Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 40:5 (2023) ► pp.578–608

Gender reduction in contact

The case of Romani in nineteenth-century Hungary

| Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics
ORCID logo | University of Graz
The present paper investigates the reduction of gender assignment and agreement in a nineteenth-century Romani variety in contact with genderless Hungarian. This reduction took place within two generations of native speakers. We compare the geographical and sociolinguistic situation with the majority of present-day Romani varieties, which still maintain the original two-way (masculine, feminine) gender system. By comparing these varieties with the few Romani varieties which also display reduction of their gender system, we show that the development of this particular typological change may be the outcome of the minority situation of Romani and its geographical proximity to a genderless language. However, as rural varieties do not exhibit the same kind of erosion, this is not a sufficient explanation; what also appears to play a role in the Romani case is the urban context of the change. This sociolinguistic factor might also be considered in other case studies on the loss of grammatical gender.
Keywords: gender loss, gender reduction, language contact, language obsolescence, language attrition, contact-induced language change, Romani, Romani dialects, metrolingualism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Gender reduction and loss
    • 2.1Examples of gender reduction in Indo-Iranian
    • 2.2Grammatical change in Romani
  • 3.Sources
    • 3.1Balogh Jancsi
    • 3.2Balogh Ferkó and Pusztai Sarolta
    • 3.3Discussion of the sources
  • 4.Gender in Romani
  • 5.Gender in Ipolyság Romani
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22011.bal
References (80)
References
Adamou, Evangelia. 2010. Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish. Language in Society 39(2). 147–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia & Kimmo Granqvist. 2014. Unevenly mixed Romani languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 19(5). 525–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia, Quentin Feltgen & Cristian Padure. 2021. A unified approach to the study of language contact: Cross-language priming and change in adjective/noun order. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(6). 1635–1654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Gender and noun class. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.) in collaboration with Wolfgang Kesselheim, Morphologie/Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, 21. Halbband/Volume 21, 1031–1045. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Language contact in language obsolescence. In Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds.) Dynamics of contact-induced language change, Language Contact and Bilingualism 2, 77–109. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. How gender shapes the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anon. 1913a. József főherceg ismeretlen cigánynyelvü levele [Archduke Joseph’s unknown Romani language letter]. 23 August. Székesfehérvár és Vidéke 41(160). 4.Google Scholar
. 1913b. Napi hírek [Daily news]. 23 August. Pesti Hírlap 35(199). 8–14.Google Scholar
. 1938. Interjú Horváth Ferenccel, aki nem mindennapi ember! [An interview with Ferenc Horváth, who is not an everyday person!]. 3 April. Magyarság 19(75). 10.Google Scholar
Archduke Joseph, [József Főherczeg]. 1888. Czigány nyelvtan: Románo csibákero sziklaribe [Gypsy grammar]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.Google Scholar
. 1890. Eredeti czigánylevelek [Original Gypsy letters]. Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny XIV1. 737–768.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2014. Gender as a complex feature. Language Sciences 431. 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 1997. Athematic morphology in Romani: The borrowing of a borrowing pattern. In Yaron Matras, Peter Bakker & Hristo Kyuchukov (eds.) The typology and dialectology of Romani, 1–21. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baló, Márton A. 2020. Romani phonology. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 119–153. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Variation in the nominal morphology of Northern Vlax Romani. Word Structure 14(1). 25–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. The role of the Romani language in the preservation of Romani identity in Hungary. In Patricia Ronan & Evelyn Ziegler (eds.) Language and identity in migration contexts, 141–162. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Balogh Jancsi. 1850. Legelső czigány imádságok [Very first Gypsy prayers]. Esztergom: Beimel József Nyomdája.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell. 1996. Language preservation and publishing. In Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.) Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up, 139–156. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bodnárová, Zuzana. 2017. Spontaneous bottom-up revitalization: The development of Dunajská Streda Romani. In Kozhanov, Kirill, Mikhail Oslon & Dieter W. Halwachs (eds.) Das amen godi pala Lev Čerenkov: Romani historija, čhib taj kultura [Let us remember Lev Tcherenkov: Romani history, language and culture], 143–157. Graz: Grazer Linguistische Monographien.Google Scholar
. 2018. Gender marking in L2 Romani in contact with Hungarian: The case of Dunajská Streda Romani. In Friedman, Victor A. (ed.) Multilingualism and language contact, 80–91. Tetovo: Southeast European University.Google Scholar
. 2020. Užívání určitého členu v předložkových frázích v jihocentrální romštině [The use of the definite article in prepositional phrases in South Central Romani]. Romano džaniben 27(1). 135–150.Google Scholar
Bodnárová, Zuzana & Jakob Wiedner. 2020. The impact of Hungarian on Romani. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 303–328. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert. 2000. The definite article in Romani dialects. In Viktor Elšík & Yaron Matras (eds.), Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase, 31–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Gender adaptation in loan layers of Romani. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 66(4). 404–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Martha C. Muntzel. 1989. The structural consequences of language death. In Nancy N. Dorian (ed.) Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death, 181–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville C. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Sacha E. 2017. Competitive civilizing missions: Hungarian Germans, modernization, and ethnographic descriptions of the Zigeuner before World War I. Central European History 50(1). 6–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca. 2020. The complexity of grammatical gender and language ecology. In Peter Arkadiev & Francesco Gardani (eds.) The complexities of morphology, 193–229. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca & Matti Miestamo. 2019. The evolving complexity of gender agreement systems. In Francesca Di Garbo, Bruno Olsson & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.) Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity, vol. 2: World-wide comparative studies (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 27), 15–60. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca, Bruno Olsson & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.). 2019. Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity, vol. 1 & 2: World-wide comparative studies (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 27). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Elšík, Viktor. 2000a. Dialect variation in Romani personal pronouns. In Viktor Elšík & Yaron Matras (eds.) Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase, 65–94. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Romani nominal paradigms: Their structure, diversity and development. In Viktor Elšík & Yaron Matras (eds.) Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase, 9–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elšík, Viktor & Yaron Matras. 2006. Markedness and language change: The Romani sample. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elšík, Viktor, Michael Beníšek & Zuzana Bodnárová. 2014. Linguistic Atlas of Central Romani, [URL]. (4 February, 2022.)
Erdős, István. 2018. Még egy cseppet a jóból [One more bit of good]. Palócföld 64(3). 38–43.Google Scholar
FamilySearch. 2021. [URL]. (4 February, 2022.)
Friedman, Victor A. 2003. Romani as a minority language, as a standard language, and as a contact language: Comparative legal, sociolinguistic, and structural approaches. In Kari Fraurud & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds.) Multilingualism in global and local perspectives: Selected papers from the 8th Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, November 1–3, 2001, Stockholm, Rinkeby, 103–134. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
2010. Turkish grammar in Balkan Romani: Hierarchies of markedness in Balkan linguistics. Balkanistica 231. 107–124.Google Scholar
2020. The impact of Turkish on Romani. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 231–260. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gblem-Poidi, Massanvi Honorine. 2007. Nominal classes and concord in Igo (Ahlon). In Mary Esther Kropp Dakubu, George Akanlig-Pare, Kweku E. Osam & Kofi K. Saah (eds.) Proceedings of the Annual Colloquium of the Legon-Trondheim Linguistics Project, 10–20 January 2005, vol. 41, 52–60. Legon: Linguistics Department, University of Ghana.Google Scholar
Granqvist, Kimmo. 2002. Finnish Romani phonology and dialect geography. SKY Journal of Linguistics 151. 61–83.Google Scholar
. 2012. Finská romština – gramatický náčrt [Finnish Romani – a grammatical sketch]. Romano džaniben 14(1). 27–60.Google Scholar
. 2013. Finnish Romani during the nineteenth century. In Barbara Schrammel & Barbara Tiefenbacher (eds.) Romani V.: Papers from the Annual Meeting of the Gypsy Lore Society, Graz 2011, 13–28. Graz: Grazer Romani-Publikationen.Google Scholar
Halwachs, Dieter W. 2020. Language policy and planning in Romani. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 429–457. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamp, Eric P. 1989. On signs of health and death. In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.) Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language contraction and death (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language), 197–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta & Arantzazu Elordeta. 1994. The Basque dialect of Lekeitio. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Huber, Christian. To appear. Gender marking in Shumcho. In Marc Allassonnière-Tang & Marcin Kilarsky (eds.) Nominal classification in Asia and Oceania: Functional and diachronic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Igartua, Iván. 2019. Loss of grammatical gender and language contact. Diachronica 36(2). 181–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2). 196–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemény István, Béla Janky & Gabriella Lengyel. 2004. A magyarországi cigányság 1971–2003 [The Gypsies of Hungary 1971–2003]. Budapest: Gondolat – MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Anna-Maria. 2020. The Impact of Slavic languages on Romani. In Yaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 261–301. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö [Ministry of Social Affairs and Health]. 2004. Suomen romanit – Finitiko romaseele. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön esitteitä [Finnish Roma – Finitiko romaseele. Brochures of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health]. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö.
Mous, Maarten. 1994. Ma’a or Mbugu. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.) Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 175–200. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1998. A way to dusty death: The Matrix Language turnover hypothesis. In Lenore A. Grenoble & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds.) Endangered languages: Language loss and community response, 289–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newell, Heidi C. 2005. A consideration of feminine default gender. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati MA thesis.
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.) The handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurse, Derek. 1994. South Meets North: Ilwana = Bantu + Cushitic on Kenya’s Tana River. In Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous (eds.) Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining, 213–222. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use.Google Scholar
Országos Magyar Királyi Statisztikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical Office] (ed.). 1871. Az 1870. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás eredményei a hasznos házi állatok kimutatásával együtt [The results of the census carried out at the beginning of the year 1870, along with an account of useful domestic animals]. Pest, Hungary: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Országos Magyar Királyi Statisztikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical Office] (ed.). 1882. A Magyar Korona országaiban az 1881. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás főbb eredményei megyék és községek szerint részletezve, II. kötet [The main results of the census carried out at the beginning of the year 1881 in the countries of the Hungarian Crown, detailed according to counties, towns and villages, volume II]. Budapest: Pesti Könyvnyomda-Részvény-Társaság.Google Scholar
Országos Magyar Királyi Statisztikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical Office] (ed.). 1895. A Magyarországon 1893. január 31-én végrehajtott cigányösszeírás eredményei (Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények, Új folyam, IX. kötet) [The results of the Gypsy census carried out in Hungary on 31 January 1893 (Hungarian Statistical Bulletins, New series, volume IX]. Pest, Hungary: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Ortutay, István. 1915. József főherceg élete [The life of Archduke Joseph]. Szeged, Hungary: Engel Lajos Könyvnyomdája.Google Scholar
Otsuji, Emi & Alastair Pennycook. 2010. Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism 7(3). 240–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alistair & Emi Otsuji. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the city. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintér, Tibor. 2010. Nyelvhasználati sajátosságok a dunaszerdahelyi romani közösségben [Peculiarities of language use in the Romani community in Dunaszerdahely]. Fórum Társadalomtudományi Szemle 12(1). 61–84.Google Scholar
Rézműves, Melinda (ed.). 2003. Rromane Lila – Cigány Levelek – Rromani Letters. Budapest: Fővárosi Önkormányzat Cigány Ház – Romano Kher.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don & Joseph F. Eska. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodina, Yulia & Marit Westergaard. 2021. Grammatical gender and declension class in language change: A study of the loss of feminine gender in Norwegian. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 33(3). 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rózsa, Mária. 2012. „Közfényt gyarapítni”. Beimel József és Kozma Vazul pesti nyomdájának története és nyomtatványai [“To increase public awareness”. The history and prints of József Beimel and Kozma Vazul’s printing house in Pest], 1830–1864. Budapest: OSZK–Gondolat.Google Scholar
Soós, István. 2000. József főherceg cigány levelezése [Gypsy correspondence of Archduke Joseph]. Szekszárd, Hungary: Romológiai Kutatóintézet.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2012. Survival in a niche. On gender-copy in Chamorro (and sundry languages). In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds.) Morphologies in contact, 93–140. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szuhay, Péter. 2005. The self-definitions of Roma ethnic groups and their perceptions of other Roma groups. In Kemény István (ed.) Roma of Hungary, 237–246. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tóth József. Egy vén muzsikus [An old musician]. 1873. Fővárosi Lapok 10(128): 556–557.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 2003. The Noun Phrase: Nouns, determiners and modifiers; Pronouns and names. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.) A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tröster-Mutz, Stefan. 2011. The old minority languages of Europe. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.) The languages and linguistics of Europe, 455–466. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2017. The incomplete story of feminine gender loss in Northwestern Latvian dialects. Baltic Linguistics 81. 143–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The rise of gender in Nalca (Mek, Tanah Papua): The drift towards the canonical gender attractor. In Sebastian Fedden, Jenny Audring & Greville G. Corbett (eds.) Non-canonical gender systems, 68–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zahova, Sofiya. 2021. Introduction. In Raluca Bianca Roman, Sofiya Zahova & Alexandar G. Marinov (eds.) Roma writings. Romani literature and press in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe from the Nineteenth Century until World War II, 3–22. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar