest full texts (16th century). Most superficial descriptions of Albanian will identify the future using a conjugated present of ‘have’ plus infinitive (=me+short participle) with Geg and the future using an invariant particle derived from ‘will’ plus subjunctive (=të+finite verb) with Tosk, the latter being typically Balkan, the former being characterized as more similar to non-Balkan Romance (or Romance in general). Northwestern Geg dialects such as Kelmend, the foothills above Shkodër, Plav, and Gucî (Shkurtaj 1975: 54–55, 1982: 222; Ahmetaj 1989: 298–99) have the typical Geg future but also use ‘will’+subjunctive—especially in speculations—and even conjugated dua ‘want’+infinitive, as occurs in the neighboring dialects of BCS: (1) Jam i lik e duo me dek (Shkurtaj 1975: 55) ‘I am ill and will die.’ Further west, along the left bank of the river Buna, only the ‘will’+subjunctive future occurs (Gjinari 1971: 352). A similar situation obtains to the southwest, in Puka (Topalli 1974: 316), which is transitional between the Northeast and the Northwest , although its center of gravity is Shkodër in the Northwest. However, in Shkrel, southeast of Kelmend, only ‘will’+subjunctive is used (but also tash ‘now’+progressive po+present indicative; Beci 1971: 298). In the southern part of Northeastern Geg, e.g., Has (Gosturani 1975: 237), as well as the Presheva/Preshevo valley (Badallaj 2001: 178), the future with ‘have’ is limited to a sense of obligation while ‘will’+subjunctive is more voluntive. In Southern Geg and the Central Geg of Upper Reka (in Macedonia), the future with ‘have’+infinitive has been completely replaced by ‘will’+subjunctive (Haruni 1994: 76). South of Has and west of Upper Reka, in Luma, the two types of future are in competition, but the ‘will’ type predominates (Hoxha 1975: 165; 1990: 136...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.