FD 034 996

AUTHORTITLR

PUB DATENOTE

EDPS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

AL 002 250

Afendras, Evangelos A.Sociolinguistic History, Sociolinguistic Geographyand Bilingualism.Sep 6935p. ; Paper presented at the International Days inSociolinguistics, Istituto Luigi Sturzo, Rome,September 14-17, 1969

EDRS Price MF-Y0.25 HC-$1.85*Bilingualism, Culture Contact, *DiachronicLinguistics, Diglossia, Interference (LanguageLearning) , Language Role, Language Usage,Mathematical Models, Migration Patterns,*Sociocultural Patterns, *SociolinguisticsMacedorumanians

An attempt is made to develop a method for thepresentation of temporal and spatial sociolinguistic data in order tostudy phenomena of bilingual interaction. Domain of language usageand other sociocultural variables are abstracted from extant sources,normalized and compared with the aim of studying sociolinguisticvariation, its reflection on stability of language distribution andthe relation of the latter to convergence processes in the languagesin contact. The possibility of applying sociological-geographicmodels for the diffusion of innovation to linguistic diffusion isinvestigated. The case of the Macedorumanian nomads in the Balkans isused to illustrate the method. (Author/DO)

SOCIOLINGUISTIC HISTORY,

SOCIOLINGUISTIC GEOGRAPHY

AND BILINGUALISM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

by Evangelos A. AfendrasZnternational Center forResearch on Bilingualism

Paper presented at theINTERNATIONAL DAYS IN SOCIOLINGUISTICSIstituto Luigi SturzoRome, September 14-17, 1969

SUMMARY

An attempt is made to develop a method forthe presentation of temporal and spatial socioling-uistic data in order to study phenomena of bilingualinteraction.

Domain of language usage and other socio-cultural variables are abstracted from extantsources, normalized and compared with the aimof studying sociolinguistic variation, its reflectionon stability of language distribution and therelation of the latter to convergence processesin the languages in contact.

The possibility of applying sociological-geographical models for the diffusion of innovationto linguistic diffusion is investigated.

The case of the Macedorumanian nomads inthe Balkans is used to illustrate the method.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary0. Introduction. 1.. Bilingualism and languagechange. 2. Areal convergence. 3. Socio-linguistic dimensions of language con-vergence. 4. Sociolinguistic matrices,location in time and space. 5. Dia-chronic and diatopic presentation.6. Some diachronic-diatopicwork in Sociolinguistics. 7.Nature of sociolinguisticand linguistic data on theMacedorumanians. 8. Insearch of a model: socialdiffusion and geographicmigration. 9. Conclu-

. sions. Additionalnotes, tables,matrices, biblio-

graphy.

0. Introduction

Recent and less recent literature haveextensively covered the topic of bilingualism andits role in language change, as well as the necessityof introducing sociolinguistic variables into theanalysis of both. On the other hand, detailedsociolinguistic studies are mostly oriented towardsthe investigation of sociolinguistic change, andespecially language maintenance or shift, so thatnot much exists on sociolinguistic geography. WhatI will attempt to do in this paper, is a synthesis ofthe sociolinguistic and linguistic notions of bilingual-ism and their interaction in time and space, whichprecipitates language change. Possible models,some of them mathematical, used in sociologicalresearch of diffusion, will also be discussed forpossible application to the study of language diffusion.

1. Bilingualism and language change

By bilingualism is understood here theacquisition by a speaker of elements of languageother than his mother tongue; under language contactI include dialect contact, as well as register or styleor any such contact, determined by the topic or thesituation. The three fold distinction.as to bilingualability proposed by Diebold (1961) will be tentativelykept. Bilingualism will be distinguished into incipient,subordinate and coordinate. As the information usedfor my illustrations derives from documents whichantedate Diebold's studies by several decades, vagueimpressionistic statements will be converted intoDiebold's three fold distinction according to thefollowing scheme:a) "speaks language X poorly" = incipient bilingualism.b) "speaks perfect (language) X in addition to his mother

tongue Y" la coordinate bilingualism.

2

c) as subordinate would be classed the bilingualsmaking up the difference of the total populationafter a and b; also those said to speak "some

of language X in addition to their mother tongue Y" .

I accept with Haugen (1956) and Diebold thethree stage influence of one language upon anotherthrough the bilingual individual.

1. Code switching: "The alternate use of twolanguages".

2. Interference: "The overlapping of twolanguages".

3. Integration of interference: "The regularuse of material from one language inanother", which should occur also inthe speech of monolingual individuals.

2. 'Areal converjence

The Prague linguists and notably Jakobson(1931, 1938, 1944) and Trubetzkoy (1928) studiedareas in which several languages in close andprotracted contact (through large bilingual groups),within a restricted geographical space, tend to sharea high number of linguistic traits, not necessarilyinherited from a parent speech. In many cases thelanguages are not genetiully relathd at all. Thetraditional examples are from the Balkans, India,the Caucasus and also North America. The studiesby Trubetzkoy and Jakobson's early work wereconcerned mostly with the linguistic description offeatures typical of certain such language areas (inthe Prague terminology Sprach de). This was

also the case with the works of the American anthro-pologists and linguists, Boas and Sapir. Comparativelyrecently the sociolinguistic aspects of multilanguageconvergence were touched upon by Emeneau in twoarticles (1956, 1961), where both the linguistictraits, the convergence process and some of thesocial factors that must have brought it about wereoutlined. Before this study of Areal Convergencewe have, of course, Weinreich's basic expositionin Languages in Contact (1953), as well as numerouslater contributions (1957, 1958 etc. )

3. The sociolinguistic language convergence

The cases studied by Emeneau (1956, 1961) werefrom India and Pakistan. Among recent linguistic studiesof convergence should be mentioned Sirokov (1964),Kazazis (1964, 1967) and Birnbaum (1966, 1968, 1969),of which the last two have proposed a transformationaltreatment. Measures of phonological convergence (Jakobsoniandistinctive feature analyses, phoneme distribution) wereproposed by Afendras (1968, 1969b, 1969c). An earlyattempt at an exposition of the sociolinguistic aspects ofBalkan convergence was outlined in Afendras (1969d),in which the 'work of Emeneau and others were brieflydiscussed.'

Emeneau (1961) first exposes the linguisticconvergence between Brahui and Beluchi in Beluchistan,then investigates the social side of Brahui-Beluchiinteraction, specifically the relative prestige of thetwo languages, political power distribution betweenthe two ethnic groups, intermarriage practices (e. g.extent of exogamy), child language acquisition, bilateralityof bilingualism (that is extent to which bilinguals are drawnfrom both monolingual pools), and distribution of the two -

languages by social context.

4. Sociolin uistic location in timer space

Since the time of Emeneau's study, severaldetailed and rigorous works on sociolinguistics andbilingualism have appeared(1). The sociolinguisticmethod can be very helpful even for the historicalanalysis of linguistic convergence, as it exposesthe ongoing process of intei ference, first phaseof convergence. These studies have pointed-outthe importance of understanding the socialstructure and the relationship between the twogroups involved. Within monolingual groups,distribution of dialects or subdialectal varietiesaccording to sociolinguistic context, for instance,domains of usage -- or attitudes of the code userstowards the languages employed .are keys to changephenomena. The concept of diglossia was earlyintroduced by Ferguson to describe a situation inwhich two closely related languages were employedin a certain strict distribution over domains ofdaily usage and with some concomitant attitudestowards the two languages. Fishman (1967)extended the term to cover all cases in which twolanguage codes are used in non-overlapping domains,irrespective of the linguistic distance between thesecodes. Starting from this notion, Fishman alsodefined a notion of stable bilingualism. The followingsocial variables have been isolated by the variousresearchers as sociolinguistically pertinent: socialclass, age, sex, occupation, religion, politicalaffiliation: education and place of origin. As domainsof use we have: the home, the locale, the school, thework, religious worship, the neighborhood, etc.

(1) See in bibliography works of Weinreich, Diebold,Ferguson, Fishman, Gumpers, Haugen, Rubin, etc.

Naturally, soine of these are more pertinent insome cases than in others. In the particular examplewhich I will be using, that of a 2 Macedorumaniannomads in the Balkans, age, sex, profession, religion,political affiliation, as well as transactions with thestate authorities are important. Language use foreach ethnic groups, domain and role -- relationshipshave to be specified. In the case where the extantsources provide some possibility for statisticalestimates, such estimates will be given. Theinformation will be presented in matrices, whichstart from the most general, with ethnic group andlanguage on the axes; these can be gradually "blownup" for their sub-sections to include greater detail.Ethnic group, particular place (such as city or villageconcerned),as well as chronological time (1912, 1850,etc.) and state in power (e. g. Ottoman Empire, YugoslavState) should be indicated. The first blown up matriceswill include the larger categories into which domainsare grouped, with the languages used in each of them.(See for example the matrices that follow on pages24. V.). In the third matricial representation ofgreater resolution, will be given one domain withits sub-domains or the role relationships within it,and on the other axis, the languages used. Thesource from which the information was extractedshould always be indicated. Incidentally, thisparticular coding will be used for informationextracted from extant sources of a historical,geographic, ethnological, anthropological, political,and other nature, which provide the desired informationaccidentally. Possible matrices With information have'been constructed by screening a limited number ofsources and are given in the appendix for illustrationpurposes. As an example of roles within a domain,we will take home. On the different cells of a rowwill be indicated the language used for a particularrow; such as shown along the cells of each column.For the domain of home, then, we have the rolesof father-mother, father-child, mother-child,

41,

child-child, and the reverse where pertinent, suchas child-mother, child-father, and mother-father (2).The domain of religion will have to yield the particularreligion, such as in our case, moslem, jewish,christian orthodox or catholic, orthodox patriarchate,as opposed to orthodox exarchate, and then withineach of those a breakdown by role relationship suchas priest-people (language of the sermon) or languageof the ritual part of the service (priest-God ?).

5. Diachronic and diatopic presentation

Most of the studies that have been done so faralong the sociolinguistic vein investigate languagechange as reflected in synchronic sociolinguisticprocesses. Few of them have really been diachronicover large increments of time and none has beenalong the lines of linguistic geography. (We can callsuch studies monotopic and monochronic. ) The abovepresentation paralleled by an equal presentation ofthe linguistic facts in matricial or any other form(e. g. the geographic convergence study by Afendras,1968, 1969b), can be used to find the covariance orcorrelation between the sociolinguistic variablesand the linguistic changes. We can then take fromthe sociolinguistic matrices, the same cell acrossdifferent points in space, or the same cell acrossdifferent points in time. We can, for instance,follow changes in the language of transaction withthe authorities, or in the language of religion, orin the language distribution and usage at home.A geographical distribution can be accompaniedby texts from the different domains (or if notavailable, any texts that are available) and withmeasures of interference or integration of elementsof another language. Of course, breakdown by domain

(2) Instances of linguistically asymmetric role-relationships are quite common.

for the text samples would be highly desirable, aswe know that interference varies with domain(3).A detailed analysis of the type of linguistic inter-ference such as the type of loaning (translation,shifting, direct loaning etc.) or interference onthe other linguistic levels can then be directlycorrelated with the sociolinguistic dimensions.

6. Some diachronic-diatopic work in Sociolinguistics

Emeneau (1961) took into considerationseveral of the sociolinguistic factors in hisdiachronic study of Beluchistan and at the same timeinformation from the India census which he used forstatistical calculations of bilingualism incidence. Hedid not attempt,however , a detailed diachronicsociolinguistic study. Rubin's work on Paraguayconcerned the sociolinguistic component but did notattempt a joint study of the sociolinguistic andlinguistic aspects. She did though present somesample texts and an analysis of the Guarani Spanishelements in them, as well as the Swadesh basic listin Guarani, with its Spanish loanwords.

The work of Sheldon Klein (1966, 1969),represents a pioneer effort in synthesizing the socio-demographic and linguistic aspects of language changeand bringing it to the "laboratory". His computersimulations reproduce conditions in a small. commu-nity (communication networks, events such as birth,death and marriage) and with a stochastic model

(3) Mackey (1962:69 ), Ma and Herasimchuk(1968:645).

"predict" language change towards a certain equi-librium (choice of particular syntactic rules.) _

7. Nature of sociolinguistic and linguistic dataon the Macedorumanians

As mentioned above (section 5), severalworks of diverse nature are available, which giveaccidental information on the sociolinguistics ofthe Macedorumanian nomads in the Balkans.As illustrated in the present paper, this informationcan be coded in rather fashionable attire, in spiteof its extraction from works of respectable age.For data on linguistic variation across space, thereare available studies of t1-5e local dialects, althoughin a rather difficult form k4). The Macedorumanians,speaking a language akin to Rumanian, (consideredby some scholars merely a Sub-Danubian dialectof Rumanian) were, until very recently, sheep-herding nomads living in the central Balkans. Fromtheir semi-permanent mountain villages, (on Pindus,Gramos etc. ) they migrated seasonally to the plains(mostly in what is now Greek, Albanian, and YugoslavMakedonia, where they spent the fall, winter andspring months. During these migrations they cameinto contact with the other populations in the plains.As soon as the weather permitted, they returnedto their mountain villages, where they spent someof the spring, summer and fall months. Theircontacts with the other populations took placeduring numerous religious festivals in some of the

(4) See works of Weigand, Capidan, Caragiu-Marioteanu etc.

7

cities neighboring their areas. Their commercialtransactions with the surrounding populace wereintensive and centered around the marketing oftheir products, such as cheese, sheep, blanketsand related items manufactured in their villages.Muleteering throughout the Balkans was also intheir hands since the 6th Century A. D. (Waceand Thomson, 1914-256) and thus they were inconstant contact with the other ethnic groups.From early times, quite a few Macedorumanianssettled in many of the Balkan cities, notablySalonica, Prizren, Skopia, even as far southas Athens. Numbers of them also immigratedto Rumania, and far away central and eastEuropean countries(5). Their traditional routesof nomadic migration, as well as the intensityof the contacts and the time spent in the areaswhere they migrated, have been documentedwith various degrees of accuracy and clarity.Due to historical changes in the Balkans in thiscentury, their ecology and their pattern of lifehave been upset completely and now after rapidacculturation to the dominant states and culturesbetween which they have been divided, they aredisappearing. Where before within the bordersof the Turkish state they could migrate acrossplains and mountains, fragmentation of theBalkans into the sovereign states of Greece,Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia has raisedimpassable political frontiers before theirnomadic moves. Moreover, the trend towardsubarnization and industrialization in the Balkan

(5) In the recent decades a strong migratory currentto America has developed, with the Massachusettsarea as the main target.

/0

states has attracted many of them to the cities whereacculturation is always more rapid.

The most important sociolinguistic componentsfor the study of the Macedorumanians are those ofreligion, sex, profession and locale. The role oftheir women in preserving the paternal languageand customs has been stressed repeatedly inscholarly works this and last century. Therefore,the study of their intermarriage patterns (endogamy-exogamy) is most important for understanding theirpast and future acculturation process, and morespecifically their language maintenance. Furthermore,since their particular professions were what determinedcontacts with the outside communities of Greek, Slavicor Albanian speakers, occupation must form an im-portant component of the Macedorumanian sociolinguisticmatrix. As during the Turkish domination, religion wasthe one factor of classification of non-Turkish subjects,national or linguistic criteria played a very small roleuntil last century. With the Macedorumanians thissituation continued well into the 20th century and religionwas what determined their exogamic practices. Beforelanguage and ethnic awareness, the intimate connectionbetween religion and education in the Balkans in muchof their history added to the forces of acculturation.This pattern changed only recently.

8. In search of a model: social diffusion anc1-alAcmigration

The nature of the subject suggests the applicationof a certain type of mathematical model that has been oftenused in sociological research. Namely the models for thestudy of diffusion of innovation, both along space and within

AelAMENIOW

/1

a social structure,and the migration models seemquite appropriate.

The early models utilised in studies of socialdiffusion were based on a simple theory of mechanicalcontagion, similar to the models for the spread ofepidemics. It is obvious that social diffusion,andeven more so linguistic diffusion require much morecomplex models.

Among the most successful attempts at amathematical model of diffusion, lies the work ofRapoport. In the early stages, Rapoport used a verysimple situation. He assumed a collection of individualsdistributed in an amorphous social space. A messageof unspecified content is introduced and then communicatedby one individual to another in a totally random fashion.No structure is assumed whatsoever for this socialgroup, no obstacles and no networks of communication.Gradually, such conditions (obstacles etc. ) are introduced,which complicate the model and approximate realitycloser. It should be stressed that Rapoport's model isinductive in that observations of actual diffusion servedto make the theoretical adjustments to his model. Thefollowing are some of the restrictions introduced tothe free model outlined above. First, that an individualbelongs to a group within which he makes all his contacts.(This condition will have to be changed in our case aswhat really interests us is the contact with individualsbelonging to another group. ) Next, a hypothesis, ismade that the number of group members is muchhigher than the contacts an individual can make. Otherconditions are gradually introduced, such as theprobability of an individual having been informed(contacted) by a certain time -- through anotherindividual; the probability of the latter having beeninformed prior to the time of the contact, and so on.In our particular instance, the Macedorumanian nomads

or any other instance of linguistic diffusion(6).Additional restraints would have to be introduced,reflecting structural resistance, "holes in thepattern", Sapir's "drift" or any other purelylinguistic forces at work (Klein, 1966:67, 68).

In this particular case study, some waywould have to be devised to represent the periodiccontacts of the Macedorumanians or any othergroup with the group speaking the "other language",as well as the intensity of these contacts. Thisintroduces a new dimension and social modelsexist which can be immediately applied. Thenew dimension is the distance to the differentareas to which the Macedorumanians migratedperiodically (see map of nomadic migrationsin appendix). The social or geographic modelsto be considered can be utilised in two ways.First, for the migration itself, then for theprobability of mutual influence among thelanguages in contact. The following is anillustration with the simplest such model available.The model was proposed by Zipf and is one of theleast known among linguists, although gewaphersand sociologists are quite familiar with it).Zipf proposed that the amount of interaction betweentwo cities is proportional to P1 P2 , where P1 and

DP2 represent the populations of the two cities and Drepresents the closest distance after consideration

(6) Simple tests of the model can examine the spreadof particular slang or other technical words withina group or across groups.

(7) It seems that the hypothesis was formulated original4rlong before Zipf, in 1858 (Olsson, 1965 :44).

of all means of transportation. This model is notvery powerful as it does not take into considerationany of the social, economic or administrative factors.However, it can be used as a starting point, inmodeling the language distance factor for incorporationinto the linguistic diffusion model. P2 in this casecould represent number of phonemes or number ofwords in a lexicon, or any such unit. Of course, thedifficulties involved in this particular applicationbecause of the structural relationships in languageare even more severe than those involved in theapplication of the model to the study of migration.A more successful model was proposed by Stouffer,(1940, 1960) in which the process is examined interms of migration of opportunities available tothe migrant, according to both geographic distanceand his membership in a particular social class.This model is mathematically extremely simple(8).Finally, a very ingenious model displays qualitieswhich would render it applicable to linguisticstudies. It was first proposed by Hagerstrand ina simulation of diffusion of particular culturalitems in an area in Sweden based on density ofcommunication between different points in thisgeographic area. Hagerstrand divides his areainto geographic cells for which density of populationand communication was defined on the basis offrequency of telephone calls across differentpoints and migratory movements of the population.

(8) In general lines, Stouffer proposed that the numberof people migrating a certain distance is proportionalto: opportunities available at that distance

opportunities available within a lesser distance.

Thus probability of contact between the differentcells could be calculated.

In his later models Hagerstrand introducedadditional considerations such as, unevenness intheir population distribution, as well as a varietyof influences and physical obstacles. The abovemodels can be applied to a study of linguisticdiffusion in cases like that of the Macedorumaniansbut also in any other case of multilingual setting inseveral ways, first of all purely for the study oflinguistic diffusion as an innovation, second forthe study of the populations which are involved andtheir migratory patterns, and third it can beapplied in a rather metaphorical sense to the studyof the vocabularies. In other words, we can apply themigration model but this time its units would takenot human individuals but words. Here, instead oftwo ethnic groups with social sub-groups, obstacles,etc., we have two word populations, (that is, thelexicon of the two languages in contact), with theirexisting sub-structures of words definable by centerof interest or word class, and so on. (This again isanalogous to social structure in which classes doenter in complex inter-relations.) A loan then wouldbe an "individual" migrating into the other populationof words, entering another group and being integratedinto it. This model can be incorporated into thesociodemographic model and tested with real data.As opportunities we can define the cultural distancebetween the two groups in contact. In the specificexample of the Maceclorumanians, we can study viathe preceding sociolinguistic analysis, the domains,topics, and roles in which code switching onto Greek,or Slavic, or Albanian occurs. From these centersof interest so defined and lexical sub-structures thatare related to them, we can thus derive an index ofopportunity for loan-words into this particular centerof interest. As data, we can use loan-words in twolanguages in contact as for instance, English and

/6"

French in Canada, Macedorumanian and Greek inthe Balkans, etc. Creole languages can also beanalyzed in this particular way. We can perhapsderive a function over-time saturation of thelexicon of one language with words of anotherlanguage, the two languages being in contact.

9. Conclusions

In this paper, different methods of analysisof contact situations and diffusion models have beenreviewed. These can be studied further and combinedinto an overall model of language contact and languageconvergence resulting from bilingualism. The variousdimensions such as, linguistic structure, socio-linguistic distribution, space and time can be incorp-orated into the study of ongoing processes, as well asprediction future and historical, that is, reconstruct-ion of past sociolinguistic situations.

10. Additional notes

1. Years of "contact" and possible points forword transfer in the two lexicons (corresponding tothe quotation "opportunities" in the migration model)will be defined by a careful analysis of the languagedistribution by domain: this will pinpoint the topic -listener - speaker interaction and will enable us toassign the opportunity values.

2. Models of multilingual communication inunder -developed and other communities, based onthe above exposition can be used in language planningpolicy, as they can calculate or define the commun-icative efficiency on the social and national level ofparticular linguistic codes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For a more complete Bibliography on Balkan linguistic conver-gence, see Afendras (1968, 1.969b).

1. Afendras, Evangelos A. 1968 The Balkans as a LinguisticArea: A Study in PhonologicalConvergence. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation. The Johns HopkinsUniversity, Baltimore.

2. 1969a Stability of a Bilingual Situationand Arumanian Bilingualism.Paper read at the annual meetingof the Canadian Linguistic Asso-ciation, Toronto, June 1969.

3. 1969b Mathematical Models for BalkanPhonological Convergence. Paperprepared for the Third Internat-ional Conference on ComputationalLinguistics, Sa.nga-Saby, Sweden,September 1-4, 1969. (PreprintNo. 56 of papers).

4.

5.

6. Birnbaum, Henrik

1969c Quantification of Balkan Phonolog-ical Distribution. Paper preparedfor the second annual meeting ofthe Societas Linguistica Europaea,Vienna, September 6, 1969.

1969d On Bilingualism and LanguageStructure: a Review, a Case, aSynthesis, Culture Vol. 30, No 4,December 1969, pp. 310-322.

1966 On Typology, Affinity, and BalkanLinguistics. Zb. za filologiju ilinguistiku. IX 17-30. Novi Sad.

9. Blanc, Haim

10. Boudon, Raymond

1968 Slavjanskije jazyki na Balka-nax i ponjatije tak nazyjemyx jazykovyx sojuzov.Glossa, Vol. 2-1, 70-92.

1969 Deep Structure and TypologicalLinguistics. Unpublished manus-cript.

1964 Communal Dialects in Baghdad_ .

Harvard Middle EasternMonographs. X. Cambridge, Mass.

1967 L'Analyse mathematique des faitssociaux. Pan's, Plon (Recherchesen sciences humaines, No. 21)especially Ch. 8, "Processussociaux: modeles d'analyseparticuliers."

11. Bright, William (ed.) 1966 Sociolinguistics. Mouton, TheHague.

12. 1966a Introduction: the dimensions ofsociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistics,W. Bright (ed.), Mouton, TheHague 11-15.

13. Caragiu-MarioteM. . 1964 Phonologie aroumaine. RevueRoumaine de Linguistique, IX,534-547.

14.

15. Civ'jan, T.V.

1968 Fono-Morfologie Aromig:Studiu de Dialectologie Structural.,Bucure§ti.

1966 Imja suMestritel'noje v balkanskixjazykax (:k strukturno-tipologideskijxarakteristike balkanskogo jazykovogosojuza). Moscow, Akademija-Nauk.

16. Diebold, A. Richard 1961a Incipient Bilingualism. Lg. 27:97-112.

17. 1961b A Laboratory for LanguageContact. AL.

18. Emeneau, M. B. 1956 India as a Linguistic Area.Lg 32: 3-16.

19. 1962 Bilingualism and StructuralBorrowing. Proceedings of theAmerical Philosophical Society.106.5: 430-442.

20. Ferguson, C. 1959 Diglossia. Word 15: 325-340.

21. Fishman, Joshua 1966 Language Loyalty in the UnitedStates. Mouton, The Hague.

22. 1967 Bilingualism With and WithoutDiglossia; Diglossia With andWithout. Bilingualism. Journalof Social Issues, Vol. 23, 29-38.

23.

24. Gotta)), Z.

25. Gumperz, John E.

26.

1968 Bilingualism in the Barrio.(2 Vols.) U.S. Dept. of Health,Education and Welfare.

1959 Some Arumanian-MacedonianIsogrammatisms and the SocialBackground of their Development.Word 15.415-435.

1966 On the Ethnology of LinguisticChange. In Bright 1966: 27-49(incl. discussion.)

1967 On the Linguistic Markers ofBilingual Communication. Journalof Social Issues, Vol. 23.48-57.

c".

27. Hagerstrand, Torsten 1965 A Monte Carlo Approach toDiffusion. Archives europeennesde sociologie1 6.43-67.

28. Haugen, Einar I. 1953 The Norwegian Language inAmerica: a Study in BilingualBehavior, 2 Vols. (Philadelphia,University of Pennsylvania Press. )

29. 1956 Bilingualism in the Americas:a Bibliography and ResearchGuide. (The American DialectSociety, University of Alabama.)

30. 1957 Language Contact. Proceedingsof the VIII International Congressof Linguists, 1957, 771-785.

31. 1966 Introduction to Fishman 1966.

32. Hymes, Dell H.

33. Jakobson, R.

34.

35.

36.

37.

1967 Models for the Interaction ofLanguage and Social Setting.Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 23.8-28.

1931 Kxarakteristike levrazijskogo jazykovogoSojuza. Reprinted in: Selected Writings I,117-136.

1931 bber die phonologischen Sprachblinde,in S.W. I. 137-143.

1938 Sur la theorie des affinites phonologiquesentre les langues. S.W. I, 234-246.

1961 Results of the Congress. Proceedingsof the 9th International Congress ofLinguistics, Mouton, 1962, 1135-42,especially p. 1139.

1967 C.G. Fant and M. Halle. Preliminariesto Speech Analysis. 7th printing.Cambridge, M.I. T. Press.

38. Kazazis, Kostas

39.

40. Klein, S.

41.

42. Kloss, Heinz

43. Labov, William

44. Ma, Roxana andHerasimchuk, Eleanor

45. Mackey, W.F.

1965 Some Balkan ConstructionsCorresponding to W. EuropeanInfinitives. Unpublished Ph. D.Thesis, Indiana University,Bloomington.

1967 On a Generative Grammar ofthe Balkan Languages. Foun-dations of Language. 3.117-123.Dordrecht.

1966 Historical Change in LanguageUsing Monte Carlo Techniques.Mechanical Translation, Vol. 9.

M.A. Kuppin and K . A. Meives,1969. Monte Carlo Simulationof Language Change in Tikopiaand Maori. Third InternationalConference on ComputationalLinguistics, Singa-Saby, Sept.1969 (preprint No. 21).

1966 Types of Multilingual Commu-nities, a discussion of ten variables.Sociological Inquiry 36.2

1966 The _Social Stratification of Englishin New York City. Washington,D.C., C.A. L.

1968 Linguistic dimensions of a bilingualneighborhood. In: Fishman 1968.636-835.

1953 Bilingualism and Linguistic Structure.Culture 14: 143-149.

46. 1962 The Description of Bilingualism,CJL 51-85.

47. 1965 Bilingual Interference: its Analysisand Measurement, The Journal ofCommunication, 15.4: 239-249.

48.

49. Neiescu, Petru

50. Olsson, Gunnar

51. Papaevgheniott, A.'.

52. Pavlovid, Milivoj

53. Petrovici, E. andNeiescu, P.

54. Rapoport, Anatol

55.

"56.

1969 Concept Categories as Measuresof Culture Distance, CIRB,U. Laval.

1965 Recherches dialectales chezles Roumains Sub-Danubiens.Revue roumaine de linguistique,Vol. 10.229-238.

1966 Distance and Human Interaction.Regional Science ResearchInstitute, Philadelphia (BibliographySeries No. 2 ).

1945 Voreios HellastMeionotites apoStatistikis apopseos en skheseixn e ton plithysmon /al tinekpaidheusin. Thessaloniki.

1958 Les processus balkanistiques etla perspective du parler serbe dePrizren. Orbis 7:46-53.

1965 Persistence des flats linguistiques.Constatations faites a l'occasionde nouvelles enquetes dialectaleschez les istro-roumains, megleno-roumains et aroumains. RRL, X-4

1951 Nets with distance bias, Bulletinof mathematical biophysics, XIII,85-91.

1953a Spread of information through apopulation with socio-structuralbias: I. Assumption of transivity,Bulletin of mathematical bio-physics, XV, 523-533.

1953b Spread of information through apopulation with socio-structuralbias: II.Various models with partialtransitivity, Bulletin of mathematicalbiophysics, XV, 535-546.

57. Recatas, Basile

58. Rubin, Joan

59. Sandfeld, K.

60. Sankoff, Gillian

1934 L'etat actuel du bilinguismechez les Macedoroumainsdu Pinde et le role de lafemme dans le langage.Paris, Droz.

1968 National Bilingualism inParaguay. Mouton, The Hague.

1932 Linguistique balkaniquie.Problemes et resultats. Paris.

1968 Social Aspects of Multilingualismin New Guinea. Ph. D. Thesis,McGill University, Montreal.

61. Stouffer, Samuel 1940 Intervening opportunities: atheory relating mobility anddistance. American SociologicalReview, 5.845-867. (Reprintedin: Stouffer 1962:69-91).

62. 1960 Intervening opportunities andcompeting migrants. Journalof regional science, 2:1-26.(Reprinted in Stouffer 1962:91-112).

63. 1962 Social Research to Test Ideas.Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press.

v.64. Sirokov, O.S. 1964 Voprosy balkanskogo vtoritnogo

jazykovogo rodstva (primenenijeStatistiki v diaxrontheskoj fonologii),in Problemy sravnitel'noj grammatikiindojevropejskix jazykov. Nauenajasessija. Tezisy dokladov. Moscow.68-69.

65. Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1928 Proposal 16 in First InternationalCongress of Linguists, Actes p. 17 f.

66. Wace, A. J. B. andThompson, M. S.

1914 The Nomads of the Balkans.An Account of Life and Customsamong the Vlachs of NorthernPindus. Methuen & Co., London.

67. Weinreich, U. 1953 Languages in Contact. New York.

68.

69.

1957 Research Frontiers in BilingualismStudies. Proceedings of the 8thInternational Congress of Linguistics,786-810. (Including discussion. T.--

1958 On the compatibility of geneticrelationship and convergentdevelopment. Word 14, 374-379.

In this illustration several matrices are shown which definea three dimensional space:

ethnic group

> language

4\4\444religion

In similar fashion can be represented domains, role, relationsor any other variables.

Place PrizrenYear 195

Official State: k.t,tg,, Fed. Po Rep'

Zs"

lMfg' Alban. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk.Other

Arab.

Minn. group)(Alban.

Arum.

Gk.

Slay.

Turk. .

Other

( CvyPsY

Arab.

Source: POL V 10 vi (Vise)Notes : Glavt = Mokedonski Q Ser6+col

Ethnic Group ..

Place ..

Year .

Official State:

A ruirnotn s

3atharinct(1911-)

011-ovnan Ernplce,

Domain - Language

Key matrix

anguagedomain Alb. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk.

Other

Rum.Arab.

State

Religion

Home X

School XProfession(work) x X i)<

Mass media X X X ? X

Neighborhood

.

Other (locale)

Other (

Source: 1N1 ace ay)18 "Thotenpsor) Oct 14

Note: Re ti ion cerla School in boig DoicoRuvnconZant) D-Rum. Ltsaee iy)4roduceis atdeossie etemen-t- (J Cergu..sOn'S LISage).

Source:

Notes.:

Domain Blow-up

Ethnic group : Arumanians

Place : Samarina

Year : 1911 (from 1815 to-)

Official State: Turkish State (Ottoman Empire)

Alb. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk.

State X X

27

ruling groupAlb. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk.

X

official lang.

.

(X?)

legal docum.,

X.

transactionswith authorities X (X?)

other(public speech) X

Wace and Thompson (1914:70,155)

"One Sunday we heard a young Turk officer make a speech in Greek to theassembled village after Church on the benefits and ideals of the OttomanConstitution."'(70).

one man Yannuli al Mlha al Hadzhi, ,.. was.., recognised by thegovernment as the headman of the village He is said to have usedthe following phrase: e.'CO T154 Eapapivng HpocaTa4 riavvoiAnC taxoy $e0a115610t TN kblV6TTITa..41" (p. 155).

Domain-Blow-up

Ethnic group : Arumanians

Place Samarina

Year : 1911 (from 1815 to-)

Official State: Turkish State (Ottoman Empire)

el

home Alb. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk. Other Arab.

i

fa. - mo. )(

fa. - ch. )(

mo. - ch. )4

ch. - ch. )4

Source: Weace asnd TV\ovyreson Octtl.)Note: The reverse could also be indicated:

mo. fa., ch. - fa., ch. - mo., etc.

29

Place

Year

lang. ou

Sar Planina

1959 -Official State: Yug. Fed. Pop. Rep.

Ethnic

lang.Alban. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk. ,Otherl Arab.

groupAlban.

Arum.

Gk.

Slay.

Turk. .

Other

(.

Arab.

ti

Source: Gokab (1959 :423)ti

Notes : . all Albanian men from the age of fifteen know tie Macedon-. ian dialect or the Serbian language ... and use it in linguistic

communication with the Mac. Slay. popul. , above all in thepazar (market) or as the hired shepherds... Albanians haveno prestige..."

30

1, r4ac hear ringcz+binic Oc%outp--eo+hNc t- up

Place : tJ es A- Macedon la CYLtzYear Fc.ovn 46 e at!' CeM)Official State: ( NAtg, Ced, P9tp% Ree.)

e-i-hyl.or, Alban. Arum. Gk. Slay. Turk. Other(Gyps.

el-11,h. (N.

Alban.

Arum.

Gk.

Slay. X/Turk.

Other( &ypsy) .

Source: G0f1)419 0959 4231Notes : Ai b.:Laicoss:_y_

,/;kaiiie,s close. ..4-o A110,itIO l*° e-ta

T 4.-4-k1 divided4-woeenct 0

Place

Year

in4evenat"riape.hinigc c-Nou

Official State:

Ici SS

(Yug - Ped, Pop. 124).)

r% Alban. Arum, Gk, Slay. Turk,Other(GypG.

Alban.

Arum.

Gk.

Slay.

Turk..

Other

( °Y9SY

.

.

Source:

Notes :

Vcaviovi6 (kcIEE3= 49)

202I

Cot

tG

ree-

rtw

ith-

MA

P U

42

cv%

toSC

UT

AR

I.I

.

PR

IZR

%

.

; ND

Ku.

m.a

novo

USK

U

gri.-.

alon

a

AL

1P

ic

'IC. .4

..+. I

t 9

,J1

74

_FA

RM

q_-

4Ie

.c`)

-'.ue

..

--.

- R

1.-

-. N

s)(

1b

;nun

-Zito

.'. a

.w

---r

-t-

R1,.,ifik

46.

I,46

,... ...

..

..4--

.. -1

....r

"x. . ./.

.

.

, AM

A

'I..

o -

.i i

.ii

w.

..0 4 .

._ .....

-

f.

des

-

s

0 Pirt

epe

NA

ST

. + P 4 %1g

1 1:4

..4**

*..1

1

/41-

_-

4.

-flr

..4.,

it."i

.60

o,tip

4".+

LeU

rtir

atsp

.,,.

sevg

Nul

lte-4

::.1-

"-.-

...4

.,..4

.P.F

.... .

.,..-

..t.::

4

.i... .'t

rA.

....,.

.L

Iri

t wi.1

5:4

%tr

ekS

' -

Vii:

, :.7

..0

v0.

:-0

,e.X

R.,:

e.4

....

.p; -

HL

-s. s

ar

.SE

RE

SvA

0eSh

"--;

;?-;

?::,-

-:'-'

;:::1

11-.

.,

--.fl

..-

12r,

'DU

RA

ZZ

O-

. .;%:-

!..:

,-2

:ta..-

4..1

.-,

,,v.-

:-.-

:- i-Z

...

%'

Isto

kL

unko

.,..

1.,*

- ...

...--

.4.

,..r :-

T-.

.-

q 4.

.25

vo.

.,-,

i4...

..tr

i"-:

-'.::

:ev

--

;cu.

. -4.

1.-

;:%;

. s-

-it. .144

i4

e.;: ..:

hta.

g°91

.anL

-(0

911'

a

-v,e

::.: 4

%,

...io

.

---.

..K

VA

LA

_.; .

..s

:. .

4...I

.-g

---

--...

; ---

s: 4

2 %

..;..1

,":

:'.:F

.: it

--4:

: !;

%It

cop

Piso

deri

,.'x : - t

.:+ --

---

Sr...

.If

.i7gl

inta

r.:::

!:::';

'.-:::

...

:%%

.:,-.

..,

.''

.1..

.7...

"'.'

: :t

.::.1

1.' r

11.4

% :

:..-

!...

.t..

s....

45

!..i.

..1:1

' % s

**...

,

.;.°

. );Pl

."k

-Mus

larc

po

;tee

amol

_ , .

.D

ensk

-cil

4.

.:.6:

;.;%

":V

t ;%

:iFrO

Shen

....

f.l.

*:--

t: "-

:.-.

r -i

:--:

-Ise

..;.

1*

. ."5

' NP

-V.

, .4.

- -**

I:-

..ti:

**g

...'.,

.:71 -=

'.=;

.

=--

'-.

e.!:

:.,!.

% .?

'-' B

'e-

'-i'..

..:...

...v.

:.:-

;.

..)-.

...-.

.: .

...

----

..-S

AL

ON

IC

.--,

t (...

......

...--

:

--: e

l.:-:

::NID

.I

AA

:.;;::

:.:..

.. ..

.lig

stim

adi

4is

Kat

erin

i.6- 0

riiiiC

ahot

ivac

lla-.,

ad

:. .

ID

iZel

xino

4.

1 e.I

I1

M1.

...t.

.X'

I

...ie

.'...

s ...

,:.D

hisk

atce

e-

!.

. _.; ,

,.....

...1

Y.4

.-.

'-O

tt FR

ON

%--

-1.

tr.

i7)

0,..

...' .

f..

I.,;

:ar

,,

_

-V.1

4144

i:;t:.

...; Z

iaa

"...

..:,,t

--A

-,.z

..e.

s ;,

..- -

,--.

!,:-

....-

--4.

-1.-

----

..T

RIK

KA

Lite

:!.:.

1.:4

,.,.--

"0 0

:4::!

::::::

Nzk

orri

l,44

::1:::

.3!.

.Fig

atSt

a

.....1

,...

<1

C"

..z.k

g .

0rt

ru,

I' -4..

-it

,05

%.

c. B

.Y

AN

NIN

4.L

AR

ISSA

7_.

5i.r

peon

es..

.:

so E

nglis

h, M

d.G

.Ifr

o2

Ifc

ale

abou

t2

22.

050.

000

SKE

TC

H M

AP

OF

TH

E S

OU

TH

ER

N B

AL

KA

NS

'TH

E P

RIN

CIP

AL

VLA

CH

AR

EA

S A

RE

IND

ICA

TE

D R

V D

OT

S

Rep

rodu

ced

from

Wac

e an

d T

hom

son

Nom

ads

of th

e B

alka

ns.

6o7o

80

90 to

o K

ilom

etre

//S

o