Daria Konior

This paper focuses on the Aromanian variety spoken in the microregion of Prespa (Republic of Macedonia) and on its vitality in our days. The Aromanian presence in Prespa was first mentioned in the end of the 10th century, but some sources prove it to be much older-eg. (Кукудис 2013). In the 21st century, the town of Resen (administrative capital of the microregion) and its outskirts have ceased to be an important Aromanian centre. Although some local people admit they have Aromanian roots, the Aromanian variety is now spoken only in one family and only by its senior members in limited contexts. Their speech abounds with examples of interference of Macedonian, which has become the dominant language in relation to Aromanian in almost every domain. This linguistic situation is an example of language death. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Aromanian language in Prespa will be revitalized in the future. Цель настоящей статьи – описать языковую ситуацию и основные черты диалекта арумын региона Преспа. Этноязыковая группа арумын представле-на в данном регионе только одной семьей. Данная языковая ситуация рассма-тривается как пример «языковой смерти», так как младшее поколение уже не владеет арумынским языком, а старшее употребляет его только в ограни-ченных контекстах. Арумынская речь изобилует многочисленными приме-рами интерференции македонского языка, являющегося доминантным по от-ношению к арумынскому в данной ситуации.

This paper examines the unique situation of the nonequilibrium Romanian-Slavic bilingualism in the village of Iabalcea situated in the mainly Catholic commune Carașova, Romania. Romanian is the dominant language (L1) in Iabalcea spoken in the family, in the village and in the country, while the Slavic (Krashovani) dialect is L2 acquired passively. Neither of the idioms spoken in Iabalcea had been previously described by linguists. Primary analysis of the spontaneous narratives and some lexical data gathered in Iabalcea in 2013-2017 by the authors reflect the functional distribution of both idioms, code switching and linguistic hybridization phenomena. For the first time, the linguistic competence in L1 and L2 of the population of Iabalcea has been evaluated; consistent limitations in the competence in L2 (or lack thereof) in domains of text, speech act, syntax, morphology, phonology and vocabulary in different semantic groups have been found out; and, finally, the questions about the formation and functioning of this type of bilingualism, including the issue of the Romanian-Slavic linguistic and cultural interference intensity have been raised.

Krashovani are the Catholic Slavic language minority settled in the region of Romanian Banat. They live in seven villages: Karashevo, Clocotici, Lupac, Nermet, Vodnic, Rafnic and Iabalcea, however, the last one represents an untypical case from the linguists' point of view, the habitants usually communicate in Romanian, though they continue to declare themselves Krashovani. Time and reason of possible switch have not been clarified yet, as well as the Krashovanis' ethnogenesis and detailed history. The most popular scientific theories attach them to Serbians or Croatians. Although their archaic idiom contains more features of Kosovo-Resava or Prizren-Timok dialect areas, recently the locals have started to define themselves as Croatians, mainly due to the influences of the Catholic church and modern Croatian cultural politics. In this paper based on the results of our fieldwork in Karashevo, we analyze some particularities of the contemporary ethno-linguistic situation there, paying special attention to the actual state of both Slavic and Romanian idioms used in this microregion.

The paper presents new diachronic and synchronic data from the zones of intensive Slavic-non-Slavic contact in South-Eastern Europe within the framework of major theoretical issues of the Balkan and general contact linguistics. The contact induced change and variation through time and space (on the Island of Krk, in Tsakonia, in Prespa, in Golo Bordo, in Mrkovići and in Carașova) reveal the general paths of language convergence and the restrictions that apply to that convergence. Historically changing social circumstances of contact, such as symbiosis with dominant and non-dominant bilingualism are taken into consideration together with the roles of a high culture language vs. a language of traditional culture.