Cover not available
Part of
Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms
Edited by Kurt Braunmüller, Steffen Höder and Karoline Kühl
[Studies in Language Variation 16] 2014
► pp. 77–108

Towards a typological classification of Judeo-Spanish

Analyzing syntax and prosody of Bulgarian judezmo

| Universität Hamburg
| Universität Hamburg
| Universität Hamburg
Judeoespanyol (Judeo-Spanish) is one of the names given to those varieties of Spanish spoken by descendants of the Jews that were expelled from Spain in 1492. There is neither a common designation nor is it spoken in one specific area, nor is there any agreement on how to classify it. By some linguists Judeo- Spanish has been considered a dialect of (Balkan) Spanish, by some a contact language different from Spanish, and by others again, it has been discussed whether it represented medieval Spanish, preserved unchanged for the last five centuries. In this chapter, we argue that the Judeo-Spanish spoken in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia is indeed a contact language, showing on the phonetic side a puzzling similarity with Modern Bulgarian and on the syntactic side a similarity with Modern European Spanish, although at the same time exhibiting some archaisms of Old Spanish. It thus supports the idea that both divergence and stability frequently occur together in situations of linguistic contact.
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.16.05fis
References (92)
Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Agustinova, T. 1997. Word-order and Clitics in Bulgarian. Ph.D. Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word-Order. V-movement. EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491−539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariza, M. 2012. Fonología y fonética históricas del español. Madrid: Arco libros.Google Scholar
Auer, P. 2001. Silben- und akzentzählende Sprachen. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1391−1399. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Hinskens, F. 1996. The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. In Konvergenz und Divergenz von Dialekten in Europa, P. Auer, F. Hinskens & K. Mattheier (eds), 2–30. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Uhmann, S. 1988. Silben- und akzentzählende Sprachen. Literaturüber-blick und Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7: 214−259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, A. 2004. Convergence as a mechanism in language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 179–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barry, W., Andreeva, B., Russo, M., Dimitrova, S. & Kostadinova, T. 2003. Do rhythm measures tell us anything about language type? In Proceedings of the 15th ICPhS 2003, M. Solé, D. Recasens & J. Romero (eds), 2693–2696. Barcelona.Google Scholar
Barry, W., Andreeva, B. & Koreman, J. 2009. Do rhythm measures reflect perceived rhythm? Phonetica 66: 78–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benet, A., Gabriel, C., Kireva, E. & Pešková, A. 2012. Prosodic transfer from Italian to Spanish: Rhythmic Properties of L2 Speech and Argentinean Porteño. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2012, Q. Ma, H. Ding & D. Hirst (eds), 438−441. Shanghai.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 1995. Complement clitics in medieval romance: The Tobler-Mussafia law. In Clause Structure and Language Change, A. Battye & I. Roberts (eds), 325−344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2011. Praat. Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3). [computer program]. Retrieved18th October 2011. [URL].
Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen. lateinischen. persischen etc. Frankfurt am Main: Andreäische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K. 2003. Language, typology and society: Possible correlations. In Minor Languages: Approaches, Definitions, Controversies, J. Sherzer & T. Stolz (eds), 89–101. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Bunis, D.M. 1993. El idioma de los sefardíes: un panorama histórico. In Morešet Sefarad: El legado de Sefarad, 414−437. Jerusalem: Editorial Universitaria Magnes.Google Scholar
. 2011. Native designations of Judezmo as a ‘Jewish Language’. In Studies in Language, Literature and History Presented to Joseph Chetrit, Y. Tobi, H. Beinart & D. Kurzon (eds), 41−81. Jerusalem: Carmel.Google Scholar
Bürki, Y., Schmid, B. & Schwegler, A. 2006. Introducción a la Sección temática “Una lengua en la diáspora: el judeoespañol de oriente”. Revista de Lingüística Iberoamericana 8: 7–11.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, L. Rizzi (ed.), 115−165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Roberts, I. 2002. Clause structure and X-Second. In Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, G. Cinque (ed.), 123−166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cortés, S., Lleó, C. & Benet, A. 2011. Analyzing the status of Catalan Schwa in Barcelona. In Proceedings of the 17th ICPhS 2011, W. Lee & E. Zee (eds), 520−523. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, M. 2000. Sonority-driven reduction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect, L. Conathan, J. Good, D. Kavitskaya, A. Wulf & A. Yu (eds), 77−88. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Danchev, A. 1989. On the contrastive phonology of the stressed vowels in English and Bulgarian. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 25: 156−175.Google Scholar
Dasher, R. & Bolinger, D. 1982. On pre-accentual lengthening. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 12: 58–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Datcheva, G. 2004. Das Bulgarische im strukturellen Vergleich zum Deutschen. Hamburg: ­Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Dauer, R. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11: 51−62.Google Scholar
Dellwo, V. & Wagner, P. 2003. Relations between language rhythm and speech rate. In Proceedings of 15th ICPhS , 461–474. Barcelona.
Dimitrova, S. 1998. Bulgarian speech rhythm. Stress-timed or syllable-timed? Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27: 27−33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S. 2002. The catalan clitic system: A diachronic perspective on its syntax and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2003. Rethinking the Tobler-Mussafia law. Diachronica 20: 259−288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Word-order change as a source of grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John ­Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Revisting stylistic fronting in old Spanish. In Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, Variationist and Comparative Perspectives, A. Dufter & A.O. de Toledo y Huerta(eds), 53−76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logo
Fontana, J. 1993. Phrase Structure and the Syntax of Clitics in the History of Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gabinski, M.A. 1996. Die Vorgeschichte der dakoromanischen Ordinalia im Lichte der Angaben der sephardischen Sprache. In Sephardica: Hommage à Haïm Vidal Sephiha, W. Busse & M.-C. Varol Bornes (eds), 195−201. Frankfurt/Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. 2007. Fokus im Spannungsfeld von Phonologie und Syntax. Eine Studie zum Spanischen. Frankfurt: Vervuert.Google Scholar
. 2010. On focus, prosody, and word order in Argentinean Spanish. A minimalist OT account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem (Special issue 4 “Optimality-theoretic Syntax”): 183−222.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C., Meisenburg, T. & Selig, M. 2013. Spanisch: Phonetik und Phonologie. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. & Kireva, E. 2014. Prosodic transfer in learner and contact varieties: Speech rhythm and intonation of Buenos Aires Spanish and L2 Castilian Spanish produced by Italian natives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36: 257−281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerassimova, V.A. & Jaeger, F. 2002. Configurationality and the direct object clitic in Bulgarian. In Proceedings of the Seventh Student Session of the ESSLLI , 1–12. Trento, Italy.
Grabe, E. & Low, E.L. 2002. Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7, C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (eds), 515−546. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hetzer, A. 2001. Sephardisch: Judeo-español. Djudezmo. Einführung in die Umgangssprache der südosteuropäischen Juden. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hassán, I.M. 1995. El español sefardí (judeoespañol, ladino). In La lengua española hoy, M. Seco & G. Salvador (eds), 117−140. Madrid: Fundación Juan March.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445−483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533−564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J.I. & Şaul, M. 2011. Istanbul Judeo-Spanish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41: 89−110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IPA (International Phonetic Association). 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanchev, I.V. (Кънчев, И. В.) 1975. Fonética y fonología del judeoespañol de Bulgaria. Ph.D. dissertation. Sofia: University of Sofia.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.S. 1989. Null subjects and clitic climbing. In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli & K.J. Safir (eds), 239–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinoshita, N. & Sheppard, C. 2011. Validating acoustic measures of speech rhythm for second language acquisition. In Proceedings of 17th ICPhS , W.-S. Lee & E. Zee (eds), 1086–1089. Hong Kong.
Mairano, P. & Romano, A. 2010. Un confronto tra diverse metriche ritmiche usando Correlatore. In La dimensione temporale del parlato. Proceedings of the V National AISV Congress (Associazione Italiana di Scienze della Voce), S. Schmid, M. Schwarzenbach & D. Studer (eds), 79−100. Torriana (Italy): EDK Editore.Google Scholar
Mancheva, D. 1999. El “diccionario judeo-español – búlgaro” de Alberto Pipano como testimonio lexicográfico. In Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, J. Targarona Borrás & Á. Sáenz Badillo (eds), 530−537. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Martineau, F. 1991. Clitic climbing in infinitival constructions of middle French. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, D. Wanner & D.A. Kibee (eds), 235−251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez Celdrán, E. 2007. Análisis espectrográfico de los sonidos del habla. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. 1897. Zur Stellung der tonlosen Objektspronomina. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 21: 313−334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minervini, L. 2006. El desarrollo histórico del judeoespañol. Revista de Lingüística Iberoamericana 8: 13–34.Google Scholar
Mussafia, A. 1888. Enclisi o proclisi del pronome personale atono quale oggetto. Romania 27: 145−146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NGRAE. 2001. = Real Academia Española / Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española: Nueva gramática de la lengua española: Fonética y fonología. Madrid: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
Paunovski, V. 2005. La science en Bulgarie sur la langue ladino. Jews and Slavs 15: 155−170.Google Scholar
Pearce, E. 1990. Parameters in Old French Syntax: Infinitival Complements. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penny, R. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, K.L. 1945. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Quintana Rodríguez, A. 2006. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol: Estudio sincrónico y diacrónico. Frankfurt/Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. Historia del judeoespañol. Hispanorama 122: 15−19.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Nespor, M. & Mehler, J. 1999. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition 73: 265−292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, M.L. 1991. Clitic and NP climbing in old Spanish. In Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, H. Campos & F. Martínez Gil (eds), 241−282. Washington D.C.: Georgetown ­University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, E. 1992. La creación literaria en lengua sefardí. Madrid: Mapfre.Google Scholar
Romero, R. 2013. Palatal east meets velar west: Dialect contact and phonological accommodation in Judeo-Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 6: 279–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schelling, A. 2005. Judenspanisch in Bulgarien: Eine bedrohte Minderheitensprache. Master Thesis, Köln: Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Schmid, B. 2008. La lengua sefardí en su plenitud. In Sefardíes: Literatura y lengua de una nación dispersa, E. Romero (ed.), 51−79. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de ­Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
Schwarzwald, O.R. 1993. Morphological aspects in the development of Judeo-Spanish. Folia Linguistica XXVII/1–2: 27−44.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2004. An interface analysis of verb subject inversion in Romance. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 10.Google Scholar
Song, J.J. 2011. Word order typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, J.J. Song (ed.), 253−279. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1982. Syntax and Semantics of Presentational Sentence-Types. Washington. D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. 1848. Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen./Zur vergleichenden Sprachgeschichte. (2 Bde.). Bonn: H. B. König.Google Scholar
Studemund-Halévy, M. & Fischer, S. 2013. What happens when a language ceases to be used by its speakers? Documentation of Bulgarian Judezmo. In Sefarad an der Donau: Lengua y literatura de los Sefardíes en tierras de los Habsburgos, M. Studemund-Halévy, C. Liebl & I. Vučina Simović (eds), 407–424. Barcelona: Tirocinio.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. 1900. Adverbs. A New English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendo Press.Google Scholar
Ternes, E. & Vladimirova-Buhtz, T. 1999. Bulgarian. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 55–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tobler, A. 1875/1912.Besprechung von J. Le Coultre. De l’ordre des mots dans Chrétien de Troyes. Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik 5, reprinted Leipzig [1875] 1912: 395−414.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2010. Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 299–319. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varol Bornes, M.-C. 2009. Morphosyntactical calques in Judeo-Spanish: Mechanisms and limits. In Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews, M.D. Bunis (ed.), 260−273. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.Google Scholar
. 2011. Les verbes empruntés au turc en judéo-espagnol (Bulgarie). In Lexicología y lexicografía judeoespañolas, W. Busse & M. Studemund-Halévy (eds), 87−106. Frankfurt/Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1896. Altindische Grammatik I: Lautlehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Wanner, D. 1987. The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: From Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. & Mattys, S.L. 2007. Calibrating rhythm: First language and second language studies. Journal of Phonetics 35: 501–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. & Pettersson, T. 1988. Vowel reduction in Bulgarian: The phonetic data and model experiments. Folia Linguistica 22: 239–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zagona, K. 2002. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zubizaretta, M. 1998. Prosody. Focus and Word-order. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gabriel, Christoph & Jonas Grünke
2022. Unmarked use of marked syntactic structures. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.