A study on languages in Lerin (Florina) and Sobotsko (Aridea) in 1993 by a French Science & Research Society and funded by the European Commision
http://strates.revues.org/document381.html

S = Slavophones
R = Refugees (Pontian)
V = Vlachs
A = Arvanites

M = Macedonian Language
P = Pontian Dialect
A = Arvanitika (Albanian)
V = Vlach Language
T = Turkish
1 = Language is spoken by all age groups children & adults, in public, and by authorities
2 = Language is spoken by people age 20+, people under 20 understand language
3 = Language is spoken by people age 60+, in private
(+) Field observations
(o) information collected from local authorities

Florina Region:

Aridea Region:


Use of minority languages in the departments of Florina and Aridea (Macedonia)
Abstract
Abstract

This document presents the results of a field survey carried out in September 1993 and funded by the European Commission. The aim was to analyze usage of minority languages in a region of Northern Greece, which resembles a linguistic mosaic. In this region made up of the departments of Florina and arid, aside from the dominant Greek language, the following languages are still in use: Macedonian, valaki (close to Romanian), Arvanitika (close to Albanian), Turkish, Roma and the Pontic dialect (a Greek dialect used by previous inhabitants of the Black Sea or Pontos). The team, made up of two Dutch anthropologists, and Riki Van BOESCHOTEN Helleen van der Minne, visited 72 of the 139 villages in the region.
Contents
Socio-economic
The current linguistic situation
Factors preservation and decline
Degree of vitality
Full text


Our research has been conceived as an investigation integrating linguistic phenomena in all aspects of socio-economic context. In each village, we contacted the mayor or the secretary of the village and then we have interviewed with a questionnaire. If neither was present in the village, we made contact with other villagers. The villagers included in the research represent approximately 65% of the group slavophone, 90% of the group speaking Vlach and 100% of the group speaking arvanitika, on the whole population of the two departments. The distribution of language groups is shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Distribution of language groups
Table 1 - Rural Department of Florina


Source Tables 1 and 2: Census 1981, information from local authorities

Our results in these three languages are representative of the situation in the region. It is more difficult to estimate the representativeness of the Pontic dialect speakers, since this group can not be easily distinguished from Greek réfugiés2 from other parts of Turkey. Nevertheless, we visited 17 villages inhabited by speakers of this dialect, which allowed us to get an idea of the frequency of its use. In some villages, refugees from Asia Minor also speak Turkish (Table 4).
Socio-economic

The Department of Florina had always been an agricultural area under-developed, partly because of unfavorable natural conditions, and partly for historical and social reasons. The conditions of extreme poverty that marked the region since the Ottoman period until the sixties, now belong to the past. However it is still one of the least developed regions of the country. There is virtually no industry: 53% of the workforce is employed in the primary against only 20% in secondary schools and 27% in the tertiary (percentages at the national level are respectively 25%, 27% and 47 % 3). The power DEI is the main employer, but much of the workforce is employed in other regions of Greece. There are also twelve small scale industries which employ about 500 workers, most of them are recruited solely on contracts in the short term. In agriculture, average property is three acres, but has much less and there is a significant number of young farmers landless. The main agricultural productions are cereals, tobacco and livestock. Agriculture has been modernized and living standards improved, mainly thanks to grants from the EEC, but the production cost is high and most farmers are under-employed for much of the year. The unemployment rate is among the highest in the pays4, while only a third of the unemployed receive an allowance of chômage5. Between language groups there are marked differences in access to public employment, higher education and property. The refugees are better off, while slavophones are with the gypsies, the lowest in the social hierarchy.

Arid region is more prosperous than that of Florina. Its mild climate and fertile plain allow up to three crops per year. Agricultural production is widely marketed: The main crops are tobacco, peaches and cherries. The intensive farming practiced in the production sector offset in part the major problem in the region: the lack of land. The average property is only 1.5-2 hectares. Since the eighties, the standard of living of farmers has been significantly improved thanks to grants from the EEC. However, during the last two or three years, the fruit sector was in crisis, both because of overproduction and transport problems related to the Yugoslav crisis. Currently, only 10 to 40% of fruit are sold, the rest being destroyed. The region has experienced significant industrialization, but most factories are small and included rarely exceeds a few months per year. As in Florina, almost all plants are in the hands of refugees. The unemployment rate among youth who have completed their secondary education is high, but less than Florina. There is a difference between poor villages and towns rich: the first category includes mostly mountain villages inhabited by slavophones, while the richest villages in the plains and are mainly inhabited by réfugiés6. However, in this department, the socio-economic distinctions between language groups are less clear than in Florina.
The current linguistic situation

Greek is undoubtedly the dominant language throughout the region, and people who do not speak at all can be counted on the fingers of both hands. This is due to the decline factors discussed below, and the total absence of measures for minority languages. But, despite the unfavorable context, they have shown great vitality. The degree of preservation is higher in villages relatively poor and isolated, but minority languages are also well represented in some villages which are among the most dynamic. In the latter, the same minority language tends to be the dominant language in interpersonal communication.

A more astonishing concerned the attitude of the local population towards minority languages. The Greek authorities are very sensitive to the issue of minority languages, because in their view, recognition of these languages would open the door to claims of neighboring states. However, although this view is reflected in official discourse locally, including through the media, the existence and use of minority languages are generally accepted as a reality independent of any political implications. Another contradiction: People of a certain level of education tend to consider the use of minority languages as a sign of "delay", but many speakers of these languages are proud of their cultural heritage, especially their language . We found that these feelings of pride manifested especially among Vlachs and Pontic Greeks. There are probably many of slavophones, but they are reluctant to publicly express such sentiments.

A third general remark on the use of minority languages by age. In general, people over sixty years fluent in the minority language as their first language. The average group, aged between thirty and sixty years, is bilingual and, depending on their situation in different villages, speaks Greek or minority language as their first language. In the family, parents often speak minority languages between them, but use the Greek to address their children so that they can learn Greek properly and improve their chances on the labor market. Grandparents often speak the minority language to their grandchildren. Many teens have a good knowledge but, when mixed schools in urban areas or when they leave their village to work elsewhere, they tend to lose it. The pupils of primary education are usually the minority language, but does not speak. Finally, a remark on the difference between the sexes: up to the previous generation, women were the main vectors of family traditions, including language. In particular, grandmothers have played a crucial role in the transmission of langue7. This seems to change today in many households, more women than men wish to speak Greek to their children.
Factors preservation and decline

As with most linguistic minorities, the influence of national institutions dominated by the national language is a major factor in decline for minority languages. These institutions include the education system, army and the media. The abandonment of minority languages is also related to mixed marriages, although in this region, marriages between language groups are a relatively recent phenomenon and limited. The effects of this are multiplied by a number of factors specific to the region, often linked to the language policy of national and regional authorities. The memory of linguistic repression of the past (especially under the regime of Ioannis Metaxas, 1936-1940, and during the civil war) and the current despondency created a climate of fear regarding the use of minority languages. This psychological dimension is more pronounced among the older generations of slavophones, while it does not seem to affect the Pontic dialect speakers. Another factor that plays an important role among the group slavophone was the creation, since the fifties, nurseries and kindergartens in most villages slavophones, so that children learn Greek at an early age. The current generation of mothers slavophones attended such schools, which could explain the role of women in the transmission of the language is less important today than in the past. Finally, we must mention the role of migration. Generally, those who have emigrated to Western Europe were integrated into a community of Greek speakers in the host country, not in a group of speakers of minority languages. Insofar as many of these emigrants returned to Greece or visit their villages regularly during the holidays, their language has some influence at the local level.

However, several factors have contributed to the preservation of minority languages. First we must mention the relative isolation of the rural population, the limited scope of industrialization and the low degree of urbanization (except for the group of refugees). These factors impede the creation of a "melting pot" (melting pot). A second element is the existence of inter-marked divisions in the socio-economic sphere and the low level of marriage between these groups. Thirdly, the vitality of popular traditions, in which the minority language often plays an important role (especially for refugees and slavophones Pontian). In addition to these internal factors, there are also a number of external influences that promote the preservation of minority languages. First mention the role of foreign media offering programs in the same language or a language similar to minority languages spoken in the region. Programs that can be entered in the region are those of radio and television in Skopje and Tirana, and radio in Sofia. These programs are often recorded on tape or videotape and then passed from one family to another. Another important element is contact with relatives living abroad in a country where the minority language is dominant and often do not understand Greek, since they left their hometown when the use of Greek was much more limited. The latter factor mainly former political refugees, who fled the region after the civil war (1946-1949) and many of them slavophones. Finally, we should mention the presence of new immigrants and "shopping tours" of foreigners from countries where minority languages are dominant, ie former Yugoslavia and Albania. For the Macedonian that the influence of these factors preservation is the strongest.
Degree of vitality

We have divided the villages into three categories, depending on the degree of vitality of minority languages (Tables 3 and 4):

- In group 1, the level of preservation is highest. The minority language is the usual language of communication, with Greek, in public and in private. It can even be used by the authorities in their dealings with the villagers;

- In group 2, the percentage of people who have learned the minority language as their first language is lower than in group 1. Most people over thirty years have learned both languages simultaneously and are bilingual, but people over fifty or sixty years feel more comfortable in the minority language. It is still often used in daily life, but in private and in public. In general, persons under twenty years do not speak the language, but have a good level of understanding;

- In group 3, the minority language is spoken only by the elderly and in most cases only in private.

In the cities of Florina and Arid can hear the full range of minority languages, especially during market days, when farmers in the villages descended into town to sell their products. The usual language of communication is obviously Greek, since the urban population is largely mixed. Both cities are also home of the Gypsies, who speak, outside their own language (Roma), all other languages in use in the region.

NIce one Tsutsul Pase Goveda The symbols S & M appear to dominate the tables. Strange considering such a group does not exist within the Republic of Greece.

What do people think of the charts? I think its accurate. For example, the first village is Ano Idroussa. The village is mixed with Macedonians and Arvanites, and the Macedonian language is spoken by every age group. Other villages are different, like some villages where Pontian Refugees live, Turkish is spoken.

The study proves the research team couldn't find any NATIVE speakers of Greek!!!

Yes it is accurate in distinguishing linguistic groups in the region. Its representations of the ethnicities which live there is accurate. They however have got the definitions of 1, 2 & 3 wrong. In 1993, the younger generations wouldn't have come clean on which languages they speak. This study needs to be redone and it will reflect a truer scenario today then it did then showing a greater proportion of younger people speaking Macedonian.

You have to appreciate that a study as basic as this represents a significant act of courage in a country as repressive as Greece. I take my hat of to this group.

Pretty accurate for my two villages(Klabuchista)M1, although they gave Kleshchina(mothers) an M2 in 1993, I think that's the case now not then
Also another village, Sv. Petka was given an M3 then, I would say its an M2 even now

I find it interesting that there are villages like Piperia (Aridea) where the population is mixed with Macedonians and Pontians, and three languages are spoken, Macedonian (20+), Pontian (20+), and Tukish (60+). Other villages like Lechovo is only inhabited by Vlachs and Arvanites.

Anyone know why villages in Sobotsko are more mixed with Pontians then villages in Lerin? Its because Sobotsko historically had a large Macedonian Muslim population, who were sent with all other Muslims to Turkey and were replaced with Pontians.

Where is Armensko (Alona)?

No place called Skopos

Skopia-Nevoleni, Lerinsko

It shows my village as an M3 and that's not right. It is M1, M2 in reallity

Read the report, the researchers visited 72 out of 139 villages.

My bad.

a fantatsic study can we have it in the archives please. i was not surprised to hear that vlachs and pontians are proud of their languages and cultures, understandable given these 2 ethnic groups are no threat to the hellenic myth at this point, and are not suspect or oppressed by the athenians , but who knows what the future holds.
also interesting to see the author thinks the macedonians would exhibit the same pride but were too reluctant to express those sentiments in public.

what was the most amazing however was the existance of turkish, still spoken all this time by some of the prosfigi.

Actually it was not some research group, just two Dutch researchers, Riki Van Boeschoten (a translator for the EU at the time) and Helleen van der Minne and this work was done as part of the Mercator project if I'm not mistaken. The real interesting thing is that later on Riki was named to a professorship in the newly expanded University of Thessaly and has since continued her research into the Macedonians of Greece from her current position funded by the Greek taxpayer. She has been giving talks (sponsored by Modern Greek programs at various universities) along with her collaborator Loring Danforth - author of the study of the Aegean Macedonians of Australia - on the Deca Begalci (whom they have been studying for last few years in preparation for a book). These seminars have caused much annoyance to the Panmacedonian which accuses the Greek government of financing its own enemies.

The village of Loutraki (Pozharsko) Vodensko, says m1. This is accurate even today, my mother is from there.

WOW





I always wanted to see an information like this one.
This made my day.

If there is a possibility to find such data for other parts of Aegean Macedonia...

Thank you, thank you...

I had actually found this information by accident, I even forgot how I found it. I had translated the information and saved it, I've had it for maybe a month now.

Could you look please again in your computer.

Maybe you will find something else as precious as this.

Wow I get surprised more and more every day, who knows what will come up in the close future... on internet, or beneath us (I mean here in the Republic).