Darina MLADENOVA (Institute of Balkan Studies, Sofia)
Bulgarian lexical isoglosses: Geographical distribution and chronology
Prior linguo-geographic analysis of phenomena on various levels of the linguistic
system has established the existence of several types of macro-divisions of the Bulgarian
linguistic territory: (a) East vs. West; (b) Northeast vs. West and South; and (c) North vs.
South. Each of these macro-divisions may have a variant featuring non-contact
correspondence of the Southwestern areal (or parts thereof) and the Eastern, Northeastern
or Northern areals, respectively. Systematic research based on a large corpus of maps
may lead to the discovery of other types of macro-divisions.
Another line of current linguo-geographic research targets the in-depth analysis of
the established macro-divisions. This paper aims to show on the basis of the North vs.
South division the perspectives and issues of such research in relation to the lexicon. The
sequence of steps to be taken is as follows:
(1) Clarify the origin and chronology of the lexical phenomena that characterize a
given areal. A stratification of the relevant phenomena along such lines can be realized in
the Bulgarian context more easily through comparison with the other Balkan and Slavic
languages than by tracing back the history of the Bulgarian terms as documented in texts.
For the latter option we at present lack the necessary basis, which is satisfactory only
regarding the Old Bulgarian period. The questions that such a stratification intends to
answer are: (a) what kinds of lexical items characterize the areal; and (b) when did the
areal emerge and until when was it active.
(2) Having stratified the relevant lexical characteristics, we have to turn to the
configuration of the areal itself. A key role here plays contemporary computer-based
technology that allows the creation of combined maps by overlaying the areals of each
lexical stratum. The obtained profiles of lexical strata will show their cores and
peripheries. The question that arises in this regard is whether any patterns can be
observed. For instance, does the profile of Proto-Bulgarian elements differ from that of
Greek or Proto-Slavic elements and, if so, how does it differ?
(3) It is necessary to employ all resources to reconstruct the past configurations of
areals. There are several sets of data that can be illuminating in this regard and
conclusions should be drawn on the basis of their cross-referenced indications:
(a) Data from localizable early Modern Bulgarian texts, written between the
seventeenth and the nineteenth centuries;
(b) Data from the dialects of Bulgarian settlers in Romania and Bessarabia, which
reflect the Bulgarian state of affairs of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century;
(c) Toponymic data;
(d) Areal configurations of derived and related words.
Working with data sets (c) and (d), one can expect more profound insights if the place
names (or the derived and related words) are synchronic with the basic term. Thus, the
comparison of the West and South areals of нога ‘leg; foot’ and its derivatives
подножки, ножùца ’(leather) footwear string’, ногàвица, ногàвец ’pant leg’ leads to
valuable conclusions because it can be proven that both the basic term and its derivatives
have Proto-Slavic chronology.
(4) A characteristic feature of an areal are its subdivisions, some of which are
spillovers of other macro-divisions. It can be argued that micro-divisions are
superimposed on macro-divisions rather than dependent on them. This hypothesis will be
checked through comparison of macro-divisions’ internal segmentations.