Search

Recent studies in contact linguistics have emphasized the aspect of language-internal grammaticalization that is triggered by accommodation to an external (contact-language) model (e.g. Heine and Kuteva, 2005). This is based on the notion that speakers make use of the available resources in order to match them to those of the target language. A problematic issue is contact-induced change in the domain of case representation. Synthetic case markers are usually thought of as fully grammaticalized morphemes. If contact-induced grammaticalization is, as Heine and Kuteva suggest, much like monolingual grammaticalization, unidirectional, how do we treat instances of rearrangement of the semantic meaning and scope of case markers? I will discuss this problem by examining a sample of Romani dialects, belonging to the so-called Northeastern dialect group (see Matras, 2002). Relying on specific constructions, like Subject of Negative Existence, External Possession, Privative, Partitive etc., I will compare and contrast the Northeastern dialects with their respective contact languages (Russian and Polish). Using semantic maps, I will demonstrate how the Romani dialects in question restructure their case representation system to accommodate to the systems of the model languages, and will discuss what it is exactly that gets equated when two languages come into contact.

Itämeren alueen romanikielen murteissa esiintyy vaihtelua. Tätä vaihtelua on pyritty historiallisesti liittämään murteiden geneettisellä suhteella tai murrepiirteiden maantieteellisellä diffuusiolla. Tässä artikkelissa esittelemme Itämeren alueen romanikielen murteiden vaihtelun analyysin olemassa olevien lähteiden perusteella ja argumentoimme maantieteellisen diffuusion puolesta.

The year 2006 saw the first attempt to conduct fieldwork in Romani linguistics in Ukraine using the RMS questionnaire, which was enhanced with ethnographic questions compiled in cooperation with ethnographers studying Romani culture. This article serves as a preliminary field report. Three types of dialect found in Ukraine will be contrasted with those described by Barannikov (1934). In addition, the various dialects of Ukraine will be categorised according to the classification system presented in Matras (2002). From a comparison of ethnographic and linguistic data from Ukraine it is apparent that the divisions based on dialectal differences do not correspond exactly with the divisions between the names applied to the groups. Accordingly, I would like to raise the question of the relative weight that linguistic and non-linguistic factors have in defining Romani groups.

International audience; Language contact is to a great extent constitutive of Romani. In particular, Romani is associated with some cross-linguistically rare outcomes as it exhibits ‘heavy’ borrowing in both lexicon and grammar. Over the past decades, exploration of Romani dialects has given rise to new concepts, especially in the search for explanations for the emergence of mixed languages, either through substantial replication of paradigms leading to compartmentalization or through near wholesale retention of lexicon after language shift.

International audience; The chapter presents an overview of the principal syntactic-typological features of Romani dialects, building on Matras (2002, Chapter 7) and drawing on a representative sample from the Romani Morpho-Syntax (RMS) database including free-speech recordings from RMS and the Pangloss Collection. The chapter is informed by cross-linguistic studies in syntactic typology, as represented by the entries of the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) and other selected typological works and covers features including linear order in the noun phrase, constituent order in the verb phrase, possession and external possession and complex clauses.