Coordinated by Aurelian GIUGĂL


 The Bulgarian minority in Romania – from integration to assimilation.

                                                           Case study: Izvoarele


Oana Luiza BARBU

 Faculty of Letters (Doctoral School), University of Bucharest


Alexandra Cristiana GAGIU

Faculty of Political Science, National School of Political Studies and Public Administration


 Adriana Daniela GIURCA

 Faculty of Political Science (Doctoral School), University of Bucharest



Abstract: This article having as case study the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele aims to offer an objective view on the truly nature of the process that this community has gone through in time, process that led to the numerical decline of this population. Therefore, we based our project on two opposing hypothesis, one regarding the assimilation process as cause for the broad numerical decline of the Bulgarian population in Izvoarele, the other concerning an aware denial to declare themselves as such. In order to test our hypothesis we used both semi-structured and non-structured interviews which we have applied on the local population, but we also use the documentary analysis. By tracing the origins of this community, using both field and theoretical research, we confirmed our first hypothesis, because with the exception of the linguistic aspect, limited to the oral use in the narrow domestic sphere, other elements specific to the Bulgarian tradition were either absent, or assimilated into the local indigenous culture beyond recognition and seen as representative for the region itself.


Keywords: Bulgarian minority, culture, language, ethnicity, integration, assimilation.





            The partial results of the last census held in Romania in 2011 show that although Romanians represent 88.6% of the total population[i], there is however a significant proportion of minority populations shared between 16 different minority communities. Given the ambiguity of the Romanian Constitution of 1991, we are interested to see how the relationship between the Romanian state and its minority groups is articulated, by making a comparison with the fundamental acts of the communist regime, more specifically the 1948, 1952 and 1965 Constitutions. Despite the fact that it is not the most visible and most numerous, being estimated at 0.04% of the total population according to the census of 2002[ii], our intention is to focus on the Bulgarian community which over time had a fluctuating course, becoming hereby a very relevant analysis object. The most relevant Bulgarian community is the one existing in Izvoarele, precisely because it reflects best the already mentioned trend. Therefore, the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele will represent our case study for this research project. The present project aims to answer the following question: which are the causes for the broad numerical decline of the Bulgarian population in Izvoarele? In order to find a proper answer to this main research question, we will focus also on a subsidiary set of questions related to the specificities of this community and to the way in which it co-exists with the native population. Moreover, we will analyze the perception of the community itself, but also the transformations undergone in language and traditions.  Our research project aims to test two opposing hypotheses. The first one takes as the main reason for the numerical decline of the Bulgarian population the assimilation process. The former one, contrary to the primary hypothesis, is based on the assumption that there is still a distinct Bulgarian community, especially in Izvoarele, which however is not willing to declare themself as such. We will structure our research project on two main theoretical frameworks, one belonging to political anthropology and the other to linguistic anthropology. In order to support the first theoretical framework we are going to use the concepts of "ethnicity", "groupism" and "assimilation" according to Brubaker’s insight. By using Silverstein’s approach, the second theoretical framework will represent our tool to define the concepts of “community language” and “speech community”, while calling on the theories of Huntington and Grumperz in the field of linguistic anthropology. However, since we will discuss also the issue of minority’s rights both in communist and post-communist regime we consider as being necessary to clarify the concept of “national minority” as defined at the institutional level by the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

            As for methodology used through our research project, we can cite the semi-structured interview and the non-structured interview because they allow respondents to express themselves freely according to their own priorities. Among the interviewed we called representatives of local authorities, but also simple villagers.   Regarding the sources used, we admit using equally primary sources, previously cited, but also secondary sources, since we will forge our theoretical framework based on works which have already partially addressed the theme of assimilation of minorities, more specifically the Bulgarian minority.





            Throughout this project we will make frequent reference to concepts such as "ethnic group/ethnicity", "national minority" or "assimilation". For a better understanding, it is necessary to carry out a conceptual delimitation.  A first term that needs to be clarified is the concept of "ethnic group". The definition formulated by Raoul Naroll seems to be the most adequate for our demarche and it will direct our research on the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele. According to him, an “ethnic group” is defined by 4 elements:       


"1. biological self-perpetuating; 2. shared fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms; 3. common field of communication and interaction; 4. membership which identifies itself and is identified by others as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order”[iii].                                                                                                                           

Most often, when we talk about an ethnic group, we come to speak of "ethnicity". But what specifically represents "ethnicity"? Phillip Q. Yang considers that “while ethnic group is a social group is based on ancestry, culture or national origin, ethnicity refers to affiliation or identification with an ethnic group”[iv]. On the other hand, Hal B. Levine sees ethnicity as “a method of classifying people that uses origin as its primary reference”[v]. In his book Ethnicity without groups, Brubaker considers necessary to redefine some concepts which him see as misinterpreted. One of these concepts is “ethnicity” itself who had been always and incorrectly linked with the concept of “groupism”. What the author is trying to show is that we can speak of ethnicity without necessarily invoking the ethnic group. One possible definition, inspired by the ethno methodological studies is that ethnicity may be seen as an accomplishment due to the practical skills and socialization of group members[vi]. The benefits of these cognitive perspectives on ethnicity allow us to consider ethnicity, race and nationalism as a single analysis domain, as a worldview more than independent bodies and to understand the relationship and the dynamic nature of race, ethnicity and nation, considering them as products of the categorization, coding and interpretation process. While working on Police ethnicity and its implications, Simone Haldaway and Megan O'Neil argue against Brubaker statement, asserting that "it is difficult not to make an analytical distinction between race and ethnicity "[vii].   Milton Yinger argues also in favor of this unavoidable distinction between race and ethnicity, by drawing attention about the fact that, because of its biological and strictly technical sense used by anthropologists, race should not be mistaken for ethnicity[viii]. It seems that before Weber’s new approach on this matter, race and ethnicity were used to describe the same thing.   However, by rethinking ethnicity as a social construct, Weber laid stress on the division between race and ethnicity as independent concepts[ix]. Nowadays, ethnicity is seen as representing the cultural identity of a group, while race is seen as its biological constitution. The other term that seems relevant to be defined is "national minority". As was mentioned before, there are many international institutions which are given as main mission the protection of minority rights. Thus, the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the OSCE considers as minority "any group of people who have different linguistic, cultural or ethnic characteristics of the majority. Moreover, a minority it’s not only interested in preserving its identity, but even tries to strengthen it"[x]. By its recommendation no. 1201, the Council of Europe states that


"a group of people represents a national minority if it is found on the territory of a
different state and if its citizens maintain long-term connections with that state, and exhibit distinct ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics"[xi].


When we speak about national minorities, most often we talk about ethnic solidarity links that appear in the event that these groups seek not to obtain national autonomy but an internal recognition from the State in whose territory they live[xii].                                                                                                    Sometimes national minorities are confronted with a process of assimilation, described by Rogers Brubacker as "the process of becoming similar to someone, to make someone similar with another, simply put to treat people in the same way ". The specific and organic sense of the word is to transform, to convert, to absorb, to incorporate[xiii]. The concept of "assimilation" seems not only useful but necessary, because it raises questions on issues such as the persistence of differences between multiple generations of immigrant origin or the degree and areas of similarity among reference populations. The ambiguity and pervasiveness of assimilation are perceived also by Yinger who, using it as a descriptive and analytical term, defines it as a process for reducing boundaries that may arise when members belonging to different societies or to different ethnic groups meet[xiv]. Assimilation takes many forms, one of them being the cultural assimilation - process by which the native language and culture are lost under the pressure of assimilation by the other group. People of this group acquired other customs, a different language and even other ideologies as a consequence of having contact with the native population[xv]. As for the notion of linguistic community, we consider necessary to point out the difference between "language communities" and "speech communities" as M. Silverstein does, in order to see which concept better explains the linguistic situation of Izvoarele. In a “community language”, the language which represents the socio-cultural construction that ensures social interaction and brand the production of identities and beliefs[xvi] mark off the linguistic anthropological analysis at structure and grammar level. Within the "speech communities ", which are frequently multilingual, including individuals who belong to several language communities, we can see emerging a differentiation between the use of a language in a particular context and the use of another, in a different kind of situation[xvii]. The constant change of denotation codes is called "code switching" and will be detailed with respect to the example of Izvoarele. By using these tools we will try to see what the situation of the Bulgarian community of Izvoarele is. We will try to investigate if we can still talking about a Bulgarian minority or if assimilation, if it occurred, was complete or partial.





3.1. Short history


            The last population census conducted in 2011 showed a total population of 19 million habitats, wherefrom 88.6% are of Romanian ethnicity[xviii]. Therefore, we can easily conclude that the national minorities in our country are not significant if we take into consideration the number, but the same population census revealed however a certain diversity (Hungarians, Turkish, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Serbians, etc.). The presence of these national minorities in Romania goes back in history, and as a consequence we can perceive their influence over the language, the customs and the traditions of our country. This is even more easily noticed in the various regions of Romania. As an example we can mention the Bulgarian minority which, even if it’s not very numerous, it can be identify in many regions of Romania, as Banat, Walachia and Dobruja. Investigating the issue on this Bulgarian minority deeper, we are going to find a very interesting aspect related to the existing differences between these communities, from a religious, linguistic and historical point of view.                 

            The Bulgarians came in Romania in many successive stages. The first massive immigration was historically recorded in 1396. After the failed expedition of king Vladislav II in 1444, more than 12 000 Bulgarians have sought refuge in Moldavia and in Walachia. Other important immigration stages were documented during Vlad the Impeller and Radu the Great epoch. The end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 19th century were also marked by strong immigration stages which can be considered the last wave of Bulgarian immigration in Romania[xix]. Without questioning, the Bulgarians in Banat represent the oldest Bulgarian ethnic community in Romania. This community appeared as a consequence of many immigration waves, the most recent being the immigration of the catholic population from Ciprovit (town that can be localized in the former Yugoslavian territory) which arrived in Romania after the defeat of the 1688 uprising[xx]. The « pavlikeni » - the catholic Bulgarians who have abandoned their villages situated on the Danube shore, between Svishtov and Nikopol, arrived later and they settled in Banat, mostly in villages as Vinga and Dudeștii Vechi. The Pavlikenii were members of the Christian-oriental community that refused the Sacrament and that were deported by the Byzantines in the 9th century from Mesopotamia to Trace. By establishing the contact with the slave population already settled in the Balkan region, an ethno-religious group who spoke Slavic language and who was a follower of the paulicien heresy resulted. Gradually, by the end of 16th century they all turned to Catholicism, maintaining however the sect denomination[xxi]. By the end of the First World War, the settlement between Bucharest and Belgrade concerning the Banat region allowed the catholic Bulgarians to remain within the Romanian borders. During the inter-war period, many families from Vinga moved to Arad and Timișoara. The massive collectivization imposed by the communist regime has increased the immigration of the Bulgarian population towards the main urban centers. However, the Bulgarian community of Banat has successfully managed to preserve its specificity and to developed more than the Bulgarian community situated in the south of Romania, and that due to a more heterogeneous demographic structure, a high degree of economic and cultural development of the region, of the privileges they enjoyed during the Habsburg occupation, of a weak assimilation pressure and of the actions of the Catholic church[xxii]. The Bulgarian community from Walachia and Dobruja has faced a completely different evolution to the Bulgarian community of Banat. The Bulgarians from south were very often called Serbians. They are the descendants of Bulgarians who escaped the ottoman terror and who arrived in Romania following many waves that started in the 15th century and ended in the 19th century. During the 20th century Bulgarians who fled their country because of economic and social reasons were welcomed. However, these Bulgarian communities did not benefit of education in their native language, therefore they lost and lose even today a significant part of their tradition and customs[xxiii].


3.2. Identity and demographic evolution


            According to the population censuses held between 1930-2002, we can perceive a high decreasing of the Bulgarian population in Romania. 66 348 Bulgarians could be found on Romanian territory in 1930 whereas only 12 040 had remained in 1956. During the communist period we can take notice of a continue decreasing of the Bulgarian population, so that in 1992 the census reported only 9 851 Bulgarians. As well as the entire population of Romania, the Bulgarian community has strongly degreased as a number until 2002, when the census showed only 8025 Bulgarians[xxiv].                    Among them, the majority can be localized in Banat, two third in Timiș and a tenth in Arad. The rest is localized in south of Romania and only 0.55% can be found in north of the country, in Sighetu Marmației. The natural assimilation process of the Bulgarians is more visible in Walachia and Oltenia, therefore, the last census revealed the fact that here only 2000 persons declared their membership to this minority[xxv].     This demographic dynamic successfully reflects the conflict between the struggle for national  auto determination and for the protection of the minorities rights and the assimilation and denationalization policies[xxvi]. In a speech held in front of the Parliament, Mihail Kogălniceanu emphasized the fact that the Bulgarians living within Romanian borders could benefit from the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution, under the condition of not using the hospitality shown by Romanian state in order to compromise its autonomy and neutrality[xxvii].

            In two Bulgarian magazines published in 1869 and 1869 – Dunavska zora (published in Brăila) and Svoboda (published in Bucharest) is emphasized the lack of interest of Bulgarians to preserve their language and traditions. In Alexandria, for example, as shown by Dunavska zora, the Bulgarians did not know how to read the Bulgarian language and they did not manifest any intention to teach their children this language. Moreover, this article also emphasizes that the Bulgarians had all the liberty to build churches and schools[xxviii]. The magazine Svoboda presents this situation also in other town such Craiova or Brăila, where there were no Bulgarian schools, neither churches nor magazines. The only interest they had was, according to this article, to enrich, without manifesting any regret of leaving their country[xxix]. Gradually, many of the Bulgarians are losing their national identity, either because they want to adapt more quickly, and build a new life, either because of the lack of churches and schools – functioning in the Bulgarian language, but also because of the assimilation policies of the Romanian authorities, disinterest shown by the Bulgarian state and the bad relations between the Bulgarians and Romanians. It was, in the end, the construction of a national policy of the Romanian state, which finally required the creation of "Greater Romania"[xxx].                                                           Afterwards, the instauration of the communist regime and its policies determined the ethnic and cultural liquidation of Bulgarians in Romania. At that point, the identitary characteristics can be observed only at the daily life aspects and among the older generation of the villages where we could find a more compact Bulgarian community[xxxi]. In the 1963 report of the Bulgarian ambassador in Romania, Ivan Kinov, it is mentioned the fact that the embassy did not remain in contact with the Bulgarians from Romania, or conversely, because it could be perceived by the Romanian authorities in an improper manner and could have caused the deterioration of bilateral relations[xxxii].   Besides the language, Bulgarians brought with them traditions and customs, many of them being assumed also by local population. Such traditions are "Zarezanul", "Drăgaica", "Lăzăriţele", more common in south of the country[xxxiii]. In the chapter dedicated to the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele we will detail these ethnographic aspects. Because of the confusion that happens most often between Bulgarians and Serbs, the identity of Bulgarian from Romania remains ambiguous.  Previously, the term "Serb" was used to define all the slave population that was localized in south. The confusion can be explained by the fact that the Bulgarian language is an Indo-European language, this category being also part of the Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian and Slovene languages. The Bulgarian language uses, usually, the Cyrillic alphabet, but there is always a Latin alphabet to meet certain international standards. An example in this sense is the Bulgarian community Dudeştii Vechi, composed by Bulgarian Paulicians, which uses the Latin alphabet and which preserved a particular dialect, with old elements of the Bulgarian language, which are missing from the contemporary literary language[xxxiv].


3.3. The Bulgarian minority status in post-communist Romania


Nowadays national minorities within Romanian borders benefit of all the rights and freedoms as the majority population. However, the situation was not always the same. For example, during the communist regime, national minorities have been marginalized because of the society’s standardization policy promoted by the Communist Party[xxxv].   Paradoxically, the Communist Constitutions recognized, at least theoretically, the rights and freedoms of national minorities (or ethnic groups, as they were called earlier by other constitutional acts of Romania). Even if the 1948 Constitution recognized the Romanian language as official language, the act provided for the use of other languages in state bodies and rejected the idea of cultural assimilation of minorities[xxxvi]. The recognition of the existence on the territory of Romania of other peoples, including the Bulgarians, was however emphasized by the affirmation of the unitary character of the Romanian state. The 1952 Constitution stated that "the national minorities of the Romanian People's Republic have equal rights of all the Romanian people". These rights were detailed by articles 17[xxxvii] and 82[xxxviii] of the same Constitution[xxxix]. However, the recognition of minorities’ language rights by the communist policies was not supposed to cover the whole issue of cultural autonomy. While discussing about the Hungarian minority, Stefano Bottoni says that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the repression of its traditions, whose practice was interpreted as a sign of cultural isolationism[xl]. The fall of communism and the beginning of the transition process towards democracy are certified by a new Constitution, which in Article 6 recalls the national minorities and guarantees respect for their rights and freedoms[xli]. In the post-Decembrist Romanian society, pluralism represents a condition for democracy, and as a consequence, immediately after 1989 were created many political parties and associations / unions of national minorities[xlii]. Under Article 59 (2) of the Constitution concerning the election of the Chambers of
Parliament, the national minority organizations which fail to obtain the necessary number of votes, were entitled to a place of MP automatically[xliii]. This right also glad that the Bulgarian minority, since 1990, has always been represented in Parliament. Between 1990-1996, the representative of the Bulgarian minority in the House of Deputies was the president of the Bulgarian Union of Banat, Carol Ivanciov. In the 1996 elections, Florin Simion, the representative of the Brastvo Community had won that place. In 2000, the Bulgarian Union of Banat wins again, by the election of Petru Mirciov as a representative of the Bulgarian minority in the Parliament of Romania[xliv]. During the communist regime, educational institutions of the Bulgarian minority have been closed. After the fall of communism and the transition to democracy, access to the mother tongue was encouraged. Nowadays, the Bulgarian language is taught in the territory of Romania at all levels, schools of Vinga, Breştea and Dudeştii Vechi, which was introduced even an optional course called "History and traditions of the Bulgarian minority in Romania", in high school "Saints Kiril and Metodii" of Dudeşti or Bulgarian Theoretical High School "Hristo Botev" in Bucharest[xlv]. At university level, Bucharest University created a Bulgarian section, just as it had done in other universities in Romania. After 1989, the Bulgarians in Romania benefit from the Romanian State of material support of a coherent space to develop the necessary activities for the preservation of national identity. Taking into consideration these two distinct Bulgarian ethnic groups, two organizations were created, one in Banat – Bulgarian Union Banat-Romania, with the seat in Timişoara and one in Bucharest – Bulgarian Cultural Association, who will later take the name of the "Bratstvo" Community of Bulgarians from Romanian[xlvi]. These organizations have among their activities books printing in Bulgarian language, books like Bulgarian Folklore from Banat in two volumes coordinated by Ivanciov Carol-Matei, several volumes of poems written by Ivanciov Ana - Carolina, Uzun Toni  - Mojta manena Biblija (My little Bible), Bărăgan deportation camps 1951-1956 written by Rafael Mirciov etc.

Through the medium of the Department for Interethnic Relations, the Romanian state has allocated large sums to the Bulgarian minority, see 6 billion lei in 2002 and 8.6 billion lei in 2004. From an administrative perspective, organizations of Bulgarian minorities developed their own activity on 4 seats of their own and 7 seats rented. Much of this money was used to finance the publication of Bulgarian magazines Nasa glas (Our voice) and Literaturna miseli (Literary Thought) and for the administration of the radio stations that transmit in the Bulgarian language in the south, radio stations like Radio Semnal in Alexandria, Meridian Radio in Rosiori de Vede et Radio Sud à Turnu Măgurele[xlvii], but also other radio stations that transmit to Timisoara and Arad.  It was considered necessary to describe the Bulgarian community in Romania to better understand the characteristics of the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele. This approach helped us identify the key elements that we had to follow during our field research, no matter their language or cultural. Having observed a clear distinction between the Bulgarian community in Banat and Walachia, we are interested to see if the Bulgarian community in Izvoarele, which is our study case, fits into one of these schemes.




Izvoarele is a village in the southern part of Romania, in Teleorman County. The old name of the village was Găuriciu due to its position within a valley, but it has undergone a change by a decree of the State Council in 1977, in favor of the name Izvoarele[xlviii], considered most appropriate by the authorities of the time because of the numerous sources of drinking water that surrounded the place.


4.1. Ethnographic characteristics


            One of the most relevant aspects for the objectives of this study is that of ethnographic character of the community, highlighted by the monograph of Izvoarele but also by the visit to the small museum dedicated to the preservation of traditional objects[xlix].  The traditional costume of women consisted of white cotton shirt with embroidered floral motifs in a reduced size, a waistcoat embroidered with butterflies, and a skirt lined with deck also adorned with floral motifs of a larger size. Bulgarian women used to cover their hair with a white cloth, simple, triangular, called Tulpan, while Romanian women used a rectangular white cloth, Marama, sometimes framed by colored lines[l]. Men wear white shirts, more or less adorned, pants and wide leather belts and wool socks with traditional leather sandals called opinci. The color trilogy of red, white and black is dotted with more vivid color accents like green and orange, colors that are found in the Romanian folk costumes very often. Specificity of the village lays in the existence of a black wool dress[li] which was not decorated at all, an article very representative for the Romanian costume. Specific claimed as Bulgarian customs, it would be appropriate to include only those which, during the communist regime, have been discouraged: Babin-Denul, Zărezeanul and Drăgaica.                      The Babin Den was a holiday exclusively for women who, on 1 January, were among the wise woman of the village, Ivanca, and brought her food. Due to the fact that Ivanca wasn’t really qualified to attend births and because of new medical conditions, this ritual has become obsolete in 1947-1948. It was never repeated because the midwife had died in 1954.

            As for Zărezean, it is celebrated every year on February 1st, when the men of the village go to church with small amounts of wheat, corn, wine and vineyards ropes. After Mass, the priest accompanies men in local vineyards and they pray for abundant crops in the New Year. The religious service was followed by the actual holiday, a generous meal and music. This rite was nevertheless abandoned after 1946, during the communist regime. According to the statements of the mayor of the village, Florea Beşu this custom recovery in recent years has been famous since the Holy Bulgarian origin Zărean Trifon, patron of vineyards.                   

            Drăgaica is a popular dance of young girls dressed in costumes for young mothers, consisting of a white shirt and an ornate white skirt with small symbols of human fertility. Generally, the right time for this dance is at the end of June when the flower called Drăgaica appeared.

            However, for decades the ensemble Izvorașul, financed by Anna and Alexandru Trifan, performed this dance and represents the village during popular festivals in all seasons, being very often awarded.      

            It is easy to see that the specific customs in the village that revolve around the theme of fertility and productivity, were discouraged during the communist regime just as had been the custom of Hungarians in Transylvania, according to Stefano Bottoni.


4.2. Monograph of the village


The monograph of the village of Izvoarele[lii], found on-site in the Town Hall’s archives, despite having been published in a post-communist context, rehashes a great part of the official communist discourse by even referencing the two CAPs (Agricultural Production Cooperatives). Beyond the detailed description of the agricultural activities of the region, one can find several clues on the origins of the inhabitants of Izvoarele inside the monograph. Firstly, we shall analyze the evolution of the population from a strictly numerical perspective in order to focus on its origins identified in historical records, later on.

The data compiled in the official monograph mention that in 1977 the total surface of the village also including the agricultural terrains added up to 3 812 hectares and the population was that of 3 948 inhabitants, 1993 of which were male and 1955 of which were female. However, the oldest information available on the issue of the population dates back to 1831 when the village harbored 184 families. In 1861, the number of families had been reduced to 158. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the data is more precise due to available census reports: 2 435 inhabitants in 1912, 2 900 in 1930. In 1956, a pronounced rise in the population was registered with up to 3 798 inhabitants, whereas in 1968 the number of inhabitants had become stable at 3 957. During our interview, the mayor of the village, Mr. Florea Besu confirmed that because of the migration towards the towns of Zimnicea and Alexandria, the population of Izvoarele had diminished to 2 535 inhabitants, a great deal of which were Bulgarians, despite the fact that during the most recent census only one of them had declared himself to actually be Bulgarian. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that during the 1977 census, none of the villagers had declared himself or herself to be of Bulgarian nationality, whereas in 1992 after the Romanian Revolution, 3 inhabitants had done so[liii].                               The mayor continued by telling us that sometimes he discussed with the villagers in Bulgarian because they express themselves more easily in this language. Having obtained the confirmation of the existence of a Bulgarian community, at least in terms of linguistics, we have tried to analyze its origins still using the official monograph. In this specific document, a supposition was lanced concerning the name Şopu, a very common name in the village, attesting the arrival in this place of families coming from a province at the border between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, whose inhabitants were called şopi. One of the arguments brought forth in favor of this hypothesis was the fact that the language spoken by those who came to Izvoarele resembled the Serbian language.

The first documentary attestation of the village dates back to the 23rd of July 1512 when Neagoe Basarab had limited the extent of the village of Suhaia by mentioning the Găurei road. At the end of the 16th century, Mihai Viteazul offered his cupbearer Turturea the Găuriciu domain. Here, in the first years of the 19th century, two villages could be found: Smârdioasa, still existing today, and Sârbii Otcişmea, the name of which translates into « the Serbs close to the spring ». According to the descriptions available in the historical documents, Sârbii Otcişmea was established in the same place that the village of Izvoarele is today. Whilst writing his will in 1823 Cernea Popovici, the administrator of the Aninoasa Monastery, admits to having brought 82 families of Serbs which he had assisted in settling in Găuriciu. But, considering that the denomination Sârbii Otcişmea existed several decades before the arrival of the Serbian families, we could deduce, along with the village’s monograph that in that moment a community of Serbs was already established on Ciuminie Vră, meaning the Hill of the Plague, where a rudimentary spring could be found. It should be noted however that the documentary sources cited in the monograph point to Serbians instead of Bulgarians because at that time in history all the populations south of the Danube River were labeled Serbians.

The principal of the School of the village, Ghiulea Floriana informed us that the language spoken by these early inhabitants of Izvoarele was an archaic form of Bulgarian which resembled the Macedonian language greatly which only conytributed to engendering confusion. A scientific article dating back to the era where she assumes the error had been recorded in the archives, published in The Journal of Race Development back in 1919, addresses the same aspect of the confusion of the Serbs, the Greeks and the Bulgarians regarding the Macedonian idiom. However, following the Peace Conference of Paris of 1919, the President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson had suggested that the solution to the nationality problem in the Balkans would be to emphasize the historical lign of allegiance. In consequence, the Bulgarian nationality affirmed by the Macedonian during the conflicts with the Turks, the Grreks and even the Serbs was recognized by the European governments as such[liv]. Coming back to our study case, it seems necessary to specify the inhabitants preserve at present the archaic Bulgarian idiom only in its oral dimension, in the domestic sphere and, as already stated in some of their rapports with local authorities. Nonetheless, only a small minority of locals which cross the border with Bulgaria more frequently know the Bulgarian alphabet and are able to read and write in this language.

The linguistic aspect seems essential to the study of the community because, as John Gumperz had put it himself, language acts as a container of cultural knowledge, a symbol of social identity and a medium of interaction[lv]. Referencing the loyalty towards the language which is manifested in the village of Izvoarele, and placing it in the context of recently created cities in a developing country, Gumperz emphasized the fact that the minority community members – still rooted in a ethicized environment in the sphere of the family – have to constantly commute between different linguistic and reference codes[lvi], especially so in their relations with local authorities, institutions and government bodies.

The longevity of the language of origin has also been treated by Samuel Huntington in relation to the Latin-American immigrants in the United States at the end of the 20th century. The author manifested his pessimism about the possibility of linguistic assimilation by affirming that it was unlikely that the individuals would give up the use of their native Spanish in favor of English because of residential segregation. In fact, he posited that if second-generation immigrants did not abandon the use of Spanish, third-generation immigrants would also become bilingual leading to an institutionalized preservation of the two languages in the Mexican community[lvii]. This type of reasoning can be easily applied in the case of the Bulgarian community of Izvoarele where the transmission of the archaic idiom from father to son for several centuries has been supported and stimulated by their regional concentration and their particular density in the area. However, it seems useful to maintain an objective distance between this controversial theory of Huntington that posits that the cited bilingualism presents itself as a menace to the North-American national identity[lviii]. In an empirical study on the life expectancy of a non-indigenous language, Rumbaut, Massey and Bean contradict Huntington showing that the preservation of Spanish does not represent a threat to the domination of English in the household because the proficiency in Spanish within the sphere of the domestic disappears between the second and third generation Mexican immigrants[lix].       

This gap between the archaic idiom and the governmental one causes, according to Gumperz, the politicization of minority linguistic groups and could potentially lead to conflict. In the case of Izvoarele, no moment of rupture occurred between the different ethnical groups, maybe because of the level of tolerance of the authorities in regards to the use of the Bulgarian language. According to the mayor’s declarations no pressures were exerted during the communist regime against the use of the Bulgarian language in the sphere of the family. In addition to this, the politicization of the members of the community did not truly manifest itself. Effectively, in light of the recent legislative elections, the mayor informed us that absenteeism was most pronounced in the case of the inhabitants with Bulgarian origins some of which had not even registered to vote on the permanent lists, thus being institutionalized absentees according to Pierre Bréchon[lx].        

By analyzing the relation between ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity and civil society behavior on the individual level, Christopher Anderson et Aida Paskeviciute have shown in their empirical study across 44 states that the most diversified societies from an ethnic and linguistic standpoint are less unstable and less conflict prone than it was believed in the past[lxi]. This piece of information could explain the lack of a rupture in the village. In relation to the dependent variables, the frequency of political discussions and involvement in voluntary organizations, we can observe that there is a difference in the absence of homogeneity. More precisely, linguistic heterogeneity seems to have a visible positive effect on civil society[lxii]. However, in terms of confidence in the democratic system, it is easy to see a negative influence of ethnical   heterogeneity in long-established democracies and of linguistic heterogeneity in more recently established democracies[lxiii]. This tendency towards a more reduced level of confidence in democratic structures in linguistic heterogenic societies may explain the low level of participation at the legislative elections of the Bulgarian-speaking inhabitants of Izvoarele, in the post-communist context. In our tentative explanation of the absenteeism, it would also be useful to take into consideration as Daniel Gaxie did himself, the social exclusion variable[lxiv], deeply rooted in the imperfect political socialization. The educational linguistic policies in place seem pertinent in regards to this issue because the school, preceded only by the family environment, is one of the most important socialization institutions.

During our interview with the principal of the local school, we found out that the teaching was done exclusively in Romanian and that there were several activities deeply centered on the idea of Romanian citizenship, like special events commemorating the 1st of December, the 24th of January. In addition to this, artistic shows were said to be organized according to local indigenous customs such as Drăgaica, not of Bulgarian descent. In consequence, despite the fact that primary socialization, within the family, is done in the Bulgarian archaic idiom, secondary socialization defined by Claude Dubar as the “acquisition of particular characteristics of future status groups and the preparation of options and choices of one’s own singular cultural elements”[lxv] is done exclusively in Romanian. In the school’s library, we could only find 2 books in Bulgarian[lxvi].                                                                            Nonetheless, at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, the parents of the children registered had also demanded parallel classes in Bulgarian which were carried out for a year only, under the guidance of a teacher of the Theoretical Bulgarian High school of Bucharest Hristo Botev de Bucarest, Daria Charnai (Дария Чарнъи). A second year had not been solicited by the parents and the teacher had left the establishment, leaving behind a letter written in Bulgarian in the official book of the school[lxvii], preceded by a letter of Mr. Nicolae Minovici, the president of the Bulgarian Union of Banat and a congressman in the 2008-2012 legislature occupying the places reserved within the Romanian Parliament for the Bulgarian minority.                 One could interpret this last document as an official message of recognition of the existence of the Bulgarian community in the village of Izvoarele, whose inhabitants are addressed as “my compatriots”[lxviii]. Despite this recognition, investments for the modernization of the school and kindergarten come from businessmen originating from the village and trying to give something back to the community as a whole, not from organizations of the Bulgarian minority at the national level.


4.3. Results of the survey conducted with inhabitants


            The survey conducted with inhabitants from Izvoarele has taken place in November 2013, more exactly during four days (9 – 10 November and 16-17 November). As we had mentioned before, our research methods include semi-structured and non-structured interviews so all the responses gathered reveal the non-biased perception of one’s own identity. Those who have accepted speaking to us pertain to all age categories, being in equal measure male and female. We talk about 25 persons belonging to all social categories, from the mayor and the head of the village school, to students and retired persons. Our interviews focused on several main issues, such as identifying the origins of the traditions and customs they share, the use and the knowledge (both spoken and written) of the Bulgarian language and the self-consciousness of belonging to a national minority, such as the Bulgarian one.

            Regarding the traditions and the traditional costumes, the elders were more able to identify them as having Bulgarian roots, perception coming more from transfer of information through generations, than from an actual assumed cultural identity. Contrary, the youngest generation lack to recognize the Bulgarian origins of the traditions and customs they used to follow in everyday life. However, our visit to the village museum and several works on the subject we have consulted point to a phenomenon that has more to do with the assimilation of specific Bulgarian traditions within the Romanian culture of the region rather than a amalgamate one. During the communist regime no pressures originating from the authorities were made against the use of the archaic language but the monograph of the village does mention that Bulgarian traditions had been discouraged just like Stefano Bottoni had remarked in the case of the Hungarian minority residing in Transylvania. After 1989, the traditions enacted in the village were no longer seen from the standpoint of their origins but as representative for the whole region which showcases their successful yet gradual assimilation.

            Concerning the Bulgarian idiom, all those questioned mentioned knowing and using it only in speech, with family and friends. We would like to add that even when speaking in Romanian, in more formal settings, they tend to use terms at the frontier between the two languages. When talking about an automobile, some use the word «maşinătă », which is not the Romanian word « maşină », nor the Bulgarian word « kola ». Even at the level of pronunciation, we had difficulties in understanding the speech of some of the respondents, especially the elderly. Despite the fact that only one person identifies himself as a Bulgarian national in the 2002 census in the village of Izvoarele, we were surprised to discover that Bulgarian was spoken everywhere. Even when mentioning linguistics, one of the most salient discoveries, we could not affirm that the Izvoarele community was a « language community », but rather a « speech community » in the words of M. Silverstein[lxix], because of its multilingual character stable with the passing of time and because of the language switch operated with the social context. Bulgarian in spoken within the family, Romanian is spoken mostly with state institutions.                                                                                                                        As for the perceived identity within the local population, without asking the question directly, but sometimes insisting on the Bulgarian elements, we were surprised to discover that there was a reaction of generalized rejection to the idea of Bulgarian affiliation. We were questioned ourselves about the objectives of our work of research in relation to the issue. One of our respondents suggested that he spoke Bulgarian frequently just like some Romanians speak English but he could not be considered Bulgarian as they themselves could not be considered English. Without being pressed to do so, he actually identified himself as a Romanian via his knowledge of Romanian history and geography. Constrained to declare themselves Romanian citizens by the communist regime, the inhabitants of the village had assumed this new identity and declare themselves to be Romanian at present, despite using a different language in their everyday life, in certain social contexts, a language they no longer perceive as their native language, but as a language of international circulation compared to English, due to its use in the frequent rapports across the southern border. In consequence, we could call the Izvoarele study-case an atypical example of gradual cultural assimilation.





As we were welcomed with « Dubruturu! » meaning “Good morning!”, we realized that we were about to find within the community a rich and emblematic understanding of perceived identity in relation to the chosen theme of our anthropological project. However, the multitude of contradictions concerning the perception of the members of the community regarding themselves has shown us that we could not speak of an authentic Bulgarian minority community because, with the exception of the linguistic aspect, limited to the oral use in the narrow domestic sphere, other elements specific to the Bulgarian tradition were either absent, or assimilated into the local indigenous culture beyond recognition and seen as representative for the region itself.

            Also, despite the fact that primary socialization, within the family, is done in Bulgarian archaic idiom, secondary socialization defined by Claude Dubar as the “acquisition of particular characteristics of future status groups and the preparation of options and choices of one’s own singular cultural elements”[lxx] is done exclusively in Romanian.                                                                                                      Nonetheless, since our study concerned also the rights of the national minority, we have to mention the lack of politicization of this minority at local level. In the case of Izvoarele, no moment of rupture occurred between the different ethnical groups, maybe because of the level of tolerance of the authorities in regards to the use of the Bulgarian language. According to the mayor’s declarations no pressures were exerted during the communist regime against the use of the Bulgarian language in the sphere of the family. In addition to this, the politicization of the members of the community did not truly manifest itself. Due to the lack of conflict to the local level, the Bulgarian minority in Izvoarele did not feel the need to manifest itself as an active participant for the recognition of its political and social rights, which could have been a source of consolidating the self-consciousness of its Bulgarian identity. These observations confirm our first hypothesis and give us the answer to our main research question. Therefore, the cause of the official numerical decline of the Bulgarian population in Izvoarele, is due to the gradual assimilation process, seen more at the cultural level, than at the linguistic one. Even if the language persists as an element that can make us think to a genuine Bulgarian minority, the research showed us that this is not a sufficient argument, taking into consideration the other elements, equally strong, such as the cultural aspects and the self-consciousness and assumed identity at the level of our case-study object.





Public Documents

Romania’s Constitution, 1991, (

Romania’s Constitution, 1965, (

Romania’s Constitution, 1952  (

Romania’s Constitution, 1948 (http://legislatie.resurse-pentru-

2011 Census Population  ( content/uploads/2012/02/Comunicat_DATE_PROVIZORII_RPL_2011_.pdf)

2002  Census Population, (

1977 Census Population, Vol. I, Bucuresti, 1980, pp. 614 - 621

Law project regarding the Romania’s minorities status  (  724e258bc)


Reference papers and works

ANDERSON, Christopher, Aida PASKEVICIUTE, “How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Behavior”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 4, 2006, pp. 783-802.

BOTTONI, Stefano, Transilvania roşie. Comunismul roman şi problema naţională 1944–1965, Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale, Cluj-Napoca, 2010.

BRUBAKER, Rogers, Ethnicity without groups, Harvard University Press, London, 2004.

CALHOUN, Craig, “Nationalism and Ethnicity”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 19, 1993, pp. 211-239.

CALUSER, Monica, “Regimul drepturilor minoritatilor”, in Politici de integrare a minoritatilor nationale din Romania. Apecte Legale si Institutionale intr-o perspective comparata, Fundația CRDE, Cluj-Napoca, 2008.

CRISTEA, Stan, Ion MORARU, Monografia judeţului Teleorman, Editura «Teleormanul liber», Alexandria, 1998.

DUBAR, Claude, La socialisation. Construction des identités sociales et professionnelles, 2nd edition, Armand Colin, Paris, 1995.

DUMITRESCU, Doru, Istoria minorităţilor din România, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 2008.

FRANCINE, Joamisa Handy, «Minorităţi în România postcemebristă», Sfera Politicii, No. 138, August 2009.

GAXIE, Daniel, Le cens caché. Inégalités culturelles et ségrégation politique, Seuil, Paris, 1978.

GROSFOGUEL, Ramán, “Race and Ethnicity or Racialized Ethnicities? Identities within Global Coloniality”, Ethnicities, University of California, Berkeley, 2004.

GUMPERZ, John, «Linguistic Anthropology in Society », American Anthropological Association, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1974, pp. 785-798.

HALDAWAY, Simone, Megan O’NEIL, “Ethnicity and culture: thinking about ‘police ethnicity’”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57, 2006, pp. 483-502.

HUNTINGTON, Samuel, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2004.

JECEV, Nicolai, Blagovest NIAGULOV, Românii din Bulgaria, Editura «Teleormanul liber», Alexandria, 1997.

KOGALNICEANU, Mihail, Texte social-politice alese, Bucureşti, 1967.

NARROL, Raoul, “On ethnic unit classification”, Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1964, pp. 283-312.

NICOARĂ, Toader, Istoria şi tradiţiile minorităţilor din România, Ministerul Educaţiei şi Cercetării, București, 2005.

RUMBAUT, Ruben, Douglas MASSEY, Frank BEAN, “Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California”, Population and Development Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2006, pp. 447-460.

SARAMANDU, Nicolae, Manuela NEVACI, Multilingvism  şi  limbi  minoritare  în  România, Institutul de Lingvistică « Iorgu Iordan- Alexandru Rosetti », Bucureşti, 2009.

SILVERSTEIN, Michael, “Contemporary Transformations of Local Linguistic Communities”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27(1), 2003, pp. 401-426.

SUGAREFF, Vangel Konstantine, “The Bulgarian Nationality of the Macedonians”, The Journal of Race Development, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1919.

WATERS Mary, JIMENEZ Tomás, “Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges”, Annual Review of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005.

YANG, Phillip Q., From Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches, State University of New York, 2000.

YINGER Milton, “Ethnicity”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 11, 1985, pp. 151-180.


[ii] Toader NICOARĂ, Istoria şi tradiţiile minorităţilor din România, Ministerul Educaţiei şi Cercetării, București, 2005, p. 19.


[iii] Raoul NARROL, “On ethnic unit classification”, Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4, Oct.  1964, pp. 283-312.

[iv] Phillip Q. YANG, From Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches, State University of New York, 2000, p. 40.

[v] Hal B. LEVINE, “Reconstructing Ethnicity”, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Feb. 1999), p. 168, pp. 165-180.

[vi] Rogers BRUBAKER, Ethnicity without groups, Harvard University Press, London, 2004, p. 56.

[vii] Simone HALDAWAY, Megan O’NEIL, “Ethnicity and culture: thinking about ‘police ethnicity’ ”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57, 2006, p. 485.

[viii] Milton YINGER, “Ethnicity”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 11, 1985, p. 158.

[ix] Ramán GROSFOGUEL, “Race and Ethnicity or Racialized Ethnicities? Identities within Global Coloniality”, Ethnicities, University of California, Berkeley, 2004, p. 320.

[x] Monica CALUSER, „Regimul drepturilor minoritatilor”, in Politici de integrare a minoritatilor nationale din Romania. Apecte Legale si Institutionale intr-o perspective comparata, Fundatia CRDE, Cluj-Napoca, 2008, p. 31.

[xi] Ibidem, p. 9.

[xii] Craig CALHOUN, “Nationalism and Ethnicity”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 19, 1993, p. 211.

[xiii] Rogers BRUBAKER, Ethnicity without Groups, Harvard University Press, London, 2004, p. 157.

[xiv] Milton YINGER, “Ethnicity…cit.”, p. 154.

[xv] Mary C. WATERS, Tomás R. JIMENEZ, “Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges”, Annual Review of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005, p. 310.

[xvi] Michael SILVERSTEIN, “Contemporary Transformations of Local Linguistic Communities”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27, 1998, p. 402.

[xvii] Ibidem, p. 15, p. 406.

[xix] Source:, accessed on July 13, 2013.

[xx] Doru DUMITRESCU, Istoria minorităţilor din România, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 2008, p. 43.

[xxi] Toader NICOARĂ, Istoria şi tradiţiile minorităţilor…cit, p. 20.

[xxii] Source:, accessed on July 15, 2013.

[xxiii] Nicolae  SARAMANDU, Manuela  NEVACI,  Multilingvism  şi  limbi  minoritare  în  România,  Institutul  deLingvistică « Iorgu Iordan Alexandru Rosetti », Bucureşti, 2009, p. 63.

[xxv] Source:; accessed on July 17, 2013.

[xxvi] Nicolai JECEV, Blagovest NIAGULOV, Românii din Bulgaria, Editura « Teleormanul liber », Alexandria, 1997, p. 57.

[xxvii] Mihail KOGALNICEANU, Texte social-politice alese, Bucureşti, 1967, pp. 268-269.

[xxviii] Annex 6.

[xxix] Annex 7, Annex 8.

[xxx] Nicolai JECEV, Blagovest NIAGULOV, Românii din Bulgaria…cit., p. 185.

[xxxi] Ibidem, p. 29, p. 200.

[xxxii] Annex 9.

[xxxiii] Stan CRISTEA, Ion MORARU, Monografia judeţului Teleorman, Editura « Teleormanul liber », Alexandria, 1998, p. 304.

[xxxiv] First report regarding the implementation of the European Charter of regional and minority languages in Romania, p. 105.

[xxxv] Joamisa Handy FRANCINE, « Minorităţi în România postcemebristă », Sfera Politicii, No. 138, August 2009,, accessed on July 20, 2013.

[xxxvi] Stefano BOTTONI, Transilvania roşie. Comunismul roman şi problema naţională 1944–1965, Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale, Cluj-Napoca, 2010, p. 80.

[xxxvii] National minorities in the People's Republic Romania enjoy full equality in rights with the Romanian people.

[xxxviii] Romanian People's Republic Romania ensure to its minorities the free use of mother tongue, education at all levels in the mother tongue, books, newspapers and theaters in their native language. In regions inhabited by populations of other nationality than Romanian, all the organs and institutions will use oral and written tongue nationalities and will appoint officials among the respective nationality or other locals who know the language and the way of life of the local population.

[xxxix] Romanian Constitution from 1952, http://legislatie.resurse-pentru, accessed on July 20, 2013.

[xl] Stefano BOTTONI, Transilvania roşie. Comunismul roman…cit., p. 82.

[xli] Romanian Constitution from 1991, revised,, on July 20, 2013.

[xlii] Ibidem, p.  40.

[xliv] Toader NICOARĂ, Istoria și tradițiile…cit., p. 21.

[xlv] Primul raport periodic privind aplicarea Cartei europene a limbilor regionale sau minoritare în România, p. 96.

[xlvi] Idem, p. 43.

[xlviii] Annex 1.

[xlix] Annex 2.

[l] Cristea STAN, Ion MORARU, Ecaterina TANTAREANU, Gheorghe POPA, Titus BARABAS, Gheorghe CRISTEA, Monografia judetului Teleorman, Editura « Teleormanul liber », Alexandria, 1998, p. 306.

[li] Ibidem, p. 309, image - Annex 2.12.

[lii] Annex 1.

[liii] Annex 10.

[liv] Vangel Konstantine SUGAREFF, “The Bulgarian Nationality of the Macedonians”, The Journal of Race Development, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1919, p. 384.

[lv] John GUMPERZ, « Linguistic Anthropology in Society », American Anthropological Association, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1974, p. 786.

[lvi] Ibidem, p. 790.

[lvii] Samuel HUNTINGTON, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2004, pp. 230-232.

[lviii] Ruben RUMBAUT, Douglas MASSEY, Frank BEAN, “Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California”, Population and Development Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2006, p. 447. 

[lix] Ibidem, p. 58, p. 458.

[lx] Pierre BRECHON, La France aux urnes, Soixante ans d’histoire électorale, La documentation française, Paris, 2009, p. 25.

[lxi] Christopher ANDERSON, Aida PASKEVICIUTE, “How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Behavior”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 4, 2006, p. 799.

[lxii] Ibidem, p. 791.

[lxiii] Ibidem, p. 793.

[lxiv] Daniel GAXIE, Le cens caché. Inégalités culturelles et ségrégation politique, Seuil, Paris, 1978, p. 202.

[lxv] Claude DUBAR, La socialisation. Construction des identités sociales et professionnelles, 2nd ed., Armand Colin, Paris, 1995,  p. 45.

[lxvi] Annex 4.

[lxvii] Annex 5B.

[lxviii] Annex 5A.

[lxix] Michael SILVERSTEIN, “Contemporary Transformations of Local Linguistic Communities”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27, 1998, pp. 406-407.

[lxx] Claude DUBAR, La socialisation. Construction des identités sociales et professionnelles, 2nd ed., Armand Colin, Paris, 1995, p. 45.