CC BY
29
On the importance of borrowing
IN THE LANGUAGES OF THE BALKAN LINGUISTIC AREA1
One of the most well-known theses of Balkan linguistics has been that the convergent unity of Balkan languages is seen mainly on the grammatical (syntactical and morphosyntactical) level, so that moving from one Balkan language to another one can observe lexical and inflectional changes, while “the manner of expression” remains the same. There have been differencing views regarding the lexicon: on the one hand, the various Balkan languages possess different lexical sets, while on the other hand, there are no specifically Balkan lexical features. Therefore, since Miklosich traditional Balkan linguistics has paid attention mainly to lexical borrowings from one Balkan language into another, or to those borrowed from any external non-Balkan language. Both types of borrowings have provided considerable evidence regarding the character and degree of interference between the Balkan languages and has finally allowed us to reconstruct some aspects of the history of linguistic interaction in the region. But it was Sandfeld who directed our attention to significant inter-Balkan uniformity due to copious words of Greek and Turkic origin common to every language of the peninsula, reminiscent to a certain degree of the unity ascribed to Western European languages due to Latin borrowings. Furthermore, the significant number of Romance, Slavic and substrata lexical items, which has been added by later research to the list of common Balkan elements, has impressively confirmed the long-term cultural symbiosis of the ethnic groups living in the Balkans. Investigating lexical borrowings between or into Balkan
1 I am deeply grateful to J. Daniel Humphries (Chicago) for correcting my English in this paper.
languages usually does not exceed the bounds of the classical paradigm for comparative-historical linguistics. The following aspects are central to this investigation: (1) reconstructing extralinguistic conditions of the borrowing process (or contact); (2) establishing the sources of borrowing; (3) estimating the degree of influence of one language upon another; (4) dating borrowings based on phonetic or areal criteria; (5) revealing borrowing methods and the role of language-intermediaries; and (6) disclosing the common Balkan or local dialectal character of borrowings.
Two issues are of vital importance for reconstructing the extralinguistic conditions of borrowing in the Balkan region: the time when speakers of a given Balkan language appeared in their respective part of the area, and the territory occupied by speakers of the donating and recipient languages during the various historical periods.
It is presumed that Latin and Greek became neighbor languages by the first centuries A. D. due to the Romanization of the northern Balkans. The question regarding the value of the cultural and language border between these two high-culture languages (Hochkultur-sprachen) - Latin in the north and Greek in the south — arose, after Jirecek established this border, later known as Jirecek-line in 1901. The modern view is that this “border” should be imagined as a broad buffer zone in which the Greek and Latin were not in direct contact: for a long time one spoke Illyrian in the western part of this buffer zone, and Thracian in the east of it. While Latin gained a foothold as the language of administration and education in the South, Greek and the Greek city culture only nominally penetrated north of this buffer zone and did not significantly influence the way of life there (e.g., that of Illyrians living in present-day southern Albania). Great attention is paid to the question of possible presence of other ethnic groups in the territory, where a given Balkan language was based in the past. Thus, e.g., historical data asserting that Traian colonized Dacia ex toto orbe romano, and, therefore with Greeks, can be produced. Another example is the question of the role of the hence vanished Romance population in influencing neighbouring languages.
Using linguistic data the following observations can be made. The concentration of toponyms of Latin origin in the mountainous areas of northern Albania, alongside the presence of certain Greek borowings in the northern Albanian Tosk dialect which are absent in the southern Tosk dialect, testifies to the autochtonicity of Albanians in the
northern part of their current territory and substantiates their later migrations to the south. Based on investigating Slavic toponyms in Albania, it is widely thought that the Balkan Slavs settled chiefly in the lowlands and river valleys, while the indigenous population remained in the mountains. Some Slavic borrowings, present in Aromanian, but absent in Daco-Romanian, indicate independent contacts of Aromanians with Slavs in Macedonia and thus perhaps supports Aromanian autochtonicity south of the Jirecek-line. Greek borrowings in Croatian dialects in Dalmatia provide evidence for past Greek cultural centers there from the period of Byzantian domination. Romance borrowings indicate Dalmatinian-Croatian contacts.
The standard point of view is that contiguous languages have a greater influence on one another vis-a-vis non-contiguous ones. Thus, languages in direct contact with Greek (Albanian, Bulgarian and Aromanian) contain the most Greek borrowings. From a reverse perspective, a large number of mutual borrowings between languages non-adjacent today indicates past contacts. The dialectal limitations on the spread of influence are considered to be of great importance, e.g., most Albanian borrowings in Greek are concentrated in northern Greek dialects and Slavic influence on Greek is geographically limited to Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly. As a result, neither Albanian nor Slavic elements have thorougly infiltrated Greek. On the other hand, the impossibility of exact etymological attribution of common lexical items (e.g., in the case of Romanian and Albanian) can provide evidence for mutual and simultaneous development resulting from symbiosis of both ethnic groups in the past, or to their common substratum.
Estimating the degree of influence of one language on another is based on both extralinguistic and linguistic factors. Traditional historical linguistics used the relative level of development of cultures in contact with one another as an extralinguistic criterion. So, by this method it was assumed that Greek culture had a higher level of development than its neighbors. Likewise, Albanian culture was considered underdeveloped because of the small number of borrowings from Albanian into other languages. Another extra-linguistic criterion was the social attribution of a given borrowing to the lexicon of the aristocracy or that of the “common people” (it is interesting that Balkan Latin in many cases was not the source for military, legal or political terminology). One of the core linguistic indicators for strong or weak influence is the presence or absence of 236
borrowed verbs or sinsemantic words. Using this as a factor, Greek and Turkic influence on Slavic or Albanian is considered strong, while the reverse influence is both weak and limited to Northern Greece. The same applies to the so-called “elementary” words: Slavic influence on Romanian was concidered strong due to the borrowing of such words meaning “expensive” or “rich”. Simple quantitative calculations of borrowed lexical items in available Balkan language dictionaries have also been made (e.g., the percentage of Greek borrowings in Aromanian is 27%).
Finally, a semantic analysis of lexicon and classification in thematic groups was conducted. Greek influence is seen “in all spheres of material and moral life”, Aromanian is present in pastoral terminology, Slavic has chiefly donated animal and plant names, in addition to pastoral terminology, and Albanian has borrowed cultural plant and tool names from Greek. Many Latin borrowings into Slavic relate to “house construction”, and it is thought that the Slavs used the corresponding technical knowledge of the Romance-speaking population. Greek borrowings into the Turkish dialects of Anatolia probably attest to the Turks’ transition from a nomadic to a settled way of life.
In any case, the following question regarding the direction of borrowing can be raised: why does a given borrowing occur in a given semantic sphere of one Balkan language, while in others it does not? Contemporary research on the Balkan lexicon cannot ignore the question of the relative penetrability of various levels of lexical structure for external influence. The phenomena of language interference can be considered as the result of two opposing forces: stimulus of interference and resistance to it. It is necessary to ascertain the hierarchy of penetrability of language levels and the various sections of these levels. In the field of the dictionary, e.g., it is necessary to determine the relative penetrability for borrowings of various lexico-semantic groups. Any distinction between two systems can work as a structural stimulus of lexical interference, e.g., the absence of corresponding distinctions in the donating language, or structural weaknesses in the dictionary of the recipient language. But how can we define the grade of a lexical system’s internal integrity? What we can do is measure the shape of the area which is affected by a given influence in a given language, and carry out a comparison with other areas and other languages, thus answering the question:
which systemic role is played in each lexico-semantic group by inherited, indigenous elements and which role is played by borrowed ones?
The essential problem of chronologically dating borrowings in the absence of old written sources in the popular, colloquial Balkan languages can be solved by applying phonetic-historical or areal criteria. In some cases this can also be resolved by using semantic criteria of chronological stratification. Historical phonetics usually allows one to distinguish between ancient and new strata of borrowed lexical items, e.g., a few ancient Greek elements in Albanian show the sound change pi > ki, so the form pizma ‘enmity, hatred’ can be regarded a recent borrowing. A relative chronology of sound changes allows one to stratify groups of borrowings as well, e.g., rotacism in Albanian took place before the change of s > s. Regarding the very numerous Slavic borrowings in Albanian one must distinguish between the Serbian and Bulgarian/Macedonian ones, on the one hand, and between the ancient and the new ones, on the other. The former can be done on the basis of dialectology, the later can be done on the basis of the Slavic historical phonetics, where, e.g., the preservation of nasality provides evidence for the antiquity of a borrowing. In many cases Greek borrowings in Aromanian or Albanian have remaind very close to the original Greek form, but this fact does not necessarily prove that the borrowing is recent because it could be an item’s constant renewal because of the constant contact of these languages.
A key areal criterion is the range of a given item: the presence of a borrowing over a wide expanse of territory suggests its relative antiquity. The dialectal distribution of a borrowing can also indicate the age of a given borrowing: Greek elements found in the Tosk dialect of Albanian are usually considered recent borrowings, while words found in the dialects of Italian Arbereshi can be dated to a time prior to their migrations in the 15-16th centuries. The fact that a borrowing is present in all Balkan Romance dialects is evidence for its antiquity.
Attention must be paid to how borrowings spread and to the role of language-intermediaries, the traces of which can sometimes be found in the form of a particular word. A significant number of Latinate lexical items has been transferred to Balkan languages via the intermediary of Greek, and such indirect Latin borrowings are found
in such fellow Romance languages as Romanian and Aromanian (Latin furnus > Greek fourno > Aromanian furnu ‘furnace’). Likewise, Bulgarian was often the intermediary transferring Greek borrowings to Romanian (in the past the same role might have been played by Albanian). On the other hand, Albanian and Aromanian may have been intermediaries transferring Slavicisms to Greek. Turkish was such an intermediary for many other Balkan languages. Certain Italian borrowings in Serbo-Croatian, attested not only in Greek and Albanian, but in Bulgarian as well, has posed a dilemma for Balkanologists for a long time. A partial solution to this problem can perhaps be found in the presence of Dubrovnik colonies in Sofia and Sumen, and in the fact, that Greek and Turkish played an intermediary role in the harbor towns of the western Black Sea coast. It is quite possible that a word can be directly borrowed from a source language in one part of the recipient language’s territory (e.g., Serbo-Croatian has fortuna ‘storm’ from Italian fortuna), while in another part the same lexical unit penetrates through a intermediary language (Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian have f{tuna through Turkish fyrtyna). The common Balkan intermediary role of Greek and Turkish in transmitting many lexical items of diverse origins (considered Greek or Turkish borrowings, respectively, in the recipient languages), alongside the repeated reciprocal transfer of the same borrowings from one Balkan language to another leads to the formation of common Balkan areas of lexical units which have different origins. Conversely, the common Balkan area of a lexical unit can attest to the presence of intermediary languages in its distribution, while at the same obscuring the time of its borrowing (this is the case regarding the word livada ‘meadow’).
Modern research has also discovered some specifically Balkan lexical features and treats substrata elements as such. With regard to this, particular attention is paid to the lexico-semantic group “cattle breeding and shepherd life” (animal names based on their appearance, constructions regarding their breeding, dairy processing, shepherd tools, etc.) because it illustrates a connection to the cultures of the Thracians and semi-nomadic Balkan ethnic groups such as Aromanians or Sarakatchans. They are found mainly intact in Albanian and Aromanian, while they are dialectal in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Greek (in Epirus). Their ethymology is never clear in the context of only one Balkan language.
Determining the dialectal character of borrowings in a source language can also clarify the type and time of language contact, e.g., some Balkan Romance elements can almost be ascertained to be borrowings from the dialects of Venice, Genoa, or Dalmatia. Modern Balkanology is also interested in reconstructing traces of (currently nonexistent) dialectal differentiation in the ancient Balkan languages by examining borrowings from these languages into the modern ones. The amount of territorial variants of Balkan Latin and their specific features in area dalmatica (borrowings in Serbo-Croatian and Albanian), in area danubiana (the inherited Romanian and Aromanian lexicon) and in area della Via Egnazia (traces of ancient Latin-Greek contact) is discussed, in addition to their relationship to the Dalmatian language.
Issues of phonetic and morphological adaptation of the borrowed lexical elements constitute a separate field of investigation at the very least.
The founders of Balkanology themselves noted that, alongside bilateral and multilateral material lexical borrowings, Balkan languages display many semantic borrowings from one language to another, the latter usually designated calques or borrowing-translations. Identical or similiar phenomena in the semantic structure at the lexical level are called interlingual isosemy. Lexical units, formally expressed differently in the various Balkan languages, but identical or similiar semasiologically, are called isoseme. This kind of interference is often considered the most intimate type. It is considered not only to be simple evidence of language contact, but also proof for the spiritual affinity among Balkan peoples, elucidating the Balkan mentality. This subject was never investigated sufficiently, though it was proclaimed to be one of the central topics of Balkanological research. The absence of historical dictionaries of the Balkan languages extremely negatively affects the situation here. The research paradigm in this field never exceeded the framework of traditional comparative-historical linguistics and focused on pure data collection more or less convincingly attributed to a particular source language.
My opinion is that the similarities and differences of the Balkan languages cannot be adequately described using solely methods of genetic linguistics (based on the idea of genealogic relationship). I believe that applying the synchronous-typological approach can be especially productive here. It consists of modelling, describing, and 24G
intersystemically or areally interpreting entire fragments of language (or dialect) systems. I mean systemic research on lexico-semantic groups from the perspective of internal word-formation form or motivation of nomination without considering ethymological relationship. So, for example, the sememe (the smallest unit of lexical meaning) ‘take midday meal’ is expressed in the South Slavic languages by lexical units motivated as follows: (1) temporal, e.g.,
*juzina in the Croatian dialects of Slavonia; *poldbnina in the southern Macedonian dialects in Greece; (2) as a process, e.g.,
*obёdъ in the southern Macedonian dialects in Greece, in the Serbo-Croatian dialects of Kosovo, Timok region, Montenegrinian coast, Hercegovina, southern Dalmatia, Istria, Gradisce, in Croatian kajkavian dialects, in Slovene dialects in Italy; *kpsidlo in the western slovene dialects; and (3) by the lexical unit ‘hand’ (*греъкъ in the main part of Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian dialects).
This kind of research on genetically related languages raises the following fundamental issues: in which cases (or to what degree) is the presence of systemic similarity between related languages conditioned genetically?; in which cases is it conditioned areal-typologically?; and in which cases is it due to universal-typological conditioning? For languages not closely related to one another only the last two possibilities need to be considered. The idea of areal typological conditioning is most strongly supported in phenomena in compact, continuous areas. It is hoped that discovering bunches of systemic isoglosses and coinciding linguistic areas can serve as a crucial argument for their areal, and not universal-typological conditioning. Besides this, in cases where an area of a given borrowing from a known source coincides with an area of isosemy, we have a stronger argument for the borrowed character of the given isosemy from the same source.
Traditional linguistic research on Balkan interlingual isosemy has never made a distinction between parallel word-formation motivations and lexical neutralizations. Typological modeling of Slavic lexical and semasiological systems employed by Russian dialectologists has proved to be extremely productive in the field of Balkanological research, however. The notion of a lexico-semantic microfield as an “artificial, internally consistent model-grid with the maximal set of distinctive features” plays the central role in Nikita Tolstoj’s theory. In Tolstoj’s model, a semantic microfield’s borders are based on
interdialectal semantic oscillation amplitude of the so-called basic lexical unit, which is represented as the sum of all semantic shifts expressed by this lexical unit in a group of closely related dialects. The central idea of Tolstoj’s theory can be demonstrated by examining the semantic microfield ‘rain - weather - time - year - hour’. From a formally logical perspective, the semantic fragments ‘rain - weather’, on the one hand, and ‘time - year - hour’, on the other, are not related because they belong to different conceptual fields. But Tolstoj clearly demonstrated that the interdialectal semantic oscillation amplitude of the lexical unit +godina in various Slavic dialects units all the above listed semems into one metalinguistic semantic space. On this basis the maximal and standard semantic grid has been established, which is filled up differently in the various Slavic dialects, thus serving as the starting point for further typological investigation. A case where one lexical unit occupies two or more semantic cells of an interdialectal semantic grid was termed “not-distinguishing” (неразличение) by Tolstoj. However, I think it is necessary to distinguish between a case, where one lexical unit fills up two or more cells of the semantic grid concerning to the same conceptual field, on the one hand, and a case, where one lexical unit fills up two or more cells concerning different conceptual fields. For example, in my opinion “not-distinguishing” cases are those like ‘time = year’, or ‘time’ = ‘hour’, or ‘year’ = ‘hour’, “neutralization” being cases such as ‘time’ = ‘weather’.
In Balkan linguistics one can construct similiar semantic microfields based on the semantic amplitude of common Balkan lexical elements (Greek, Romance, Slavic, Turkic or substratum by origin). The real lexical filling of this grid in Balkan language dialects can be further mapped, thus providing us information about the typological proximity between these dialects. The further accumulation of a relevant number of similar examples will allow us to define the common Balkan lexical system as a system of relationship between the common Balkan set of lexical units and the common Balkan set of cells of the semantic grid filled up with these lexical units. But in contrast to Slavic dialectology, in the case of the Balkan languages, which are not closely related to each other, the standard semantic grid of a given lexico-semantic field should obviously be constructed by means of the formal logic, combined with the full up-to-date information on the semantic amplitudes of the dialectal lexical units of each Balkan language in this field. This was the case in the
“Draft or programme on lexics” for our project of the “Small dialectological atlas of the Balkan languages” (KBSA / МДАБЯ).
But let us first return to the so-called Balkan calques or borrowing-translations. Here follow examples of word-formation motivations borrowed from one Balkan language to another: (supposedly) borrowed by Aromanian from Albanian: ‘sick’ < ‘cannot’; borrowed by Romanian from Slavic: ‘leader’ < ‘forehead’, ‘cataract’ < ‘white’; borrowed by Romanian and Albanian from Slavic: ‘queen bee’ < ‘mother’, ‘temple (part of head)’ < ‘blind eye’; and borrowed by Albanian from Slavic: ‘June (month)’ < ‘red’, ‘July’ or ‘August’ < ‘sickle, reaping-hook’, etc. Let us list some examples of borrowing a lexical “not-distinguishing” or neutralization by one Balkan language from another: Romanian calques from Greek: ‘mouth’ = ‘cut by a knife’, ‘thanks’ = ‘for many years’, ‘friends’ = ‘brothers in God’; Aromanian calques from Albanian: ‘face’ = ‘cheek’, ‘cow’ = ‘prostitute’; Romanian calques from Slavic: ‘light’ = ‘world’, ‘darkness’ = ‘a big number’, ‘life’ = ‘animal’, ‘maize, Indian com’ = ‘pigeon’; some Romanian calques from Slavic are frequently present in Albanian as well: ‘play’ = ‘dance’, ‘curve’ = ‘unfair’, ‘way’ = ‘time (one time, two times). It is clear that examples of common Balkan isosemy, present in every Balkan language, are often considered to be of the greatest value for Balkanology. The word-formation motivations here are, e.g.: ‘advice’ > ‘conversation’, ‘crown’ > ‘get married, marry’, ‘sweet’ > ‘take pleasure, enjoy’ and others. Neutralisations can be seen in: ‘Easter week’ = ‘Great week’, ‘Pancake week (week before Lent, seven weeks before Easter)’ = ‘Cheese week’, ‘century’ = ‘life’, ‘language, tongue’ = ‘people’, ‘groom’ = ‘son-in-law’ and many others.
As mentioned above, the central problem in studying interlingual isosemy is distinguishing between a true semantic borrowing (expansion or reduction of a given word’s meaning under the influence of a corresponding foreign word’s semantics) and a simple parallel and independent semantic development based on an independent association of ideas, which can be also common European or universal. There has never been systemic research conducted in this field of Balkan linguistics due to the fact that certain Balkanologists have not considered such parallels to be conclusive enough to postulate Balkan unity; and no technique of such research has ever existed. Because of the latter, it was impossible to fulfill the following requirement: “Before starting speculations on the origin of a
given isosemy, it is necessary to prove that it really does not represent an independent association in each language possessing it”. There are two ways to solve this problem in the absence of historical dictionaries of the Balkan languages. The first one consists in compiling thematic dictionaries of the Balkan languages and in comparing them with the non-Balkan ones. The second one can be seen in broadening areal studies of the Balkan languages, which can help deny or confirm the interferentional character of a given lexico-semantic phenomenon. A combination of these two approaches is found in our KBSA / MffAEfl project.
Linguistic geography, invented as an additional method of comparative-historical grammar of separate languages or their families, discovered a new linguistic reality — a language landscape formed by isoglosses with their direction of distribution and by areas with their forms, both of which are systemically related to each other. The language landscape is the central research object of areal linguistics, which takes aim at its substantial, i.e., historical and structural interpretation. Areal linguistics investigates the cause and effect, development, frontage and dispersal of an innovation, operating with concepts such as “the innovative center of an area”, “the archaic periphery of an area”, and “the zone of diffusion”. Investigating the structure of dialectal differentiation, it focuses mainly on coinciding isoglosses forming a bundle. Areal linguistics makes both comparative-historical and synchronous-typological study possible, both of genetically related laguage groups (e.g., South Slavic languages), and of areal-typological groups (e.g., Balkan languages). From the comparative-historical point of view there the key concepts are dialectal continuum, language innovation, and archaism, while from the synchronous-typological perspective the general concept of a fragment of language system is central. The comparative-historical approach concentrates on reconstructing ways Balkan languages converge, focusing mainly on the innovative center and archaic periphery of the Balkan convergent area. The central problem here is investigating the geographical distribution of both known and yet unknown Balkan interlingual parallels (the primary goals of such research being discovering the trajectories and dynamics of the Balkanization processes, detecting the irradiation centers of the Balkan parallels, and studying their origin and formation chronology). The central question from the synchronous-typological point of view is the following: is systemic parallelism between various Balkan 244
languages or dialects conditioned areally or not? Answering this is possible only after the continuity of the Balkan linguistic landscape is proven and demonstrated, and after interlingual macro- and microareas are discovered.
Both the comparative-historical and the synchronous-typological aspects are considered in our KBSA / MflAEfl atlas. The later aims at resolving the following problems: the discovery and full description of the bilateral and multilateral lexical ties between the Balkan languages; the description of the formation sources and how the lexical structure of each Balkan language under investigation develops; and the discovery and description of the lexical level of the Balkan linguistic community (if one exists). We employ classical methods of linguistic geography to represent the basic genetic strata of the Balkan lexicon in a spatial projection; while the typological method is used for the consecutive representation of the most relevant parts of the dialectal lexical systems, which is possible only when absolutely comparable (semantically correlated) lexical material is available. Both the formal-lexical and the semantic aspects of the lexicon in their inseparable conection is subject to research. In conformity with this, we propose developing different types of maps. Purely lexical maps will reflect how the same object is named in different dialects and languages, while semantic maps will present various meanings of formally identical words. Motivational maps and maps of the interdialectal lexical neutralisations will reflect the parallelism of the internal form of nomination of the same object in different Balkan languages. Fundamentally, the project is methodologically open and allows the most various methods to be applied, thus providing an opportunity both for the description of how the Balkan linguistic landscape is formed and the diasystem of Balkan linguistic unity is constructed. E.g., accumulating thematically organized dialectal lexical material will also provide an opportunity in the future to consider the implicational paradigmatic relations within the framework of semantic fields, or to conduct research of minimal semantic units (“semems”).
The most obvious priority of classical areal investigation of the formal and semantic lexical connections among Balkan dialects is finding the geographic distribution of each borrowing word in its phonetic (and, when possible, its morphological) characteristics in the total spectrum of its possible meanings in the dialects of the peninsula.
The most direct evidence of lexical influence of a given language on geographic zones is when a borrowing has the same meaning in all the dialects (together with the chance that polysemy is present in one dialect only), i.e., when the interlingual semantic amplitude of the borowing is equal to one. Cases are more complicated when a borrowing has different meanings in at least two dialects in the Balkan area, i.e., when the interlingual semantic amplitude fills up at least two cells of a semantic grid. In cases like this, Balkanology is particularly interested in reconstructing the semantic development of a word, in determining the degree of each dialect’s independence in a given semantic development, and, finally, in judging whether or not this given semantic development is areally conditioned. I insist yet again that one must distinguish between cases when a lexical unit occupies two or more cells of the semantic grid regarding the same conceptual field, and cases when a lexical unit occupies two or more cells regarding different conceptual fields. The first case concerns interlingual polysemy (or “non-distinguishing”), while the second is a matter of interlingual homonymy (or neutralization). One can assume that neutralization data in particular, or data regarding interlingual homonymy, most reliably demonstrate the areal development boundaries between particular dialects, meaning-oscillation data within the limits of the same thematic field being rather explainable by internal and independent development.
Our project began in 1996 and we collected dialect material from 12 points representing the main dialectal groups of each major Balkan language (Greek, Albanian, Aromanian and South Slavic). This data formed the basis for the trial mapping published in our “Test volume” (МДАБЯ 2GG3). Based on an analysis of 73 potentially common Balkan lexical borrowings from Greek, Romance (with Latin), Turkish, Slavic, and substrata languages, we determined the following main linguistic sub-areas of the Balkan linguistic landscape: the common Balkan area, the eastern area, the southeastern area, the western area, the central area and the southern area.
The common Balkan dispersion area can be demonstrated by borrowings from Greek such as: yo^dpi ‘donkey’, SicdKi ‘double bag’, a^opyn, (a)^oupyo^ ‘motley’ - ‘brown, reddish’ - ‘grey’ -‘black’ - ‘dark’; borrowings from the Balkan Romance such as:
* colostra ‘colostrum, beestings’, *mustacea ‘moustaches’, *fustanum ‘dress’ - ‘skirt’ - ‘flap, lap’ - ‘textile’; and many Turkish elements such as: gizme ‘boots’, dolab ‘wardrobe’, mehalle ‘quarter, a part of 246
settlement’, gerdan ‘necklace’, pencere ‘window’, papuc ‘slippers’, pe^kir ‘towel’, raqi ‘brandy’, tencere ‘pan, pot’, qerga ‘hand-made carpet’ - ‘coverlet’ - ‘blanket’.
The eastern area (identical lexical elements in Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian, and eastern Serbian with selective participation of Aromanian and/or Albanian) is formed by distribution zones only of Greek originating elements such as: SdoKa^o^ ‘teacher’, Kepa^lSa ‘tile’, npiovi, nplrov ‘sow (a kind of a saw)'. The western area (usually Albanian-Aromanian-Serbo-Croat parallels) can be represented by distribution zones of the substratum elements such as: +balEga ‘cattle excrement’ and +vatra ‘hearth’ - ‘place for hearth’ - ‘ground floor’ -‘guestroom’; Romance elements such as: *vessica ‘urinary bladder’ -‘pimple’; or by Turkish originating lexical units such as: dohan ‘tobacco’. Let us especially note the absence of Greek elements among the lexical units, whose distribution zones form this area.
It appears that a significant number of phenomena mapped up to the present is concentrated in the eastern and southeastern areas. This permits us to consider this area as central from the viewpoint of the language geography, i.e., as a source of numermous Balkan innovations, which are absent in the more archaic western part of the peninsula (cf. ‘lazy’ on the lexical map Nr. 64 (МДЛБЯ 2GG3: 144145)). Our data also allow us to characterize the western Balkan area as negative, i.e., an area where many common Balkan Greek elements are missing: 1) apecro ‘like’; 2) SdoKa^o^ ‘teacher’, 3) Zeuydpi ‘pair’,
4) Kd0e ‘each; everyone’, 5) ^dvxpa ‘sheep-pen’, 6) nupocTid ‘tripod’, etc. In these and many other cases this is obviously connected to the geographic position of Greek as a source language for innovations and as a major language-intermediary.
It is especially interesting that the main bundle of isoglosses dividing the Balkans into east and west, i.e., into Greek-Balkan Slavic vs. Albanian-Aromanian-Serbo-Croat, respectively, recapitulates the flow of the basic isoglosses in the South-Slavic dialect area. Furthermore, we can regard this east-west division as of the deepest one in the Balkans: it is constantly repeated in the oppositions Illyrian vs. Thracian, Latin vs. Greek, west South Slavic vs. east South Slavic, and west Balkan Turkic vs. east Balkan Turkic throughout known Balkan history.
A major field of Balkan lexicology is the study of how borrowings are distributed in their genetic or ethymological groups (i.e., elements
originating from Greek, Romance, Slavic, Turkic, and from various substrata elements). Its objective is to discover the most typical areas, i.e. distribution laws of lexical units of each ethymological group separately, and then compare the results. When such areal distribution laws are detected, one can apply areal criteria for clearing up obscure ethymologies or to reconstruct penetration paths of given lexical elements. One can also draw conclusions on the relative chronology of borrowings, e.g., a peripheral phenomenon can be regarded as more archaic, while a central one can be regarded as innovative. Matters concerning absolute chronology exceed the framework of areal linguistics, as is generaly known.
The next part of this paper treats Turkic elements borrowed into Balkan languages in more detail. We shall focus on questions of the inventory, the intrasystemic status, semantics, and areal distribution of Turkic loans recorded in our field research in the aforementioned 12 points (representing the main dialectal groups of every major Balkan language, i.e., Greek, Albanian, Aromanian and South-Slavic). The following 12 lexico-semantic groups (lexical categories) have been investigated in the project: I. Nature: 1) landscape; 2) meteorology (weather, atmospheric phenomena, precipitation); II. Humanity: 3) body parts; 4) human physical and psychological characteristics;
5) family (kinship terms and family etiquette); III. Labour activity:
6) animal husbandry (sheep and goat breeding); 7) poultry farming (chickens); В) beekeeping; 9) agriculture (maize); 1G) gardening (onions); IV. Food. 11) Dairy manufacture and production; V. 12) Some elements of speech etiquette. Lexical data extraction was based on the onomasiological questioning principle “from meaning to the word” and a total of 2G5G lexical questions must be answered by the informants (ranging from 54 questions relating to “Poultry farming (chickens)” to 574 in “Animal husbandry”). Every Turkic lexical borrowing discovered in each of the 12 dialects from our data base (varying from approximately 13G in the northeastern Bulgarian point in Ravna to approximately 25 in the Croatian point in Dalmatia) was first alphabetically ordered in mini-dictionaries, and then their semantics was analysed; they were then sorted according to their lexico-semantic groups. Some new lexical units (unrecorded in previous literature) were discovered — mainly in eastern Bulgarian dialects, but also Albanian and Greek ones. Etymological, thematic and dialectal dictionaries were used to label a given lexical unit as 24В
Turkic by origin. Thus, an inventory of Balkan Turkic elements was determined; the next step in the research was to find out their systemic and areal distribution. But before this, it was necessary to extract lexical units which can be treated as individual borrowings, present in only one dialect (or, with some degree of generalization, in a dialect area represented by this one dialect). All Turkic borrowings were tested to determine if they were registered in the standard lexicographical sources of the unrelated languages. Thus it was possible to filter out the set of presumably common Balkan lexical units, which, only by accident, or, while not belonging to the 12 lexico-semantic groups investigated in the project, were determined to be individual in our data bank, i.e. present in only one point. The same procedure was undertaken concerning words found only in two neighbouring points.
As a result we have Turkic lexical units which can be defined as individual borrowings in a single dialect or a narrow dialect area. Both eastern Bulgarian dialects (Moesian and Rhodopi) turned out to be most expressive in this regard, each having approximately 25 individual Turkic lexical units, belonging mostly to the lexico-semantic field “Animal husbandry”):
Ravna: л^mлз'iko ‘buttocks’, лng'os ‘person with eyes of different color’, лn'эs ‘grain field used as a pasture’, лг'§ ‘space between rows’, ^ekTH^ ‘waist’, єгєпТ'ііл ‘food leavings (of cattle)’, g'agл ‘beak (of chicken)’, gid'ik ‘chinkbetween teeth’, guS'uk ‘with a short tail (of cattle)’, isum'ik ‘curds, cottage cheese’, izdird'isл ‘cause damage to a field, meadow, etc. (said of cattle grazing)’, ^s'ak ‘sawed parcel near a house’, ius'us ‘impudent; saucy’, kлc'or ‘cattle with long and straight horns’, kл'inco ‘wife's brother’, kocmлrз'iiл ‘ram/wether herdsman’, kuir'uk ‘tail, scut’, k§rs'ik ‘rain with hail’, m'ami ‘teat of udder’, mлn'э ‘rain that damages plants’, mлr'э ‘scraggy sheep’, pл^лc'orin ‘hack-worker’, pлrl'ak ‘remains of sheep eaten by a wolf’, sлiv'an ‘winter sheep-pen’, sлk'ar ‘ram/ wether with white spot on forehead’, sk'enзл ‘cheese press’, tun'uk ‘silent man’.
Gela: лrлsl'ok ‘barren/dry goat’, Ь^Ьлгл ‘rain during sunshine; rain, damaging plants’, Ьлг'есэ ‘thigh, haunch’, c'aie hydronym < turc. ‘river’, dinc ‘grain field used as pasture’, dok'ak ‘sheep-pen for milking’, domлzl'uk ‘cellar’, srk'ic ‘gelded, castrated billy goat’, guvg'o ‘animal carcass’, ten ‘brand (denoting animal ownership)’,
ios ‘flock of barren/dry sheep’, iuxc'iie ‘herdsman of barren/dry sheep’, kлrt'эl ‘Alpine pasture’, koz^m'o ‘adult ram’, m'alsлib'iІБ ‘person having many sheep’, m§rk'uc ‘watering can’, ov'o ‘winter pasture’, sex§l'§k ‘small leather sack’, sutc'iie ‘herdsman at summer camp’, tлrl'э ‘flat mountain field’, tлrn'ak ‘hoof’, tлsm'э ‘collar for a goat/sheep bell’, xor'os ‘non-gelded, non-castrated ram with withered genitals’.
Regarding the number of Turkic elements, the following three dialects, quite distant from the previous two eastern Bulgarian points, have only 5-В individual lexical units:
Gega (Pirin Macedonia): b'eykл ‘birthmark, mole’, bent ‘roadside ditch, trench’, dud'ak ‘lip’, mus'a ‘space between pastures of neighbouring villages’, {Ш^п^^л ‘stem of a maize plant minus corn-cobs and leaves’, зiygлr'ak ‘cattle bell’.
Kamenica (eastern Serbia): 'ailuk ‘payment in kind for hired herdsman’, cupr'iia ‘bridge over brook’, cutl'iv ‘silent’, mom'urza ‘maize’, Sogl'an ‘frozen mud on road’.
Leshnjё (southern Albania): abll'ake ‘bull-faced sheep’, bajm'ak ‘pigeon-toed’, bejl ‘waist’, gjoks ‘breast’, hib'e ‘saddle bags’, jagall^k ‘rainy, foul weather’, xhaxh'a ‘father's brother’.
Finally, it seems that just a small set of esclusive Turkic borrowings have been spread to the dialects of the central Balkan zone, so they are absolutely unremarkable with regard to this. It is notable, however, that among the exclusive intra-Albanian isoglosses (Muhurr - Leshn^), three of these are kinship terms: daexh ~ d'ajo ‘mother's brother’, hall ~ h'allo ‘father's sister’, and t'eze ~ t'eze ‘mother's sister’. Thus, this demonstrates the specificity of this language in comparison to Greek, Aromanian and Slavic (the other exclusive Albanian Turkic elements are: boshll'ek ~ boshll^k ‘space between rows’, hileq'ar ~ hileq'ar ‘hack-worker’, jet^im ~ jet'im ‘orphan’, surr'at ~ surr'at ‘muzzle, snout’, and perhaps q'aefё ~ q'afё ‘neck’). Thus, our data clearly indicate two high concentration zones of individual Turkic borrowings — a massive one in eastern Bulgaria in the east, and a smaller one in Albania (more precisely in southern Albania) in the west. Both poles are formed by closely related dialects — not by dialects belonging to two separate languages.
An interdialectal comparison of originally Turkic lexical items pertaining to the lexico-semantic fields under investigation allows us to ascertain absolute distinctions, both in their quantity and inventory.
Cf. data details regarding “Landscape”, “Meteorology”, and “Body parts”, where, as a rule, different lexical units occupy different sectors of the semantic grid:
1) Landscape:
Gela: bA'ir ‘mountain, elevated zone; mountain forest’, c'ais hydronym < turc. ‘river’, d’sr'o ‘gorge, ravine’, k'ald§r'§m ‘cobbled road’, kAnAr'a ‘stone quarry’, k’ist’srm'o ‘path’, kunk ‘channel in rock leading water from spring’, tArl'o ‘flat field in mountains’, xAzm 'ak ‘swampy river bank’.
Eparupa: bnar ‘(water) spring’, dam'ar ‘stone quarry’, kara'ul’ ‘peak, mountain summit’, kur'i ‘wooded height’, xand'ak ‘ditch, trench’, S'umka ‘hill’.
Leshnje: a'us ‘pool’, Qa'ir ‘plateau; plateau pasture’, Q'akull ‘sand at river bottom’, q'afe ‘mountain pass’, (vend i) koll'aje ‘gently sloping’, xhad'e ‘main road’.
2) Meteorology:
Ravna: k§rs'ik ‘rain with hail’, mAn'§ ‘rain that damages plants’, pArc'al’i ‘snow-flakes’.
Gega: tuf'an ‘storm; snowstorm’.
Leshnje: jagall'ek ‘rainy, foul weather’, turfa'n ‘snowstorm’.
KpavEa: ar§x'ati ‘favorable wind’, bug'azea ‘wind name (according to its direction)’; kutl'uki ‘place protected from wind’, z'urlu ‘heavy shower (of rain)’.
3) Humanity. Body parts:
Ravna: AtmAS'iko ‘buttocks’, but ‘thigh; hip’, b'dbreoit’e ‘kidney’, cekt'iiA ‘small of back’, dAt'ak ‘spleen’, gid'ik ‘chink between teeth’, iumr'uk ‘fist’, kAp'ace ‘patella, knee cap’, m’egd'an ‘sacrum’, tAb'an ‘arch of foot’, skemB'e ‘belly’, Sig'er ‘liver’.
Pestani: 'asik ‘vertebra’, b'ubrek ‘kidney’, but ‘thigh; hip’, c'ul’e ‘little finger’, k'apace ‘patella, knee cap’, sc'embe ‘belly’, t'opus ‘buttocks’, iiger ‘liver’.
EpaTupa: but’ ‘thigh; hip’.
Muhurr: belez'ik ‘carpus, wrist’, dam'aor ‘vein’, kap'ak ‘eyelid’, q'aefe ‘neck’, surr'at ‘face’.
KpavEa: bubur'aku ‘kidney’.
A more detailed comparison of various semantic microfields, e.g., “precipitation types” (e.g., snow, rain), “human body parts (e.g., hands, legs, eyes, etc.)”, “physical attributes of cattle”, “names for various kinds of pastures, shepherds, shelters, constructions”, etc.,
leads to the same results. This demonstrates: 1) the various intrasys-temic distribution of Turkic borrowings in each Balkan dialect, 2) the unique quality of their semantic amplitudes, 3) the differing roles of indigenous, primordial lexics vs. that of borrowed items with regard to the various semantic microfields, and 4) areal distinctions between separate dialects and their groups. This raises serious doubt as to whether a common Balkan law can be applied to this sphere at all.
Furthermore, there can most likely be no intrasystemic (or even obligatority) motivation for borrowing a certain Turkic word in a given field of the semantic grid. Evidence for this can be deduced by examples of various Turkic lexical items borrowed in the same meaning field, e.g., ‘herd, flock’ is borrowed as surii'e in Ravna, but bul'uk in Gela, Gega, and Pestani; ‘lamb constantly following shepherd’ is borrowed as kurp'e in Ravna, sAlm'o in Gela, and besl’im'e in Gega and Muhurr; and ‘winter sheep-pen’ is borrowed as sAiv'an in Ravna, saJ'o in Gela, egr'ek in Gega, 'aher in Muhurr, etc. It is also possible that these facts indicate contact with different dialectal and sub-ethnic groups of Turkic people.
There is also the issue of Weinreich’s question regarding the eventual structural weakness of lexico-semantic sectors of recipient systems, compensated due to borrowings. This can be contradicted by cases where an indigenous lexical element is used, even though the Turkic borrowing seems unavoidable. For instance, we did not register the following lexical units: ambar in the points of Kamenica (eastern Serbia) and Muhurr (northern Albania); but and bubrek in the points of Muhurr and Leshnje (Albania); goban, gayda and kehaya in Gega (Pirin Macedonia); fukara in Pestani (western Macedonia) and Ravna (eastern Bulgaria); hizmetkar in the Aromanian dialect of Kranea, in Gela (eastern Bulgaria) and Ravna; kagamak in the both Albanian points and in the Bulgarian Gega and Ravna; kaymak in the both Albanian points and in the northern Greek point. In such cases the potentially “structurally weak system sector” can be occupied by an indigenous lexical element, e.g., in Gega we do not find the lexical unit gayda ‘bagpipes’, but the Slavic svirc'e with the same meaning.
The derivation potential of borrowed Turkic elements in the recipient language is also of interest. Motional derivatives (feminine forms created from masculines) can be built from the following lexical items: bacanak ‘husbands of two sisters’ in Albanian and Aromanian; bekar ‘(old) bachelor’, birazel ‘older brother (form of address only)’
in Albanian and Aromanian; fukara ‘poor’ in Aromanian; goban ‘herdsman’ in the whole western Balkan area and in the Rhodopi region. The greater structural opportunities of the Western Balkan languages (chiefly that of Albanian and Aromanian) in this grammar segment are clearly proven by these facts.
Another interesting feature of Balkan dialects is the borrowing of ready-made Turkic derivatives alongside the basic lexical unit (vice forming new words from the borrowed item using indigenous derivational means), e.g., cf. Bulgarian koc ‘ram’ ~ kocmлrз'iiл ‘ram herdsman’ (< Turkic koq ~ kogmak), bub'aiku ‘father’ ~ bubлl'эk ‘stepfather’ (< Turkic baba ~ baballk), etc. In some dialects the morphological (and derivational) adaptation of Turkic borrowings is not obligatory (cf. western Macedonian c'akar ‘squint-eyed, crosseyed’, cor ‘blind’ vs. eastern Serbian cakar'as, c'orav).
The semantic amplitudes of widely dispersed borrowings can be also investigated in order to build a common abstract model of the monosemantical and polysemantical Balkan Turkic elements. The following monosemantical interdialectal Turkic lexical items were discovered in our data: +baba ‘father’ (or form of address only); +begllk ‘cattle tax’, +beslemek ‘lamb constantly accompanying shepherd’, +cadde ‘main road’, +cUce ‘dwarf, pygmy’ and others. The following lexical units are polysemantical, i.e., they occupy two or more cells of the semantic grid regarding the same conceptual field (i.e., they are “non-distinguishing”): +ahlr ‘winter sheep-pen’, ‘housing for livestock inside house’; +baldlz ‘husband’s sister’, ‘wife's sister’; +but ‘thigh; hip’, ‘shin, shank’; +gaklr ‘man with eyes of different color’, ‘squint-eyed’, ‘cross-eyed’; +egrek ‘sheep-pen’, ‘fence of sheep-pen’; +ergen ‘teenager’, ‘young man’, ‘bachelor’; +kehaya ‘owner or organizer of a summer camp’, ‘cattle-farm worker’, ‘herdsman’, etc. We can define the following cases as neutralization: +baylr ‘height; eminence’, ‘mountain’, ‘wood, forest’, ‘fallow land used as pasture’; +bunar ‘(water) spring’, ‘a pit or hole in a river bed’, ‘pot-hole on road’, ‘a pot-hole made by hoof on road’; +clger ‘liver’, ‘lung’; +kagamak ‘kind of polenta-like dish’, ‘kind of sheep-pen’, etc.
At the next stage of research, 4G common Balkan lexical items of Turkic origin were mapped, with their form and semantics taken into consideration. A significant number of isoglosses, uniting distantly related languages was revealed (e.g., +gaklr or +kehaya).
Future tasks include compiling an areal and historical dictionary of Balkan Turkic elements which would provide detailed semantic descriptions of each Turkic lexeme and its precise areal distribution and history. This would allow the investigation of the motivations for the formal and semantic variation or invariancy of these elements (i.e., whether they are caused by characteristics of the dialect-donor or the dialect-recipient; whether they represent an individual development in the dialect-recipient; or if they are explainable areally as a result of interaction between related and unrelated Balkan dialects). Finally, a detailed description of their systemic status in each dialect under investigation should follow, taking into consideration, e.g., the correlations and proportions of Turkic and indigenous lexical units in each lexico-semantic group or in each microfield, or the derivational potential of Turkic elements in recipient dialects, or their semantic amplitudes — in any case in comparison with the indigenous lexical units and borrowings from other sources.
One of our next research steps is to compile similar minidictionaries of Greek, Romance, Slavic and substrata lexical items, which should likewise be investigated areally, semantically, and intrasystemically. This would at last make comparative research of correlative intrasystemic borrowing quotas in each dialect possible. For example, an areal analysis of Slavic lexical elements borrowed into Greek, Albanian and Aromanian makes their preliminary subdivision in two groups possible: 1) the lexical units, present both in Slavic and non-Slavic dialects, and 2) those, present only in non-Slavic ones. The following items can assigned to the first group, thus they are common Balkan ones: *pwcb > p{c, porc, p'urcus; pёrg'ak etc. ‘non-gelded, non-castrated billy goat’; *rojb (with derivates) > roi'ak, r'ojke; ro'it etc. ‘swarm (of bees); to swarm (about bees)’;
*sito ‘filter’; perhaps also *Ы1ъ // culb ‘crop-eared’), etc. Items found in Aromanian and Greek, but not in Albanian, form a separate subgroup: *virb ‘(whirl)pool’; *bara, *baruga ‘puddle; pool’;
*kopana ‘salt container for sheep’).
The second group is of particular interest. These originally Slavic lexical items present in Greek, Albanian or Aromanian have no exact correspondances in Slavic dialects: *celbniЫ ‘head cheese-maker at summer camp’ (Albanian geln'iku i st'anit) and ‘owner/organizer of a summer camp’ (Greek and Aromanian c'el’nikas, etc.); *rastoka ‘narrow passage for sheep in the milking sheep-pen’ (Greek and
Aromanian rast'oka, etc.). Other lexical units are dominant with corresponding meanings in Slavic dialects of the region: +bac and kehaya, and +struga, respectively. This demonstates that a peripheral phenomenon is more archaic and illustrates the remnant character of
*celbnikb and *rastoka in non-Slavic dialects.
Because most of our lexical data are collected using the thematic principle, an areal study of entire segments of the lexical subsystem (or, of whole groups of systemically bound words) is made possible. This stands in contrast to more traditional atomistic research concentrating on single lexical units, which frequently disregards their formal and semantic systemic position. Alongside aspects of systemic integrity of semantic microfields and borrowing quotas characteristic for a given dialect, the investigation of parallels in the semantic development is now possible. For example, a lexico-semantic microfield ‘ear of corn’ - ‘unshucked ear of corn (with husks)’ -‘shucked ear of corn (without husks but with kernels)’ - ‘corncob’ -‘base of corn-cob’ - ‘maize plant stalk with leaves’ - ‘maize plant stalks without leaves’ - ‘root of maize plant’ can be constructed based on an interdialectal semantic oscillation amplitude of the common Balkan lexical unit +kocan. This amplitude, covering two microfields ‘ear of corn’ and ‘maize plant stalk’ does not exceed the bounds of the lexico-semantic microfield ‘maize’. The actual lexical filling of this semantic grid’s sectors clearly shows a division of Balkan dialects: one group does not distinguishing between ‘maize plant stalk with leaves’ - ‘maize plant stalk without leaves’, while the other group does distinguish between these two. The dialects of Eratyra (koc'ani), Turia (arapust'ina), Pestani (mis'erisce = st'§blo), Gela (stAbl'o) and Ravna (st§bl'o) belong to the first group, while the dialects of Kastelli (arapos'itia - koc'ani), Leshnje (mistr'ist - kdrcu'ell), Muhurr (kasht shterp - kerc'elli i k'ashtes), Gega (s'umA - t’ut’un'arkA), Kamenica (struk - bat'al) and Otok (c{balika = t{torina -k{zovina) belong to the second. The mapping of these features shows “non-distinguishing” areal conditioning in the central and the eastern part of the Peninsula.
Obviously, cases of parallel motivation in derivation or cases of lexical neutralization are of greater interest. When we examine the sememe (smallest unit of lexical meaning) ‘bunch of onions wattled for winter storage’, we discover the following systemic interrelations in the dialects under investigation: 1) lexical neutralization ‘plait,
braid’ - ‘bunch of onions’, often derived from the verbs meaning ‘to plait, to twine’, in Kastelli (pl'ehtra, pleks'ana), Eratyra (pl'ehtra), Gela (pl'itk a), Ravna (pleten'ica), cf. Turia (kus'ita); 2) lexical neutralization ‘crown’ - ‘bunch of onions’ in Leshnje (kur'ore), Muhurr (kun'or), Pestani (v'enec), Kamenica (ven'§c); 3) lexical neutralization ‘rope’ - ‘bunch of onions’ in Gega (vAzen'icA), Otok (r'esta). This mapping clearly illustrates the east-west subdivision of the Balkan area, with the areal conditioning of the neutralization in each part. This conditioning is absent in the last case: ‘rope’ - ‘bunch of onions’.
Balkan lexicology grew out of comparative-historical linguistics, but now concentrates its research on areal centers of lexical innovations and the peripheries of lexical archaisms. As a result, it is discovering the real history of how the Balkan linguistic landscape was formed. A fundamental areal-typological research method has lead this discipline to postulate an abstract lexical level of the Balkan linguistic area (the Balkansprachbund) by locating the set of common Balkan lexical units of various provenance, on the one hand, and by finding a relevant number of isosemy phenomena, on the other. But now, instead of universal-typological factors, the areal conditioning of interlingual parallels in word-formation and lexical meanings proves to be its central research problem. This can be solved by studying the laws, according to which the Balkan language space is partitioned, i.e., by finding fixed lexical and semantical areas, by locating areas of systemic parallelisms, by discovering the interdependency between both types of areas, and by interpreting their historical and structural linguistic significance.
Literature
Аргировски М. Грцизмите во македонскиот ja3^. Скоще, 1998.
Асенова П. Балканско езикознание. Проблеми на балканския езиков съюз. София, 19891; 20022.
БДА — Български диалектен атлас. Обобщаващ том. София, 2001.
БЕР — Български етимологичен речник. Том I. А-З. София, 1971. Том II. И-крепя. София, 1974. Том III. крес1-минго1. София, 1986. Том IV. минго2-падам. София, 1995. Том V. падеж-пуска. София, 1996. Том VI. пускам-словар2. София, 2002.
Бернштейн С. Б. К изучению тюркизмов (турцизмов) в южнославянских языках // Славянское и балканское языкознание. Язык в этнокультурном аспекте. М., 1984. С. 5-10.
Бернштейн С. Б., Клепикова Г. П. О некоторых итогах работы над «Общекарпатским диалектологическим атласом» (1973-1993) // Общеславянский лингвистический атлас (ОЛА). Материалы и исследования. 1991-1993. М., 1996. С. 75-88.
Бернштейн С. Б., Клепикова Г. П. Славяно-румынские языковые контакты в свете новых данных славянской лингвистической географии // Славянское языкознание. XII Международный съезд славистов. Краков, 1998. Доклады российской делегации. М., 1998. С. 47-68.
Вайнрайх У. Языковые контакты. Состояние и проблемы исследования. Киев, 1979.
Видоески Б. Географската терминологща во дщалектите на македон-скиот jaзик. Скопле, 1999.
Вялкина Л. В. Мотивационные признаки одной лексико-семантической группы (по материалам ОЛА) // Dialectologia slavica. Сборник к 85-летию С. Б. Бернштейна. Исследования по славянской диалектологии. 4. М., 1995. С. 164-171.
Демираj Ш. Балканска лингвистика. Скопле, 1994.
Десницкая А. В. Славянские заимствования в албанском языке. V Международный съезд славистов (София, сентябрь 1963). М., 1963.
Десницкая А. В. (Ред.). Romano-Balcanica (Вопросы адаптации латинского языкового элемента в балканском ареале). Л., 1987.
Домосилецкая М. В. Мотивационные признаки номинации «Помещение для переработки молока на пастушьем стойбище» (по материалам «Албанско-восточнороманского сопоставительного понятийного словаря скотоводческой лексики» и МДАБЯ) // Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Материалы третьего рабочего совещания. С.-Петербург, 18.12.1997. СПб., 1999. С. 16-23.
Домосилецкая М. В. Албанско-восточнороманский сопоставительный понятийный словарь. Скотоводческая лексика. СПб., 2002.
Домосилецкая М. В., Жугра А. В. Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Лексическая программа. СПб., 1997.
Домосилецкая М. В., Плотникова А. А., Соболев А. Н. Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков // Славянское языкознание.
XII Международный съезд славистов. Доклады российской делегации. М., 1998. С. 196-211.
ЕР^ — Етимолошки речник српског jезикa. Свеска 1: А-Аш. Београд,
2003.
ИвиН П. Знaчaj лингвистичке географще за упоредно и исторщско проучаваае jужнословенских jезикa и аихових односа према осталим словенским jезицимa // ИвиЬ П. Изабрани огледи. 1. О словенским jезицимa и дщалектима. Ниш, 1991. С. 201-238.
Jашар-Настева О. Турските лексички елементи во македонскиот jaзик. Скоще, 2001.
Калужская И. А. Проблема автохтонных элементов румынского языка // Славянское и балканское языкознание. Античная балканистика и сравнительная грамматика. М., 1977. С. 130-145.
Клепикова Г. П. Сема-ономасиологический аспект в исследовании некоторых лексических групп (на материале карпатоукраинских диалектов) // Общеславянский лингвистический атлас (ОЛА). Материалы и комментарии. М., 1977. С. 162-188.
Клепикова Г. П. Карпатская лексика в ее отношении к лексике иных зон славянского мира// Славянское и балканское языкознание. Карпато-восточнославянские параллели. Структура балканского текста. М., 1977. С. 3-20.
Клепикова Г. П. Семантические вопросы МДАБЯ в свете литературы по южнославянской диалектной лексикографии // Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Материалы третьего рабочего совещания. С.-Петербург, 18.12.1997. СПб., 1999. С. 7-16 (а).
Клепикова Г. П. К истории изучения славянской диалектной семантики (метод «семантического поля» Н. И. Толстого) // ВЯ. № 5. Москва, 1999. С. 64-72 (б).
Клепикова Г. П. Материалы семантической части МДАБЯ и возможности их картографической интерпретации // Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Материалы четвертого рабочего совещания. СПб., 2000. С. 7-23.
Клепикова Г. П. Опыт ареалогической интерпретации материалов МДАБЯ // Исследования по славянской диалектологии. Вып. 7. М., 2001. С. 10-29.
Клепикова Г. П. Пастушеская терминология в двух македонских говорах зон Охрида и Велеса // Исследования по славянской диалектологии. Вып. 10. Москва, 2004. С. 38-91.
Кондратенко М. Лексика народной метеорологии. Опыт сравнительного анализа славянских и немецких наименований природных явлений. Munchen, 2000.
Марков Б. О некоторых аспектах исследования славянизмов в албанском языке и албанизмов в македонском языке // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. 1996. Bd. 32/2. S. 180-197.
МДАБЯ 2003 — Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Пробный выпуск. Munchen, 2003.
МДАБЯ (in print) — Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Серия лексическая. Т. I. Лексика духовной культуры. Munchen.
Михалк З. Квота заимствований в различных видах терминологии и в различных диалектных зонах // Общеславянский лингвистический атлас (ОЛА). Материалы и исследования. М., 1980. С. 97-101.
Младенов М. Българско-румънски езикови ареали // Die slawischen Sprachen. 1983. Bd. 5. S. 49-70.
Младенов М. Ареална характеристика на гръцките заемки в българските диалекти // Език и литература (София). 1991. Год. 46. 3. С. 31-47.
Младенов Ст. Етимологически и правописен речник на българския книжовен език. София, 1941.
Младенова Д. Балканските езикови контакти в светлината на ареалната лингвистика // Средновековните Балкани. Политика, религия, култура. София, 1999. С.223-234.
Овчинникова Е. Н. К вопросу о семантической эволюции лексемы koliba в словацком языке // Славянское и балканское языкознание. Проблемы лексикологии. М., 1983. С. 157-174.
ОКДА — Общекарпатский диалектологический атлас. Кишинев, 1989. Вып. 1; Варшава, 1991. Вып. 2; Львов, 1993. Вып. 3; М., 1994. Вып. 4.
ОЛА 1978 — Общеславянский лингвистический атлас. Вступительный выпуск. Общие принципы. Справочные материалы. М., 1978.
Петрович Д. О карпатологическом аспекте сербохорватско-албанских лексических отношений // Славянское и балканское языкознание. Проблемы языковых контактов. Москва, 1983. С. 194-209.
Седакова И. А. Из опыта работы над МДАБЯ: Болгарская лексика по теме «Человек как личность» // Исследования по славянской диалектологии. Вып. 7. М., 2001. С. 52-65.
Семчинский С. В. Лексико-семантические интерференции славянского происхождения в дакороманском ареале // Ареальные исследования в языкознании и этнографии. Л., 1977. С. 119-126.
Сравнительно-историческая грамматика тюркских языков. Лексика. М., 1997.
Соболев А. Н. К обоснованию проекта Малого диалектологического атласа балканских языков // Малый диалектологический атлас балканских языков. Материалы второго рабочего совещания. СПб.,
1998. С. 16-26.
Соболев А. Н. Лексика в «Малом диалектологическом атласе балканских языков» // Die Sudosteuropa-Wissenschaten im neuen Jahrhundert / Hrsg. von U. Hinrichs und U. Buttner. Wiesbaden, 2000. S. 219-229.
Соболев А. Н. Балканская лексика в ареальном и ареально-типологическом освещении // ВЯ. 2001. № 2. С. 59-93.
Соболев А. Н. Южнославянские языки в балканском ареале.
XIII Международный съезд славистов (Любляна, август 2003). Marburg, 2003.
Соболев А. Н. Славянские заимствования в балканских диалектах. I. Северная Албания // Исследования по славянской диалектологии. М., 2004. С. 22-33 (а).
Соболев А. Н. Опыт исследования тюркизмов в балканских диалектах. Часть I, II // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
2004. Bd. 40/1, 2. S. 61-91, 206-229 (б).
Соболев (in print) — Соболев А. Н. Общебалканская лексика в ареальном освещении // Мегународна научна конференцща од областа на ареалната лингвистика в памет на Б. Видоески. Skopje.
Соболев А. Н., Русаков А. Ю. (Ред.). Актуальные вопросы балканского языкознания. Материалы международной научной конференции (май 2001 г.). СПб., 2003.
Стойчев Т. Родопски речник // Българска диалектология. Проучвания и материали. Кн. II. София, 1965.
Стойчев Т. Родопски речник // Българска диалектология. Проучвания и материали. Кн. V. София, 1970.
Толстой Н. И. Избранные труды. Том 1. Славянская лексикология и семасиология. М., 1997.
Филипова-Байрова М. Гръцките заемки в съвременния български език. София, 1969.
Цивьян Т. В. Синтаксическая структура балканского языкового союза. М., 1979.
Цыхун Г. А. Типологические проблемы балканославянского ареала. Минск, 1981.
ALE — Atlas linguarum Europae. Vol. I. Fasc. 1-5. 1983-1997.
Bara M. Le lexique latin herite en aroumain dans une perspective romane. Munchen, 2004.
Batowski H. Projet d'un dictionaire de la communaute balkanique // III-e Congres international des slavistes. Communications et rapports. Nr. 2. Belgrad, 1939. P. 187-188.
Bernstein S. B. Les langues turkes de la peninsule des Balkans et «l'union des langues balkaniques» // Actes du 1er Congres International des Etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes. Sofia, 1968. P. 73-79. Birken-Silvermann G. Aufgaben und Probleme eines Worterbuchs der Latinismen in den Balkansprachen // Balkan-Archiv. 1992-1993. Bd. 17/18. S. 91-104.
Boretzky N. Der turkische EinfluB auf das Albanische. Teil I. Phonologie und Morphologie der albanischen Turzismen. Teil II. Worterbuch der albani-schen Turzismen. Wiesbaden, 1905-1906.
Borntrager E. W. Die slavischen Lehnworter im Neugriechischen. Forschungsstand - Probleme - Perspektiven // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. 1989. Jg. 25. S. 8-25.
Budziszewska A. Zapozyczenia slowianskie w dialektach nowogreckich. Warszawa, 1991.
Byhan A. Die alten Nasalvokale in den slavischen Elementen des Rumanischen// Jahresbericht des Instituts fur rumanische Sprache zu Leipzig. Jhg. 5. S. 298-370.
Choliolchev Ch. Sprachgeographische Betrachtungen uber die Terminologie der Kulturpflanzen in den Balkansprachen // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. 1979. Bd. XV. S. 40-50.
Choliolchev Chr., Kostov K., Mladenov M. Fragen der Zusammenstellung eines Atlas linguarum paeninsulae balcanicae // L'union linguistique balkanique. Actes du colloque international sur les problemes de la linguistique balkanique. Varna, 11-16 octobre 1976 // Linguistique balkanique. 1977. Vol. XX, 1-2. S. 65-71.
Cioranescu A. Dictionarul etimologic al limbii romane. Bucure^ti, 2001.
Qabej E. Zur Charakteristik der lateinischen Lehnworter im Albanischen // Revue roumaine de linguistique. 1962. Vol. 7. P. 161-199.
Qabej E. Studime etimologjike ne fushe te shqipes. Bleu I. Tirane, 1982. Bleu II. A-B. Tirane, 1976. Bleu IV. Dh-J. Tirane, 1996. Bleu VI. N-Rr. Tirane, 2002.
Demiraj Sh. Albanische Etymologien (Untersuchungen zum albanischen Erbwortschatz). Amsterdam; Atlanta, 1997.
Dietrich K. Zu den lateinisch-romanischen Lehnwortern im Neugriechischen // Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 1901. Bd. X. S. 587-596.
Dietrich K. Nachtrag zu den lateinisch-romanischen Lehnwortern im Neugriechischen// Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Bd. XI. 1902. S. 500-504.
Domaschke W. Der lateinische Wortschatz des Rumanischen // Jahresbericht des Instituts fur rumanische Sprache zu Leipzig. Leipzig, 1919. Jhg. 2125. S. 65-173.
Friedman V. A. Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond. Studies in Contact, Typology and other Phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Wiesbaden, 2003.
Gerov B. Die lateinisch-griechische Sprachgrenze auf der Balkanhalbinsel // Neumann G., Untermann J. (Hg.). Die Sprachen im Romischen Reich der Kaiserzeit. Koln, 1980. S. 147-165.
Gluhak A. Hrvatski etimoloski rjecnik. Zagreb, 1993.
Grannes A. Etude sur les turcismes en bulgare. Oslo, 1970.
Grannes A. Les turcismes dans un patrler bulgare de la Bulgarie de l'est// Acta orientalia Academiae scientiarum hungaricae. Tom. XXVIII. P. 269285.
Grannes A. Turco-bulgarica. Articles in English and French concerning Turkish influence on Bulgarian. Wiesbaden, 1996.
Grannes A., Hauge K. R., Suleymanoglu H. A. Dictionary of Turkisms in Bulgarian. Oslo, 2002.
Gutschmidt K. Albanische Tiernamen sudslawischer Herkunft // Zeitschrift fur Slawistik. Bd. XI. Berlin, 1966. S. 54-60.
Haarmann H. Balkanlinguistik (1): Areallinguistik und Lexikostatistik des balkanlateinischen Wortschatzes. Tubingen, 1978.
Haarmann H. Der Einfluss des Lateinischen in Sudosteuropa // Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden, 1999. S. 544-584.
Hallig R., Warttburg W. Begriffssystem als Grundlage fur die Lexikographie. Berlin, 1963.
Hazai Gy. Probleme und Aufgaben der Balkan-Turkologie // Actes du 1er Congres International des Etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes. Sofia, 1968. P. 95-1GG.
Hazai Gy. Die Balkanologie braucht einen neuen "Miklosich" // Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Hrsg. von N. Reiter. Berlin, 1983. S. 99-1G4. Hazai Gy., Kappler M. Der EinfluB des Turkischen in Sudosteuropa // Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden, 1999. S. 649-675.
Helbig R. Die italienischen Elemente im Albanesischen// Jahresbericht des Instituts fur rumanische Sprache zu Leipzig. Jhg. 7. 19GG. S. 1-137. Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik / Herausgegeben von Uwe Hinrichs. Wiesbaden, 1999 (a).
Hinrichs U. Balkanismen - Europaismen // Eurolinguistik — ein Schritt in die Zukunft. Beitrage zum Symposion vom 24.-27. Marz 1997. Wiesbaden, 1999. S. 85-11G (b).
Hinrichs U. Der EinfluB des Slavischen in Sudosteuropa // Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden, 1999. S. 619-647 (c).
Jirecek C. Die Romanen in den Stadten Dalmatiens wahrend des Mittelalters // Denkschrift der Wiener Akademie. Phil.-hist. Cl. I-III. Wien, 19G1-19G3.
Jokl N. Balkanlateinische Studien// Balkan-Archiv. Bd. IV. Leipzig, 1928. S. 195-217.
Jokl N. Sudslavische Wortstratographie und albanische Lehnwortkunde // Сборник в чест на проф. Л. Милетич за 7G год. от рождението му. София, 1933. S. 118-146.
Kapler M. Turkologie und Sudosteuropalinguistik // Die Sudosteuropa-Wissenschaten im neuen Jahrhundert. Hrsg. von U. Hinrichs und U. Buttner. Wiesbaden, 2GGG. S. 129-143.
Kazazis K. The Status of Turkisms in the Present-day Bakan Languages // Aspects of the Balkans. Ed. by H. Birnbaum. Paris, 1972. P. 87-116. Klajic B. Rjecnik stranih rijeci. Tudice i posudenice. Zagreb, 1978.
Knezevic A. Die Turzismen in der Sprache der Kroaten und Serben. Meisen-heim am Glan, 1962.
Kretschmer P. Lateinische und romanische Lehnworter im Neugriechischen // Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Bd. VII. 1898. S. 398-4G5.
Kristophson 1988 — Kristophson J. Romanische Elemente im Albanischen // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. Jg. 24. Wiesbaden, 1988. S. 51-93.
Leschber C. Die Verteilung der Slavismen uber das rumanische Sprachgebiet nach den Angaben des rumanischen Sprachatlasses. Teil I: Worterverzeichnis. Teil II: Statistik und ethnographische Ruckschlusse. Phil. Diss. Berlin, 1998.
Malingoudis Ph. Studien zu den slavischen Ortsnamen Griechenlands. I.
Slavische Flurnamen aus der messenischen Mani. Wiesbaden, 1981. Menges K. Turkisches Sprachgut im Sud-Slavishen// Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Hrsg. von N. Reiter. Berlin, 1983. S. 132-145.
Meyer G. Etymologisches Wortebuch der albanesischen Sprache. StraBburg, 1891.
Meyer G. Neugriechische Studien III. Die lateinischen Lehnworte im Neugriechischen. Wien, 1895.
Mihaescu H. Influenta greceasca asupra limbii romane pina in secolul al XV-lea. Bucure^ti, 1966.
Mihaila G. Imprimuturi vechi sud-slave in limba romana. Bucure^ti, 196G. Miklosich F. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen. Wien, 1861. Miklosich F. Die slavischen Elemente im Neugriechischen. Wien, 1869. Miklosich F. Albanische Forschungen I-III. Wien, 187G-1871.
Miklosich F. Die turkischen Elemente in den sudost- und osteuropaischen Sprachen// Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe. Bde. XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVIII. Wien. Miklosich F. Die slavischen Elemente in den sudost- und osteuropaischen Sprachen (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumanisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch, GroBrussisch, Polnisch). Wien, 1884.
Mladenov M, Steinke K. Die Ergebnisse der neueren bulgarischen Dialekt-forschung im Lichte der Balkanologie // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. Bd. XIV. 1978. S. 68-82.
Mladenova O. Grapes and Wine in the Balkans. An Ethno-Linguistic Study. Wiesbaden, 1998.
Mladenova O. Benennungen der Gabel in den Balkansprachen // Mitteilung-en des bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Osterreich. Jg. XI. 1999. S. 53-66.
Mollova M. Etude phonetique sur les turcismes en bulgare // LB. Vol. XII.
Sofia. P. 115-154.
Orel V. Albanian etymological dictionary. Leiden; Boston; Koln, 1998. Papahagi T. Dictionarul dialectului aromin, general §i etimologic. Bucure^ti, 19631, 19742.’
Philippide A. Originea romanilor. I-II. Ia§i, 1925, 1928.
Popovic I. Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache. Wiesbaden, 196G.
Reiter N. Slavismen im Gefuge der albanischen Lexik // R. Lachmann et al. (ed.). Tgoli chole Mёstrб. Gedenkschrift fur R. Olesch. Wien, 199G. S. 273-284.
Rocchi L. Latinismi e romanismi antichi nelle lingue slave meridionali. Udine; Campanotto, 199G.
Romansky M. St. Lehnworter lateinischen Ursprungs im Bulgarischen // Jahresbericht des Instituts fur rumanische Sprache zu Leipzig. Jhg. 15. Leipzig, 19G9. S. 89-134.
Rosetti Al. Influenta limbilor slave meridionale asupra limbii romane (sec. VI-XII). Bucure^ti, 1954.
Rosetti Al. Istoria limbii romane. I. De la origini pina la inceptul secolului al XVII-lea. Bucure^ti, 1986.
Sandfed Kr. Linguistique balkanique. Problemes et resultats. Paris, 193G.
Schaller H. Die turkischen Lehnworter in der bulgarischen Sprache. Eine Betrachtung nach sprachlichen Merkmalen und Bedeutungsgruppen // Zeitschrit fur Balkanologie. Bd. 9, Heft. 1. S. 174-186.
Schaller H. Zur Frage der syntagmatischen und phraseologischen Verwendung turkischer Lehnworter im Bulgarischen // Linguistique balkanique. Vol. XXXVI. Sofia, 1993. S. 129-135.
Schaller H. Die Lehnwortbeziehungen der Sprachen in Sudosteuropa // Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden,
1999. S.463-485.
Scheludko D. Lateinische und rumanische Elemente im Bulgarischen // Balkan-Archiv. Bd. 3. S. 252-289.
Schropfer J. Zur inneren Sprachform der Balkanvolker// Zeitschrift fupr Slawistik. Bd. I. 1956. S. 139-151.
Schmaus A. Zur Lautgestalt der turkischen Lehnworter in den sudslavischen Sprachen // Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Heft 6. Munchen, 1955. S. 1G4-123.
Skok P. Etimologijski rjecnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. Knjiga prva A-J. Zagreb, 1971. Knjiga druga K-poni1. Zagreb, 1971. Knjiga treca poni2-Z. Zagreb, 1973. Knjiga cetvrta. Kazala. Zagreb, 1974.
Solta G. R. Einfuhrung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Beruck-sichtigung des Substrats un des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt, 198G.
Solta G. R. Balkanologie // Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Bd. VII. Kontakt, Migration und Kunstsprachen. Kontrastivitat, Klassifikation und Typologie. Tubingen, 1998. S.1G2G-1G39.
Stachowski St. Turkische Lehnworter im serbischen Dialekt von Pirot. Krakau, 1992.
Steinke K., Vraciu A. Introducere in lingvistica balcanica. Ia§i, 1999.
Svane G. Slawische Lehnworter im Albanischen. Aarhus, 1992.
Skaljic A. Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Sarajevo, 1966.
Tietze A. Die Probleme der Turzismenforschung // Ziele und Wege der Balkanlinguistik. Hrsg. von N. Reiter. Berlin, 1983. S. 237-244.
Tietze A. Der EinfluB des Turkischen auf andere Sprachen (Die Veroffen-tlichungen seit etwa 195G) // Gy. Hazai (Hrsg.). Handbuch der turkischen Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden, 199G. S. 119-145.
Trummer M. Sudosteuropaische Sprachen und Romanisch // Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Bd. VII. Kontakt, Migration und Kunst-sprachen. Kontrastivitat, Klassifikation und Typologie. Tubingen, 1998. S.135-184.
Tzitzilis Chr. Griechische Lehnworter im Turkischen (mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der anatolischen Dialekte). Wien, 1987.
Tzitzilis Chr. Beitrage zur aromunischen Wortschatzforschung // Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie. Bd. 24/2. 1988. S. 173-199.
Tzitzilis Chr. De turkischen Elemente im Neugriechischen verglichen mit den turkischen Elementen in anderen Balkansprachen // Zetscrift fur Balkano-logie. Bd. 33. Wiesbaden, 1997. S. 1G1-112.
Tzitzilis Chr. Der Einfluss des Griechischen in Sudosteuropa // Hinrichs U. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Sudosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden, 1999. S. 585-617.
Uhlisch D. Die neugriechischen Lehnworter im Albanischen. Berlin, 1964. Vasmer M. Die griechischen Lehnworter im Serbo-Kroatischen. Berlin, 1944. Weigand G. Die Terminologie des Maises im Bulgarischen, Rumanischen und Kleinrussischen // Jahresbericht des Instituts fur rumanische Sprache zu Leipzig. Jhg. 17-18. Leipzig, 1911. S. 361-375.
Wendt H. Die turkischen Elemente m Rumanischen. Berlin, 196G.
Ylli Xh. Das slavische Lehngut im Albanischen. 1. Teil. Lehnworter. Munchen, 1997.
AvSpiojryg N. П. Етпро^оуїко ^є^іко тп? Kowqc; vsos^nviK^q.
©Eoaa^ovvKn, 1995.
Lm/роотцдL. I. Ті 5єу є^аі єА^^ікб oxiv єМ/^ік^ у^юааа. A0^va, 1996.
