i

i CURRENT ISSUES IN
iI LINGUISTIC THEORY I 126

ii’ ., :, =, >:’
,. )
6 ., /.,
f
! The History, Structure and Sociology I?: Im
of a Lanrzuage
 ROMAN1 STANDARDIZATION AND STATUS
IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN
University of Chicago

0. Introduction ’
Romani is one of the few widely-spoken languages of Europe for which
basic issues of standardization (orthography, dialectal base, etc.) are in the
process of resolution. In Haugen’s (1966:16-26) terms, Romani is at the
stage of selection of a norm. Due to the fact that the Roms are a transnational
people, problems of language planning are additionally complicated by the
fact that they are being confronted in the frameworks of various and varying
state mechanisms. For the Roms of the Republic of Macedonia, issues of
identity maintenance and sociopolitical integration must be viewed in the
context of an educational policy that has included multilingualism for the past
half century in a state that has only recently achieved independence and is
This is an offprint from: surrounded by overt and covert threats to its integrity. This paper will
examine a specific event in the current efforts to standardize Romani, namely
Yaron Matras (ed.) a conference held in Skopje, Macedonia on November 20-21, 1992, and the
Romani in Contact document that resulted from it. The document itself will be presented together
John Benjamins Publishing Company with commentary on its context significance.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia
1995 1. Macedonia, standardization efforts, and Romani
(Published as Vol. 126 of the series Macedonia has served as the site for a number of important events in the
CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY, standardization of three languages of the region, e.g. the Macedonian
ISSN 0304-0763) codification conferences of Skopje in 1944-45, the Albanian Alphabet Con-
ference of Bitola (Manastir) in 1908, and the publication of the Romani
ISBN 90 272 3629 1 (Hb; Eur.) / 1-55619-580-X (Hb; US) grammar by Jusuf and Kepeski (1980). For Macedonian, the results of the
0 Copyright 1995 - John Benjamins B.V. first codification conference of November-December 1944 were not accepted
by the government for a variety of reasons, and attempts to rehabilitate it in
the early 1990”s were based on party politics. but the basic rules of
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by
orthography and morphology wcrc cstahlishcd in May, 1945 (see Friedman
print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission
from the publisher.
178 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN ROMANI STANDARDIZATION IN MACEDONIA 179

1993). In the case of Albanian, later events in Albania and Kosovia - Wednesdays. There is also Romani radio programming elsewhere in
particularly the literary language unification of 1968-72 - have surpassed the Macedonia, c.g. Tetovo.
1908 Conference in overall effect, although the Alphabet Congress itself is
enshrined as a crucial step in the establishment of modern standard Albanian 2. The Macebonian Romani Standardization Conference of
(see Skendi 1967:366-90, Byron 1985). In the case of Romani, Jusuf and 1992
Kepeski (1980) can be compared to Pulevski (1 X80), which was an attempt at The November 1992 conference which is the focus of this article was
a Macedonian grammar that is seminal in its signaling of ethnic and linguistic sponsored by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Macedonia and the
consciousness but not sufficiently elaborated to serve as a codification. The Philological Faculty of the University of Skopje for the purpose of reaching
language resolutions adopted at the Fourth World Romani Congress held in an agreement concerning the introduction of Romani as a course of study in
Warsaw in 1990 (Cortiade et al. 1991) may become the watershed event in Macedonian schools. The conference was attended by a number of Mace-
the normativization of Standard Romani, but it is too early to judge. donian Roms active in Romani intellectual life, including Saip Jusuf, Trajko
In the past decade or so, there has been an upsurge in activity related to Petrovski, GjuneS Mustafa, Saip Isen, Ramo RuSidovski, Tahir Nuhi, Iliaz
the use of Romani as a means or subject of education. This is especially true Zendel, and others. Also present were Donald Kenrick and myself as well as
in Eastern Europe, where these efforts have occurred in the context of the members of the Philological Faculty of Skopjc University and the Mace-
region’s general sociopolitical upheaval that has its origins in the early donian Academy of Sciences, most notably Olivera JaSar-Nasteva and Liljana
eighties and broke the threshold of stability at the end of that decade. One of Minova-G.jurkova as well as iivko Cvetkovski, head of the Macedonian
the results of thcsc events has been a new focus on the situation of Romani as Department. It is important to emphasize that a distinction is made between
a language of literacy in Macedonia, where the Roms are a constitutionally course of study (Macedonian mstuvert predrnet ) and language of instruction
rccognizcd nationality and constitute 3% of the population (60,000) according (nmtaven jazik ).
to the 1991 census (Velkovska 1991), although the actual number is The ultimate goal of the Roms present at this conference was not the
undoubtedly higher - probably between 6% and 10% - the discrepancy in establishment of Romani as a language of instruction in a parallel education
figures being due to various factors including unaccounted for classifications system (nmtaven juzik) but rather the teaching of Romani as a subject in
and the use of religion (Islam) as a possible definer of ethnic identity. elementary schools and pedagogical academies (nastaven predmet), with a
The manuscript of Jusuf and Kepeski (1980) was ready for publication view to preparing a cadre of teachers and ultimately a lectureship and
in 1973, the same year as the second meeting of the Language Commission Department of Romani at the University of Skopje. One of the explicit goals
of the World Romani Congress, but publication was delayed for seven years. of Romani politics in Macedonia is the establishment of such a Department,
The alphabet that developed out of the second Language Commission meeting but a qualified cadre of faculty has yet to be trained. It is worth noting that
was published at approximately the same time in Kenrick (1981). In the some Roms in Macedonia have been under pressure to assimilate to Albanian
following decade, little progress was made in Macedonia in bringing Romani or Turkish language - for which government-funded parallel education
to a level similar to that of minority languages such as Albanian and Turkish. systems exist in Macedonia - on the basis of shared religion, i.e. Islam, a
There had been sporadic attempts at Romani language instruction at the situation that is also occurring among Macedonian Muslims. The Macedonian
elementary school level, but these classes did not lead to the establishment of government has thus begun to support the preservation of Romani ethnic and
a regular pedagogical program. In 1991, TV programming in Romani, and linguistic identity not only in connection with Article 48 of the Republic’s
also Vlach (Arumanian), whose speakers accounted for .3% of the constitution, which guarantees minority language rights, but also in order to
population, i.e. about 6,000, according to the 1981 census, was begun in reduce challenges from Albanian and Turkish.
Skopje: fifteen minutes of news on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively. The Romani-identified political party in Macedonia, the Party for the
By mid-1992, Romani and Arumanian each had 25 minutes of TV lime on Complete Emancipation of the Roms of Macedonia (Romani Purtija Saste
Emancipacijake e Romerlgiri tari Makedonija, Maccdonian Partija za Celosna
180 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN ROMAN1 STANDARDIZATION IN MACEDONIA 181

Emancipacija na Romite na Makedonija or PCER) had at’this time one ‘2. In view of the fact that the majority of Roms in the Republic of Macedonia
representative in parliament, Faik Abdi. During 1992, a second party, the use the Arlija dialect, this dialect shall serve as the basis of the Romani
Democratic Progressive Party of the Roms, split from PCER over various literary language in the Republic of Macedonia, but with certain grammatical,
issues, including questions of language standardization, dialectal compromise phonological, and especially lexical additions (and modifications) from all the
and the place of Romani in educational institutions (Nova Makedorzija Romani dialects of the Republic of Macedonia such as DZambaz, BurgudZi,
21.X.1992:4). It was in this context that the November 1992 conference took Gurbet, and others.’
place. Although representatives of different sides of Romani politics were Throughout the history of Romani standardization efforts in Macedonia,
present, the conference itself was kept apart from partisan considerations. Arlija has served as the basis, but, as indicated above, this question had be-
Nonetheless, the document that resulted from these deliberations, reproduced come a politically divisive issue. This compromise was satisfactory to all
here in English translation with additional commentary in square brackets, present at the conference.
was agreed upon by representatives of the various political currents as well as
by the intellectuals that produced it. The document addresses a number of ‘ALPHABET
general and specific issues in Romani language standardization and should be The Romani alphabet in the Republic of Macedonia consists of the following
viewed in the context of Jusuf and Kepeski (1980), Kenrick (1981), and letters in Latin transcription. The corresponding Macedonian orthography is
Cortiade et al. (1991). As indicated above, both Jusuf and Kenrick were used for Cyrillic.
present at the conference. Moreover, both Jusuf and Kenrick participated in Aa, Bb, Cc, Cc, Ch/Zh. Dd, Dildi, Ee, Ff, Gg. Hh, Ii, Jj, Kk, Kh/kh, Ll.
the deliberations of the Language Commission at the Fourth World Romani Mm, Nn, 00. Pp, Ph/ph, Rr, Ss, SS, Tt, TWth, Uu, Vv, Ai.’
Congress, at which Cortiade et al. (1991) was discussed and signed. Jusuf The corresponding Cyrillic alphabet would be the following (the order
was a signatory to that document, but Kenrick was not. Mention should also follows that of the Latin alphabet):
be made here of Hancock (1975, 1993), which, while important for the Aa, E;6, I.&, WI, rIx/Yx, L[A, I&I, Ee, 94, Tr, Xx, MEI, Jj, Kx,
history of Romani standardization, did not have a direct bearing on the 1992 Kx/xx, JIn, MM, HH, 00, llr~, lTx/nx, Pp, Cc, LLIm, TT, T X/TX,
conference. The former had been superseded by subsequent publications and Yy, BE, 33, mm
events while the latter had not yet appeared. Most of the differences between this alphabet and those proposed in
previous works are treated below. Three salient issues not addressed
3. The 1992 Romani Standardization Document: text and otherwise are the indication of unpredictable stress by means of a grave
commentary accent, the use of the acute instead of the haEek (Romani c’iriklo) to mark
palatals and the use of a special symbol 3 for the voiced palatal affricate
‘GENERAL PRINCIPLES (fricative in some dialects) all in Cortiade et al. (1991). The issue of marking
1. This codification is for the Romani language as a course of study in the stress is not addressed here. Apparently the participants did not feel it was an
Republic of Macedonia. This codification is viewed as a necessary step to- issue. The use of the haEek instead of the acute for strident palatals is well
ward the international Romani literary language and not in competition with established both in East European orthographies and in linguistic
it.’ transcriptions, as well as in many Romani publications, including both Jusuf
This statement was intended to address Cortiade et al. (1991). The and Kepeski (1980) and Kenrick (1981). Despite the fact that a number of
Romani participants in the conference felt that the situation in Macedonia publications have appeared in the orthography of Cortiade et al. (1991). the
required a regional standard for use in Macedonian elementary schools, with participants in the conference preferred to follow the type of practice currently
a view to study of the international standard later. See also comments on the use in Macedonia and elsewhere (e.g. Petrovski 1992, Hilbschmannova 1991
Alphabet. et al.). The same attitude dictated the use of Di, instead of 3. The fact that the
acute is used for mellow palatals in East European languages that are in
182 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN ROMAN1 STANDARDIZATION IN MACEDONIA 183

contact with Romani, e.g. Serbo-Croatian and Polish, was also felt to favor Romani dialects. In the rare instances of schwa in the Arlija dialect, the .
the use of the hai;ek for strident palatals for Romani in Macedonia. corresponding form in DZambaz or some other Romani dialect with a
The situation can be compared to that of the Albanian alphabet congress different vowel’will be taken as the literary norm, e.g. instead of Arlija
of 1908. The crucial decision of that congress was the adoption of the vdrdon [“wagon”] DZambaz vurdon is accepted.’
principle that Albanian would be written in a Latin alphabet rather than Arabic Schwa is of foreign origin in Romani and only occurs in dialects
or Greek, although the two major Latin alphabets then in USC - one based on influcnccd hy contact with languages whcrc schwa is phonemic. Its
the principle of one letter per sound the other using digraphs - were both occurrcncc is gcncrally limilcd to borrowings from those languages. Thus,
endorsed. Eventually a single alphabet became official. Similarly, while most for example, in Jusuf and Kepeski’s (1980) vocabulary of 2,292 entries,
Roms agree that the alphabet used for Romani should be Latin (the mention only 31 items, representing at most 21 roots, contain schwa. Although Jusuf
of Cyrillic is simply for contexts where transliteration of individual items and Kcpeski (1980) use the sign <a> for schwa, Kenrick (1981) and
might be desirable in Macedonia, as opposed to the exclusive use of Cyrillic Cortiade et al. (1991) both exclude it as dialectal. In view of the fact that
in Mahkov 1992), there is not yet a general consensus concerning the details many occurrences of schwa in one dialect correspond to some other vowel in
of orthography. See especially points 4 though 8 below. another dialect, this was viewed as a good opportunity for expanding the
vocabulary of standardized Macedonian Romani beyond the limits of the
‘COMMENTARY Arlija dialect.
In some Romani dialects, the uvular fricative /x/ is distinguished from the ‘2. Where them is aspiration in the root of a word, it will always be written,
glottal aspirate Ihl and/or the rolled /r/ is distinguished from another related e.g. jnkh [“eye”].’
type of sonorant, but in view of the fact that such distinctions are not made in Although some dialects have deaspiration of underlying aspirates in
the Arlija dialect special letters [for these distinctions] have not been some positions, the adoption of the morphophonemic principle of re-
introduced into the alphabet. Such pronunciations are permitted as literary for presenting the underlying morphophoneme in spelling which is common to
those speakers who have such distinctions in their native dialects.’ many of the languages of Eastern Europe was adopted.
These are two major contested issues. Jusuf and Kepeski (1980), ‘3. Automatic devoicing is not spelled at the end of a word, e.g. dad
Kenrick (198 1) and Cortiade et al. (199 1) ail prescribe a graphic distinction [“father”].’
for /x/ and /h/, but Jusuf and Kepeski (1980) fail to make the distinction in Same as point 2 above.
practice, using both <x> and <h> in the same roots, e.g. xiv, hiv “hole”, xor ‘4. Where an underlying dental or velar slop or sonorant occurs before a
“depth” but horadaripe “deepening”, an illustration of the problem that would front vowel or jot, i.e. t, d, k, g, 1, n plus i, e, j, the underlying consonant is
be encountered by speakers of dialects without the distinction. Given that used in spelling, c.g. buti [“work”], kerdjum [“I did”], geljum [“I went”], lil
minimal pairs are extremely rare and that the sounds themselves are in free [“letter”], pani [“water”].’
variation in dialects where they are not phonemic, the majority of Roms at the This is an area of both considerable and salient dialectal variation and
meeting felt that a single grapheme should be used. In the case of the two morphophonemic alternation in Romani. Underlying or historical dental
types of/r/, Cortiade et al. (1991) makes the distinction facultative while both and/or velar stops in these positions can be pronounced as palatals and/or
Kenrick (1981) and Jusuf and Kepeski (1980) give only one /r/ in their with affricated or fricativized articulation in various dialects of Macedonia and
standard orthographies. elsewhere (see Vcntcel’ and Cerenkov 1976 for details), e.g. Arlija burr,
DZambaz huti, BurgudZi hrrci, Gurbet Outi; singular b&/plural b&a, etc.
‘BASIC ORTHOGRAPHIC, MORPHOLOGICAL AND Similarly, /l/ and /nl can become palatals or lost, e.g. Arlija pani but DZambaz
MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL RULES pi (< *pani). Jusuf and Kcpcski (19X0) show considcrablc variation, e.g.
I. Thcrc is no special sign for the so-called dark vowel (schwa) in the wriling holh <k> and <kj>, <I> and <lj>, etc. hcforc front vowels in the
alphabet because the vowel is very rare, marginal, or entirely absent in most same lexical items at diffcrcnt occurrcnccs. Corliadc ct al. (1991) articulates
184 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN ROMAN1 STANDARDIZATION IN MACEDONIA 185

this same principle for vclars, but has special graphic symbolsfor alternating in some dialects but not in others (except in case suffixes, see point 4), e.g.
dcntals and vclars in their function as cast markers (also called postpositions, kerdom.
see Friedman 1991) viz. B and q, respectively. Thus in the orthography of ‘6. Where there isjotation, it is written with j; the letter i is only written as a
Cortiadc ct al. (1991) the same morphophoncmic alternations have different vowel:
spellings, while the same graphic symbols have different pronunciations, a~ Romni, Romnie, Romnja, Romnjatar, etc.
illustrated in the following tablc: [“nom. sg., voc. sg., nom. pl. abl. pl.“]’
Jusuf and Kepeski (1980) are inconsistent in writing <i> for <j> in final
Cortiade 1992 Macedo- dialectal pro- position in some words, e.g. Saj/S,i “it is possible”, muj/mui “mouth”.
et al. (1991) nian Conference nunciations Similarly, there has been variation in the spelling of feminine obliques under
the influence of the nominative e.g. abl. Romniatar/Romnjatar for
Romcste [romeste] [romesde] [romnjatar]. Given that /i/ can contrast with /j/ as indicated in the vocative
Rom (lot. sg.) Romesec
Rom (lot. pl.) Romenee Romende [romende] [romendel singular and nominative plural forms of Romni “(Romani) woman, wife”
Romestar [romestar] cited here. it was agreed that there was a basis for a consistent distinction.
R o m (abl. s g . ) Romesear
Romcsear Romendat [romendar] See also point 5 above.
Rom (abl. pl.)
Romcskc [romcsce] [romeske] ‘7. In suffixes where DZambaz and other dialects preserve an older s which
Rom (dat. sg.) Romcsqc
Rom (dat. pl.) Romcnqe Romengc [romcnde] [romenge] has been lost in Arlija, s is written: devles, devlesa, [“god” act. sg., instr.
kcrdo [ derdo] [kerdo] sg.] manges, mangesn,mangas,martgasa[“want”, 2 sg. short/long, 1 pl.
done (m.sg.pt.) kcrdo
kerde kerde [&de] [kerde] short/ long].’
done (pl. pt.)
Jusuf and Kepeski (1980) do not address this issue directly but rather
There has also been confusion in prepositions and adverbs, e.g. and-o mix forms with and without original Is/ throughout the work. In Cortiade et
“in the” (Cortiadc et al. 1991) but an&o “in the” and&o “inside” (Sartiu al. (1991) this problem is addressed in the instrumental case but not
1992). elsewhere. Thus, for that suffix there is a special grapheme, viz. c, but no
It is important to emphasize that in the various dialects of Romani the prescription for other positions where /s/ alternates with /j/, 0, etc. Hence
same phonological changes that effect the dental case endings also effect the devleca, but mangesa or mangea. This was another area of important
dental participial marker, and, similarly, the same processes affect velars compromise for the Roms present at the conference. The fact that the forms
before front vowels in both roots and grammatical endings in those dialects with IsI are older while those without is/ represent dialect-specific innovations
with fronting of velars. To this can be added the fact that voicing is gave greater authority to the principle of adopting the compromise.
distinctive. The Roms present at the 1992 meeting were unanimous in their ‘8. The instrumental case is always written with s, e.g. mansa [“with me”],
decision to follow morphophonemic practice and spelling using underlying Romensar [“with the Roms”].’
consonants. Cf. comments on the alphabet above. Although /s/ > /c/after /II/ in the instrumental, the alternation is automatic
‘5. In writing the first person singular aorist the final consonant is preserved and so the underlying /s/ is kept in spelling. Moreover, in Arlija and some
according to the root, e.g. kerdo [“done”] > kercljum[“I did”].’ other dialects the instrumental plural has a variant in /-r/. Although this is not
This is a specific example of point 4, but at the same time it specifies the etymological, the Romani participants included it.
Arlija form of the first singular aorist. which can also be -em or -om, with or ‘9. The personal pronouns are the following:
without jotation, and is a salient dialectal feature, i.e. one which is taken by me, 04, vov, voj [I sg., 2 sg., 3 sg. m., 3 sg. f.]
amen, tlrmen, von or ala [I pl., 2 pl., 3 PI.]’
speakers themselves as indicative of dialectal affiliation. In Cortiade et al.
(1991), a hacek is used over a vowel that follows a consonant that is jotated
186 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN ROMAN1 STANDARDIZATION IN MACEDONIA 187

There is considcrahle variation of form in the third person personal 1991). As was indicated at the beginning of this article, the Romani
pronouns and in the posscssivc pronouns. The 1992 conference accepted documents under discussion here all represent the first stage. They are
variation in the third plural personal pronoun but not elsewhere. proposals, initiatives concerning linguistic rorm, but their implementation is
‘10. The possessive pronouns arc the following: still in process. When compared with early documents in the histories of
mo, to, po [I sg., 2 sg.. rcflcxivcl other languages spoken in Macedonia (cf. Xhuvani 1905/1980, Koneski
umfiro, t~4mfv0 [I pl., 2 pl. 1 1950, Peco et al. 1972), the 1992 document under consideration here can be
leske, lake, lerzge [3 sg. m., sg. f., ~1.1’ seen to be of the same basic type. In addition to addressing essential issues
See point 10 above. The singular possessive pronouns show the most such as dialectal base and alphabetical form, features of phonology and
variation and phonological change. By adopting these forms, those at the morphology that are most basic, problematic and/or salient to speakers
conference felt they were choosing those forms which were simplest and themselves are those for which norms are specified. Language contact is
most transparent and most easily learned by speakers of other dialects. generally studied in terms of lexical and structural borrowing, but
‘11. The definite articles are the following: normatiqization can also be seen as a contact process, especially in a context
nominative masculine singular: 0 such as that of Romani in Macedonia. The elaboration of a Romani standard
nominative feminine singular: i in Macedonia is taking place not only in the environment of the international
all others: e Romani movement, but also in contact with other standard languages that
o Rom, i Romni, e Roma, e Romnja, e Romeske, e Romnjake, e Romenge, have themselves only recently achieved elaboration and acceptance, which are
etc.’ in fact on-going processes. Just as Lunt (1951), by encouraging Macedonian
These are the rules for DZambaz rather than Arlija, which has o in the grammarians to use the third singular present as the citation form of the verb,
nominative plural. It thus represents a significant dialectal compromise. It had a significant impact on the standardization of conjugational types, so too,
also gives equal weight to marked masculine and feminine forms rather than documents such as that produced by the 1992 Skopje conference have the
marking the feminine nominative i as opposed to the masculine and piural potential to influence the on-going process of Romani normativization in such
nominative o as is done in Arlija. a way that the lessons of other languages can bc applied and modified where
‘12. The comparative is formed with the prefix po- or the suffix -eder. The appropriate.
superlative is formed with maj-.’
At this stage it was felt that the most essential points had been covered
and that a basis for further work and elaboration had been established. The REFERENCES
points 12 through to 15 were added on as examples of the type of elaboration
Byron, Janet (1985) An overview of language planning achievements among
that would need to be covered in the course of standardization. the Albanians of Yugoslavia. International Journal of the Sociology of
‘13. The names of the days of the week are the following: kurko, palkurko, Language 52,59-92.
dujtodi, tritodi, Startodi, panctodi, savato [“Sunday, Monday, etc.“] Cortiade, M. et al. (1991) I alfab&ta e standardone Rromane Chibaqiri,
14. The names of the seasons of the year are the following: anglonilaj, nilaj, DCcizia “I Rromani Alfab&ta”. Informaciaqoro Lil e Rromane Uniaqoro
palonilaj, iven [“spring, summer, etc.“] 1-2, 7-8.
Friedman, Victor A. (1985) Problems in the codification of a Standard Ro-
15. The names of the months are the international ones.’
mani Literary Language. In: Grumet, Joanne (cd.) Papers from the
Fourth and Fifth Annual Meetings: Gypsy Lore Society, North Ameri-
4. Conclusion can Chapter. New York: Gypsy Lore Society. 56-75.
Haugen (1966: 16-26) defines four stages in the development of language Friedman, Victor A. (1991) Romani nominal inflection: cases or post-
planning and standardization: 1) selection of norm, 2) codification of form, 3) positions?. ProMemy opisu gramatycznegoje;ykdw sfowiafisk)vh
$fru4iagramatyczne,vol. 11). Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.
elaboration of function, and 4) acceptance by the community (cf. also Ismalji
188 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN
In the CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY (CILT) series (edited by: E.Ik. Konrad
Koemer, University of Ottawa) the following volumes have been published thus far or are
scheduled to appear in the course of 1995:
Friedman, Victor A. (1993) The First Philological’ Conference for the
Establishment of the Maccdonian Alphabet and the Macedonian Literary 107. MARLE, Jaap van (ed.): Hisroricnl Linguistics 1991. Papers from the JOth Intemayional
Language: its precedents and consequences. In: Fishman, Joshua (ed.) ConIferewe on Hisrorical Lingaislics, Amwr~Jam, August 12-16, 1991. 1993.
The Earliest Stage of Language Planning: The “First Congress” Pheno- 108. LIEB, Hans-Heinrich: Linguistic Variables. Towards a unified theory of linguistic varia-
/ion. 1993.
menon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 159-80. 109. PAGLlUCA, William (ed.): Perspectives on Graf,~r,tcrrica/iiario~~. 1994.
Hancock, Ian (1975) Problems in the creation of a standard dialect of Ro- Jconicirv in Larwuaw.
,
1 IO. SIMONE. Raffacle (ed.): ., ,. 1995.
man&. (Social Sciences Research Council Working Papers in Socio- 111. TOBIN, Yishai: Invariance, Markedaess and Disrinctive Feature Analysis. A contrastive
linguistics No. 25.) Arlington, VA: ERIC. stucIy of sign .sy.~~ents iu English aad Hebrew. 1994.
Hancock, Ian (1993) The emergence of a Union dialect of North American 112. CULIOLI, Antoine: Cognirion and Rcpresenmlioa in Linguistic Theory. Translated, ed-
Vlax Romani, and its implications for an international standard. hter- ited and introduced hy Michel Liddle. n.y.p.
national Journal of the Sociology of Language 99,9 l- 104. 113. FERNANDEZ, Francisco, Miguel FUSTEk and Juan Jose CALVO (eds): English Histori-
Haugen, Einar (1966) Language Planning and Language Conjlict: The Case cal J.ingrrisfics 1992. Papers from the 7th h~~erna~ional Conference on English Historical
ofNorwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Linguistics, Valencia. 22-26 September 1992.1994.
HiibschmannovB, Milena, et al. (1991) Romsko-kskp a cesko-romsky’ 114. EGLI, U., P. PAUSE, Chr. SCHWARZE, A. von STECHOW, G. WIENOLD (eds): Lexical
kapesnislovm’k. Prague: Stdtni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi. Knowledge in rhe Organisariort of Lortgaage. 1995.
Ismajli, Rexhep (1991) Mbi normEn gjuh&sore. In: Ismajli, Rexhep. GjuhZ 115. EID, Mushira, Vincente CANTARlNO and Keith WALTERS (edn): Perspectives on
dhe etni. Prishtina: Rilindja. 303-326. Arabic Liagaisfics. Vol. VI. Papers from lhe Sixth Amma/ Symposium on Arabic Linguis-
Jusuf, $aip and Krume Kepeski (1980) Romani gramatika - Romska gra- rics. 1994.
I IA. MILLER. D. Gary: Amicrrf Scriprs aat/ Phnrrnlogical Kwwledge. 1994.
matika. Skopje: NaSa Kniga. 117. PHILIPPAKI-WARBUK7‘ON, I., K. NICOI.AIDIS and M. SIFIANOU (cds): T/rrmcs in
Kenrick, Donald (198 1) Roman0 alfabeto. Luli Phubaj 1, 3-4. Greek Linguistics. Papers from the first b~rerrtatiorral Conference on Greek Linguistics,
Koneski, Blaie (1950) Za donesuvanjeto na makedonskata azbuka i pra- Reading, September 1993. 1994.
vopis. Makedonski jazik 1:5,99-105. 118. HASAN, Ruqaiyn and Peter H. FRIES (cds): 011 Subjer, and Theme. A discourse func-
Lunt, Horace (195 1) Morfologijata na makedonskiot glagol. Makedonski tional perspective. 1995.
jazik 2:6, 123-31. 119. LIPPI-GREEN, Rosina: Language Ideology and Language Change in Early Modem
Maiikov, JaSar (1992) Cigansko-balgarski recnik. Sofia: Fondacija “Otvo- German, A sociolinguistic study of the consonantal system of Nuremherg. 1994.
reno obgtestvo”. 120. STONHAM. John T. : Combinaforial Morphology. 1994.
Peco. Asim et al. (eds.) (1972), BeEki knjigevni dogovor. In: Peco, Asim et 121. HASAN, Ruqaiya, Carmel CLORAN and David BUTT (cds): Functional Descriptions.
al. (eds.) Srpskohrvatski jezik. Beograd: Interpres. 40-4 I. Trcmsiriviry and the conslrrtcrion of experience. 1995.
Petrovski, Trajko (1992) 0 Siljan ,$trko. Skopje: Detska radost. 122. SMITH, John Charles and Martin MAIDEN (eds): Linguistic Theory and the Romance
Pulevski, Gj. (1880) Slavjano-naseljenski-makedorrska slognica recovska. Languages. 1995.
Sofia: Ugtin Diikov. 123. AMASTAE, Jon, Grant GOODALL, Mario MONTALBETTI and Marianne PHINNEY:
Sarh, Gheorghe (1992) Mic dicjionar rom-romhn. Bucharest: Kriterion. Conlemporary Research in Romance Lirtguisrics. Papers front the XXII Linguistic Sympo-
Skendi. Stavro (1967) The Albanian National Awakening. Princeton: sium ou Romance Languages, El Paso//lua’rez. February 22-24, 1994. 1995.
124. ANDERSEN, Henning: Hisrorical Linguistics 1993. Selected papers front the I Irh Inter-
Princeton University Press. nnrional Conference on Historical Linguislics, Los Angeles, 16-20 August 1993. 1995.
Velkovska, Vera, ed. (1991) Broj i struktura na naselenieto vo Republika 125. SINGH, Rajendra ted.): Towards a Critical Sociolinguistics. n.y.p.
Makedonija po opStini i nacionalna pripadnost: Sostojba 31.03.1991 126. MATRAS, Yaron (ed.): Romani in Conract. The history, s1ruc(ure and sociology of a
godina. Skopje: Repul$Eki zavod za statistika. language. 1995.
Ventcel’, T. V. and L. N. Cerenkov (1976) Dialekty ciganskogo jazyka. In: 127. GUY, Gregory R., John BAUGH, Deborah SCHIFFRIN and Crawford FEAGIN (eds):
Konrad, N. I. (gen. ed.) Jazyki Azii i Afriki I. Moscow: Nauka. 283- Tow&~ a Social Science of Longaage. Papers in honor of William Lubov. Volume 1:
332 Variarion aad change in language and society. n.y.p.
Xhuvani, Aleksander (1905/1980) Pb themelimin t5 nji gjuh& letrare. In: 128. GUY, Gregory R., John BAUGH, Deborah SCHIFFRIN and Crawford FEAGIN (eds):
Xhuvani, AleksandCr. Vepra. Tirana: Akademia e Shkcncave c Towartls a Social Scicnw of JAlrlgaage. Pnpers in horwr of William Lnhov. Volrtme 2:
Shqip&id. 3-7. (Originally published under the pseudonym Dokg Sula Social irflerrrcriorr am/ discortrse slrac1urcs. r1.y.p.
in the periodical Albania 9:8, 162) 129. LEVIN, Saul: Srmi/ic and Irl(lr)-Elrro/Jetrrt: The Priacipal Eiymologies. With observations
on Afro-Asiatic. n.y.p.
A full list of titles published in this series is available from the publisher.
188 VICTOR A. FRIEDMAN
In the CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY (CILT) series (edited by: E.A. Konrad
Koerner, University of Ottawa) the following volumes have been published thus far or are
scheduled to appear in the course of 1995:
Friedman, Victor A. (1993) The First Philological Conference for the
Establishment of the Macedonian Alphabet and the Macedonian Literary 107. MARLE, Jaap van (ed.): Historical Linguistics I991. Papers from rhe 10th Intern&o&
Language: its precedents and consequences. In: Fishman, Joshua (ed.) Conference im Historical LinguisGcs, Amsterdam, August 12- 16, 1991. 1993.
The Earliest Stage of Language Planning: The “First Congress” Pheno- 108. LIEB, Hans-Heinrich: Linguistic Variables. Towards a un$ed theory of linguistic varia-
menon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 159-80. rim. 1993.
109. PAGLIUCA, William (ed.): Perspectives on Gram,llaricalizn/ion. 1994.
Hancock, Ian (1975) Problems in the creation of a standard dialect of Ro-
I IO. SIMONE, Raffaelc (cd.): Icnnicity in Longuqe. 1995.
man&. (Social Sciences Research Council Working Papers in Socio- 11 I. TOBIN, Yishai: Irrvarionce, Morkedness cmd Disrincfive Feolure Analysis. A conrrasrive
linguistics No. 2.5.) Arlington, VA: ERIC. srudy ofsign .s~srems in English and Hebrew. 1994.
Hancock, Ian (1993) The emergence of a Union dialect of North American 112. CULIOLI, Antoine: Cognition and Representntion in Linguisfic Theory. Translated, ed-
Vlax Romani, and its implications for an international standard. Znter- ited an< intro&crd by Michel Liddle. n.y.p.
national Journal of the Sociology of Language 99,9 I- 104. 113. FERNANDEZ, Francisco, Miguel FUSTER and Juan Jose CALVO (eds): English Hisrori-
Haugen, Einar (1966) Language Planning and Langrrage Conflict: The Case cnl Linguistics 1992. Papers from the 7th brternafional Conference on English Historical
ofNorwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Linguistics, Valencin, 22-26 Sqmmber 1992.1994.
HiibschmannovB, Milena, et al. (1991) Romsko-kskq a Zesko-ramsky’ 114. EGLI, U., P. PAUSE, Chr. SCHWARZE. A. von STECHOW, G. WIENOLD (eds): Lexical
kupesni slov& Prague: St&ni pedagogickd nakladatelstvi Knowledge in the Urgonisatinn of Lrrnguqe. 1995.
Ismajli, Rexhep (1991) Mbi norm& gjuhcsore. In: Isma.jli, Rexhep. Gjuhl; 115. EID, Mushira, Vincente CANTARINO and Keith WALTERS (eds): Perspectives on
dhe etni. Prishtina: Rilindja. 303-326. Arabic Linguistics. Vol. VI. PoperZ~,from the Sixth Annrrol Symposium on Arnhic Linguis-
Jusuf, Saip and Krume Kcpcski (1980) Romani grumotikn - Romskn gra- lirs. 1994.
I 16. MILLER, D. Gary /Irrcic,rr/ &d/m turd I’lrorro/o~ic~tr/ K~ro~v/c~tl~~. 1994.
mntika. Skopje: NaSa Kniga.
117. PHlLIPPAKI-WARBURTON. I., K. NICOLAIDIS and M. SIFIANOU (eds): T/rernes in
Kenrick, Donald (198 1) Roman0 alfabeto. L.oli Phabaj 1,3-4. Greek Linguistics. Papers from rhe Jirsr br/ernc~/ional Conjerence on Greek Linguistics,
Koneski, Blaze (1950) Za donesuvanjeto na makedonskata azbuka i pra- Reading, September 1993. 1994.
vopis. Makedonski jazik 1:5,99-105. 118. HASAN, Ruqaiya and Peter H. FRIES (eds): 011 Subject and Theme. A discourse firm-
Lunt, Horace (1951) Morfologijata na makedonskiot glagol. Makedonski tional perspective. 1995.
jazik 2:6, 123-31. 119. LIPPI-GREEN, Rosina: Language Ideology ond Language Change in Early Modem
Maiikov, JaSar (1992) Cigansko-bgliarski re&ik. Sofia: Fondacija “Otvo- German. A sociolinguisric study of the consonantal sysfem of Nuremherg. 1994.
reno obgtestvo”. 120. STONHAM, John T. : Combinntorial Morphology. 1994.
Peco, Asim et al. (eds.) (1972), BeEki knjiievni dogovor. In: Peco, Asim et 121. HASAN, Ruqaiya, Carmel CLORAN and David BUTT (eds): Functional Descriptions.
al. (eds.) Srpskohrvatskijezik._ Beograd: Interpres. 40-41. Transitivity and the construction of experience. 1995.
Petrovski, Trajko (1992) 0 Siljan Strko. Skopje: Detska radost. 122. SMITH, John Charles and Martin MAIDEN (eds): Linguistic Theory and rhe Romance
Pulevski, Gj. (1880) Slavjano-naseljenski-makedonska slognica retovska. Languages. 1995.
Sofia: Ugrin Diikov. 123. AMASTAE, Jon. Grant GOODALL, Mario MONTALBETTI and Marianne PHINNEY:
Sargu, Gheorghe (1992) Mic dicfionar rom-romrin. Bucharest: Kriterion. Contemporary Research in Romance Linguistics. Papers from the XXII Linguistic Sympo-
Skendi, Stavro (1967) The Albanian National Awakening. Princeton: sium on Romance Lnngunges, El Paso//Judrez, February 22-24, 1994. 1995.
124. ANDERSEN. Henning: Historical Linguistics 1993. Selected papers from rhe IIth Inter-
Princeton University Press.
national Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16-20 August 1993. 1995.
Velkovska, Vera, ed. (1991) Broj i struktura na naselenieto vo Republika 125. SINGH, Rajendra (cd.): Towards a Critical Sociolinguisrics. n.y.p.
Makedonija po opStini i nacionalna pripadnost: Sostojba 31.03.1991 126. MATRAS, Yaron (ed.): Romani in Contact. The history, structure and sociology of a
godina. Skopje: RepuQliEki zavod za statistika. language. 1995.
Ventcel’, T. V. and L. N. Cerenkov (1976) Dialekty ciganskogo jazyka. In: 127. GUY, Gregory R., John BAUGH, Deborah SCHIFFRIN and Crawford FEAGIN (eds):
Konrad, N. I. (gen. ed.) Jazyki Azii i Afriki I. Moscow: Nauka. 283- Towords n So&l Science of Lqquoge. Papers in honor qf William Lnhov. Volume I:
332 Vnriotion and chnnge in lnngunge and socie~. n.y.p.
Xhuvani, AleksandEr (1905/1980) P%r themclimin t% nji gjuhti lelrare. In: 128. GUY, Gregory R.. John BAUGH, Dehornh SCHIFFRIN and Crawford FEAGIN (eds):
Xhuvani, AleksandCr. Vepra. Tirana: Akademia e Shkencave e Towrrrds n Soci(rl Science f$ Ltrngucfgc~. l’ccper:v in horror of Wi/iinm ,!.abov. Volume 2:
Shqip&isC. 3-7. (Originally published under the pseudonym Doke Sula Social interaction and discourse structures. n.y.p.
in the periodical Albania 9:X, 162) 129. LEVIN, Saul: Semiric nnd Indo-Europenn: The Principnl Etymologies. With observations
on Afro-Asiatic. n.y.p.
A full list of titles published in this series is available from the publisher.