Unevenly mixed Romani languages

Adamou, Evangelia; Granqvist, Kimmo

doi:10.1177/1367006914524645

Cited by 19 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with studies showing language switching costs, the prediction would be that the morphologically non-integrated verbs will have high processing costs in Romani-Turkish sentences. However, Adamou & Granqvist (2015) show that the Turkish verbs are frequent switches in the Romani community of Xanthi. In line with usage-based models, Turkish insertional switches should be processed with low costs, similar to unilingual speech.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Word Recognition In Sentence Contextmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The community has approximately 4,000 members of low socioeconomic status. The dominant Romani dialect spoken in Xanthi is characterized by the frequent insertion of Turkish words from all parts of speech with the exception of pronouns, reaching approximately 15% of all words in natural conversation (Adamou & Granqvist, 2015:531 (Adamou & Granqvist, 2015).…”

Section: Romani-turkish As Spoken In Greek Thracementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the use of non-integrated contact verbs is rare cross-linguistically (Wohlgemuth, 2009), it is reported for several Romani dialects in Europe, in different language contact settings and involving typologically diverse languages, i.e. North Russian Romani in contact with Russian (Rusakov, 2001), Finnish Romani in contact with Finnish (Adamou & Granqvist, 2015), Crimean Romani in contact with Turkish (Elšík & Matras, 2006: 135), Lithuanian Romani in contact with Russian (Elšík & Matras, 2006: 135), and several dialects spoken in the Balkans in contact with Turkish (Friedman, 2013). This suggests that sociolinguistic factors are at play, such as extensive and intensive bilingualism without strong prescriptive attitudes (Adamou, 2010).…”

Section: Romani-turkish As Spoken In Greek Thracementioning

confidence: 99%

“…See (4b).Version c, shown in (4c), is close to so-called classic codeswitching and was constructed by enunciating one part of the sentence in Romani, the other in Turkish with morphologically non-integrated nouns and verbs and with words from word classes which are otherwise used in Romani, such as pronouns. This option is possible in other Romani varieties, but is not attested in the free conversational corpus of the community(Adamou & Granqvist, 2015).Finally, Version d included sentences in Romani with Turkish verbs adapted in theRomani morphology, like borrowings; see example (4d). This possibility is attested in other Romani varieties of the Balkans but is not used in the local Romani variety.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

There are no language switching costs when codeswitching is frequent

Adamou

Shen

2017

International Journal of Bilingualism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceAims and Objectives/Purpose/Research QuestionsThere is ongoing discussion as to the cost of language switching, with some studies indicating high cost and others showing low or no cost. The main research question in this paper is whether there are language switching costs in communities in which codeswitching is frequent. Design/Methodology/Approach We conducted two on-line experiments, i.e. a picture choice with sentence auditory stimuli and a word recognition task in sentence context. We constructed 16 sentences with differing degrees of ecological validity (16 sentences x 4 versions = 64). The sentences included verbs with different language preferences in natural conversations (L1, L2, or both). Data and AnalysisThirty-seven simultaneous L1-Romani L2-Turkish bilinguals participated in Experiment 1 and 49 in Experiment 2. To analyze the results, linear mixed models (lmer) were constructed using the ‘lme4’ package in R.Findings/ConclusionsIn Experiment 1, participants responded significantly faster for the all-Turkish sentences, followed by the mixed Romani-Turkish sentences, and the two types of ecologically non-valid sentences. However, there were no processing costs for the mixed sentences when they contained Turkish verbs that are more frequently used in Turkish in the spontaneous conversations. In Experiment 2, reaction times were similar for Turkish verbs (with Turkish verb morphology) in a mixed Romani-Turkish or a unilingual Turkish sentence.OriginalityTaken together these findings indicate that language switching costs in comprehension depend on the frequency of codeswitching in the bilingual community, as well as on exposure to specific lexical items.Significance/ImplicationsThe Romani-Turkish data support a usage-based approach to bilingual processing and confirm the need to conduct experimental research that takes into account the communicational habits of the participants

show abstract

Section: Experiments 2: Word Recognition In Sentence Contextmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Romani-turkish As Spoken In Greek Thracementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Romani-turkish As Spoken In Greek Thracementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

There are no language switching costs when codeswitching is frequent

Adamou

Shen

2017

International Journal of Bilingualism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Granqvist & Pirttisaari 2003;Pirttisaari 2002Pirttisaari , 2004Granqvist 2013aGranqvist , 2013b sekä koodinvaihto suomen ja romanikielen välillä (ks. Kovanen 2010Kovanen , 2013Adamou & Granqvist 2015). Myös Suomen romanien diskurssia on tutkittu (Granqvist 2009).…”

Section: Johdantounclassified

Romanikielinen ja romanikieleen pohjautuva kieliaines Suomen romanien suomenkielisessä verkkokeskustelussa

Salo¹

2017

Virittäjä

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tiivistelmä Tämä artikkeli tarkastelee romanikielisten ja romanikieleen pohjautuvien sanojen käyttöä Suomen romanien suomenkielisessä verkkokeskustelussa. Aineistona ovat verkkokeskustelupalstan suomi24.fi-romano tekstit ajalta 22.2.2003 – 18.7.2013. Tutkimusmetodi on tutkimusaineiston empiiriseen tarkasteluun perustuva. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on kuvata romanikieltä sisältävää suomea pararomanien määrittelyn valossa aiemmin tutkimattoman verkkokeskustelun kielen avulla. Pararomaneilla tarkoitetaan kielimuotoja, joista on kadonnut romanikielen kielioppi. Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan myös romanien suomenkielen varieteetissa esiintyvien romanikielisten elementtien alkuperää, sanaluokkia ja taivutusta. Suomen romanit käyttävät verkkokeskustelussa suomen yleis- ja puhekielen ja taivutetun Suomen romanikielen lisäksi suomen varieteettia, jossa on romanikieleen perustuvia sanoja, kieliopillisia muotoja ja lauseita. Aineiston romanikieleen pohjautuva sanasto edustaa alkuperältään seitsemäätoista eri kieliryhmää. Suurin osa lekseemeistä perustuu historialliseen indoarjalaiseen sanastoon. Kontaktikielten vaikutusta on huomattavasti vähemmän, yleisimpinä skandinaaviset vaikutteet. Sanoja taivutetaan useissa eri taivutusmuodoissa sekä suomen että romanikielen kieliopin mukaan. Joissakin sanoissa on sekä suomen että romanikielen taivutuksen aineksia. Kaikki sanaluokat esiintyvät vähintään kerran, mutta substantiivit ovat selvästi yleisin sanaluokka. Tämä on yleinen ilmiö lainautumisessa ja kielen rapautumisessa. Suomenkielisten kommenttien romanikielinen sanasto on suppeaa ja romanikielisten sanojen käyttö vaihtelee yksilöllisesti. Nämä seikat kertovat yleensä kielitaidon ja kielen käytön yleisestä vähenemisestä. Sanojen muodostaminen on verkkokeskustelussa kuitenkin luovaa. Taivutetusta Suomen romanikielestä voidaan ottaa käyttöön uusia, myös kieliopillisia romanikielisiä elementtejä. Siten verkkokeskustelun etnolektiin ei sovi pararomanin määrittely. Avainsanat: suomi, romani, etnolekti, leksikko, taivutus, verkkokeskustelu Romani and Romani-based words and structures in Finnish web discussion of the Finnish Roma This article investigates the use of Romani and Romani-based-words inweb discussion of the Finnish Roma. The data consist of the whole archive of Internet discussion board suomi24.fi-romano from date 22.2.2003 to date 18.7.2013. The data are studied empirically. The aim of this study is to compare the ethnolect of the Finnish Roma against the definition of Para-Romani. Para-Romanis have the grammatical structure of another language and only vocabulary from Romani. The origin, the use of parts of speech and inflection of the Romani lexemes in Finnish sentences have also been studied for this article. Finnish Roma use in their web discussion both Finnish and Romani but also the variety of Finnish, which has words, grammatical forms and sentences based on Romani. The vocabulary based on Romani represents in its origin seventeen different language groups, most of them on the historical Indo-Arian languages. The effect of contact languages is considerably smaller, and the most common influences are the Scandinavian ones. The Romani-based-words are used in several inflected forms of Finnish and Romani grammar. Some words include structures of both languages. All parts of speech occur at least once in the Romani-based-vocabulary but nouns are notably the most common. This is a common phenomenon in borrowing. The Romani vocabulary in Finnish comments in the data is narrow and the use of Romani words varies individually. These facts tell usually about weakening of the language skills and decrease in the use of the language. Hovewer, constructing the Romani-based- or Romani-mixed-words is creative in web discussions. The ethnolect of the Finnish Roma takes also grammatical linguistic elements from inflected Romani language. So, the definition of pararomani does not fit to the ethnolect of web discussions of the Finnish Roma. Key words: Finnish, Romani, ethnolect, lexicon, inflection, web discussion

show abstract