Educação Pré-Escolar e 1º Ciclo – continuidade educativa

ACTUAL ENQUADRAMENTO LEGAL DO SISTEMA EDUCATIVO PORTUGUÊS DO ENSINO BÁSICO E DA

8. Educação Pré-Escolar e 1º Ciclo – continuidade educativa

A G Angelov, University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

The Bulgarian language is spoken mainly in the cen-tral and eastern Balkans. There are also Bulgarian-speaking minorities or language islands in the regions of Banat (Catholic settlers on the territory northwest of the Balkans, cf. Stojkov, 1967), Bessarabia and Tavria (emigrants in Moldova and Ukraine, Stoja-nova, 1997), Albania (Hristova, 2003), northern Greece (Shklifov and Shklivova, 2003), and Turkey (Bojadzhiev, 1991). If, to this population, which iden-tifies itself as Bulgarian, one adds the speakers of the Macedonian language – the majority of whom also considered themselves Bulgarians until 1944, when the Macedonian language was created (cf. Kocˇev et al., 1994; Bozhinov and Panayotov, 1978; Angelov, 2000) – the number of Bulgarian speakers may reach 10.5 million.

Bulgarian is also used as a first language for educa-tional purposes by various minorities in Bulgaria:

Turks, Roma, Russians, Armenians, and Jews (Ange-lov and Marshall, 2005), although after signing the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1999, the Bulgarian Minis-try of Education started to include some minority languages in its educational programs. According to

the last census (March 2001) Turks are the largest minority in Bulgaria (758 000 or 9.5% of the whole population). They are mainly rural (63%), concen-trated in northeast and southeast of the country, speaking Turkish dialects, probably different from Standard Turkish. During the last 15 years, after the democratic changes, Turks have their own media and role in the public administration. Roma (last census records 365 797, but other sources 650 000) are heterogeneous, differing by origin, religion, language, and dialects. Some Roma are Christians, other are Muslims (part of them speakers of Turkish); they live across the country in urban ghettoes or village neighborhoods. They have a huge number of non-government organizations (NGOs), but lack co-ordination, and do not have their own media, as the Turks do. Russians (30 000), Armenians (14 000), and Jews (3000) are mainly urban populations, each of them with specific cultural traditions and religious institutions.

The sociolinguistic situation in the country presents also some alleged, smaller minority groups and confessional communities. The Pomaks, called also Bulgarian Mohammedans (Muslim Bulgarians) are located in Rhodopi Mountains. They speak archaic Bulgarian dialect, although they started to learn Turk-ish in the 1990s as a step-mother tongue. Gagaouz (few villages in north-east Bulgaria), counter to the

See also: Functionalist Theories of Language; Halliday, Michael A. K. (b. 1925); Jakobson, Roman (1896–1982);

Prague School.

Bibliography

Auer P (1999). Sprachliche Interaktion. Eine Einfu¨hrung anhand von 22 Klassikern. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.

Bu¨hler K (1918). Die Geistige Entwicklung des Kindes.

Jena: Fischer.

Bu¨hler K (1933). Ausdruckstheorie. Das System an der Geschichte aufgezeigt. Jena: Fischer.

Bu¨hler K (1969). Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften.

Frankfurt a. M.: Vittorio Klostermann (shortened version of the original contribution to Kant-Studien 38, 1933).

Bu¨hler K (1982). ‘The axiomatization of the language sciences.’ In Innis R E (ed.) Karl Bu¨hler. Semiotic founda-tions of language theory. New York/London: Plenum.

91–164.

Bu¨hler K (1982). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungs-funktion der Sprache (1st edn.: Jena, 1934). Stuttgart:

Fischer.

Bu¨hler K (1990). Theory of language: the representational function of language. (Foundations of semiotics 25) (Goodwin D F, trans.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Eschbach A (ed.) (1988). Karl Bu¨hler’s theory of language.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Konstantinidou M (1997). Sprache und Gefu¨hl. Hamburg:

Helmut Buske Verlag.

Kubczak H (1984). ‘Bu¨hlers ‘‘Symptomfunktion’’.’ Zeit-schrift fu¨r Romanische Philologie 100, 1–25.

Musolff A (1990). Kommunikative Kreativita¨t. Karl Bu¨h-lers Zweifelderlehre als Ansatz zu einer Theorie innova-tiven Sprachgebrauchs. Aachen: Alano.

Pe´ter M (1984). ‘Das Problem des sprachlichen Gefu¨hlsaus-drucks in besonderem Hinblick auf das Bu¨hlersche Orga-non-Modell.’ In Eschbach A (ed.) Bu¨hler-Studien, vol. 1.

Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. 239–260.

Stankiewicz E (1964). ‘Problems of emotive language.’ In Sebok T A (ed.) Approaches to semiotics. The Hague:

Mouton. 239–264.

Bulgaria: Language Situation

A G Angelov, University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria

Bulgarian is also used as a first language for educa-tional purposes by various minorities in Bulgaria:

Pomaks, are Christians who speak a Turkish dialect.

Catholics (found in small towns and villages as Chi-provtsi, Rakovski, and Bardarski Geran) are related with the Bulgarian minority of Banat in Roma-nia.They use specific archaic Bulgarian, which has a written norm, based on Latin alphabet and influenced by Croatian liturgical tradition.

Modern Bulgarian, spoken by 99% of the popula-tion of the country, including the bilingual minorities (10–15%), is a South Slavic language which stems from Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian, according to Leskien, 1919; Mladenov, 1929; Vaillant, 1948;

Duridanov, 1993). The beginning of the Bulgarian literary tradition was laid by the brothers SS Cyril and Methodius, who are now recognized as the inven-tors of the Glagolitic, an alphabet that corresponds accurately to the phonetic peculiarities of the Slavic languages. The New Testament was translated into this new literary language as early as the 9th century, along with a number of other liturgical books and mediaeval ecclesiastical writings. The Cyrillic was named after St. Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher, and its invention is ascribed to St. Clement of Ohrid (c. 830–916), the most prominent disciple of the two brothers, who was ordained by Bulgaria’s Tsar Simeon (893–927) ‘first bishop of the Bulgarian language’ in 893. Today the Cyrillic is used in Bulgaria as well as Russia, Ukraine, and Serbia; it was also used until recently in Mongolia and some other ex-Soviet republics.

In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the Bulgarian language changed significantly (Mirchev, 1963), al-though it preserved its rich vocabulary (Gerov, 1995) and script. Modern Bulgarian has a somewhat differ-ent grammar (Weigand, 1907; Beaulieux, 1933; Scat-ton, 1984; Hauge, 1999; Kotova and Yanakiev, 2001) and an analytic structure. Bulgarian has nine tenses, a developed system of aspect and moods, intensive use of prepositions and impersonal constructions, but no case declension in the noun; the three main cases are preserved in the personal pronouns. Thus the gram-matical structure of Bulgarian differs from that of the other Slavic languages (Ivanchev, 1988).

There were probably significant dialectal differ-ences on Bulgarian language territory as early as the Middle Ages, but the varied relief of the Balkans produced a considerable number of dialects within a comparatively small geographical region (Stojkov, 1993). There are two main spoken variants in Bulgar-ian—Eastern and Western, which can be traced along the northeast axis from the Danube River to the Aegean, i.e., parallel to the Black Sea coast but around 300 to 350 km inland on the central Balkans.

Bulgarian dialects are still used in the highland vil-lages of the Rhodopi Mountains and the Central

Balkan Range, as well as in the Rila, Pirin, and Strandja mountains. In urban conditions the tradi-tional dialects have evolved into interdialects, influ-enced by the urban social environment and Standard Bulgarian (Videnov, 1990; Videnov and Angelov, 1999; Dimitrova, 2004).

The modern Bulgarian literary standard was estab-lished in the late 19th century (Gyllin, 1991; Hill, 1992; Georgieva et al., 1989) on the basis of the Northeastern Bulgarian dialects, although the capital city, Sofia, lies in the western part of the country. This gap has resulted in some cultural and linguistic dis-proportions; however, they do not disrupt the contin-uum in communication. Actually there are no language barriers between the Slavic peoples even on a far larger geographical territory that covers the South and East Slavic languages. Various genres of fiction and poetry have developed in Modern Bulgar-ian, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as stylistic registers used in public administration, science, and education. Specific urban slang, profes-sional jargons, and sociolects have also emerged nat-urally; e.g., ‘tarikatski jargon’ of Sofia (Armjanov, 1993) is still typical of the young generation, in the same way it was used in some urban folksongs during the 1920s.

See also:Analytic/Synthetic, Necessary/Contingent, and a priori/a posteriori; Balkans as a Linguistic Area; Bulgari-an Lexicography; BulgariBulgari-an; Europe as a Linguistic Area;

Language and Dialect: Linguistic Varieties; Language Education Policy in Europe; Leskien, August (1840–

1916); Lingua Francas as Second Languages; Macedonia:

Language Situation; Migration and Language; Minorities and Language; Moldova: Language Situation; National-ism and Linguistics; Old Church Slavonic; Proto-Indo-European Morphology; Proto-Indo–Proto-Indo-European Phonology;

Proto-Indo–European Syntax; Romania: Language Situa-tion; Slavic Languages; Standard and Dialect Vocabu-lary; Teaching of Minority Languages; Ukraine:

Language Situation.

Bibliography

Angelov A G (2000). ‘The political border as a factor for language Divergence.’ In Zybatov L N (ed.) Sprachwan-del in der Slavia. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

611–633.

Angelov A G & Marshall D F (eds.) (2005). ‘Overcoming minority language policy failure: The case for Bulgaria and the Balkans.’ International journal of the sociology of language (special issue, forthcoming).

Armjanov G L (1993). Rechnik na baˆlgarskija zhargon.

Sofia: 7MþLogis.

Beaulieux L (1933). Grammaire de la langue bulgare. Paris:

Libraireie ancienne honore´ champion.

Bozhinov V & Panayotov L (eds.) (1978). Macedonia.

Documents and Material. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgars-kata akademija na naukite.

Bojadzhiev T A (1991). Baˆlgarskite govori v Zapadna (Belomorska) i Iztochna (Odrinska) Trakija. Sofia: Uni-versitetsko izdatelstvo ‘‘Sv. Kliment Ohridski’’.

Dimitrova E (2004). Diglosijata v grad Krivodol. Sofia:

Heron Press.

Duridanov I (ed.) (1993). Gramatika na starobaˆlgarskija ezik.

Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Georgieva E, Zherev St & Stankov V (eds.) (1989). Istorija na novobaˆlgarskija knizhoven ezik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Gerov N (1895). Rechnikaˆ na Blaˆgarskyj jazykaˆ. Plovdiv:

Druzhestvena Pechjatnica ‘‘Saˆglasie.’’

Gyllin R (1991). The genesis of the modern Bulgarian liter-ary language. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Hauge K R (1999). A short grammar of contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington: Slavica.

Hill P (1992). ‘Language standardization in the South Slavonic area.’ In Ammon U, Mattheier K J, Nelde P H (eds. of Sociolinguistica 6), Mattheier K J & Panzer B (eds. of the special issue, ‘The Rise of National Languages in Eastern Europe’). Sociolinguistica, 6. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 108–150.

Hristova E (2003). Baˆlgarska rech ot Albanija. Govoraˆt na selo Vraˆbnik. Blagoevgrad: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo

‘‘Neofit Rilski.’’

Ivanchev Sv T (1988). Baˆlgarskijat ezik – klasicheski i ekzotichen. Sofia: Narodna prosveta.

Kocˇev I, Kronshteiner O & Alexandrov I (1994). The fa-thering of the what is known as the Macedonian literary language. Sofia: Macedonian Scientific Institute.

Kotova N & Yanakiev M (2001). Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdateljstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.

Leskien A (1919). Grammatik der altbulgarischen (alt-kirchenslavischen) Sprache. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winter’s Universita¨tsbuchhandlung.

Mirchev K (1963). Istoricheska gramatika na baˆlgarskija ezik. Sofia: Nauka i iskustvo.

Mladenov St (1929). Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Scatton E A (1984). A reference grammar of modern Bul-garian. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

Shklifov Bl & Shklivova E (2003). Baˆlgarski dialektni tek-stove ot Egejska Makedonija. Sofia: Akademichno izda-telstvo ‘‘Marin Drinov.’’

Stojanova E P (1997). Istorija odnogo jazykovogo ostrova.

Sofia, Veliko Tarnovo: Znak’94.

Stojkov St (1967). Banatskijat govor. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Stojkov St (1993). Baˆlgarska dialektologija. Sofia: Izda-telstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Vaillant A (1948). Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’e´tudes slaves.

Videnov M G (1990). Savremennata balgarska gradska ezikova situacija. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo ‘‘Sv.

Kliment Ohridski.’’

Videnov M G & Angelov A G (eds.) (1999). ‘Sociolinguis-tics in Bulgaria.’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language (special issue, 135).

Weigand G (1907). Bulgarische Grammatik. Leipzig, Germany: Johann Ambrosius Barth.

Bulgarian

J Miller, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Bulgarian is a South Slavic language, along with Slovene (Slovenian), Macedonian, and the Serb-Croatian linguistic complex. Geographically Bulgari-an is also a BalkBulgari-an lBulgari-anguage Bulgari-and shares a number of phonetic, grammatical, and lexical features with Rumanian (Romanian), Greek, and Albanian. For instance, Rumanian and Albanian have schwa in stressed syllables and so does Bulgarian, the only Slav language with this property.

Bulgarian has two sets of dialects, Eastern and Western (further subdivisions are recognized). A major difference is in the reflexes of the Common Slavic jat vowel, roughly equivalent to ‘ye’ as in English yet. In

the North Eastern dialects the jat vowel became ‘ja’ in a stressed syllable and followed by a syllable with a back vowel. Elsewhere it became ‘e.’ Standard Bulgarian, based on the North Eastern dialects, has the ‘ja’ – ‘e’

alternation, in, e.g., adjectives: bjalo ‘white’ (neuter singular) versus beli (plural).

The Common Slavic ‘l’ and ‘r’ plus jer (extra-short vowel) and syllabic ‘l’ and ‘r’ became ‘uˇr’ and ‘uˇl’ in polysyllabic words before two consonants and ‘ruˇ’ and

‘luˇ’ elsewhere: skuˇrben ‘sorrowful’; ‘pruˇv’ (first-person masculine) versus ‘puˇrva’ (first-person feminine). Con-sonants are palatalized or non-palatalized, as in other Slav languages.

Bulgarian has lost the Slavic case-suffixes but has developed definite articles, attached to the first word in noun phrases: Bulgarian knigata ‘the book,’ kniga

‘a book,’ novata kniga ‘the new book,’ nova kniga ‘a new book.’ In written Bulgarian masculine nouns

Bozhinov V & Panayotov L (eds.) (1978). Macedonia.

Documents and Material. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgars-kata akademija na naukite.

Bojadzhiev T A (1991). Baˆlgarskite govori v Zapadna (Belomorska) i Iztochna (Odrinska) Trakija. Sofia: Uni-versitetsko izdatelstvo ‘‘Sv. Kliment Ohridski’’.

Dimitrova E (2004). Diglosijata v grad Krivodol. Sofia:

Heron Press.

Duridanov I (ed.) (1993). Gramatika na starobaˆlgarskija ezik.

Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Georgieva E, Zherev St & Stankov V (eds.) (1989). Istorija na novobaˆlgarskija knizhoven ezik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Gerov N (1895). Rechnikaˆ na Blaˆgarskyj jazykaˆ. Plovdiv:

Druzhestvena Pechjatnica ‘‘Saˆglasie.’’

Gyllin R (1991). The genesis of the modern Bulgarian liter-ary language. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Hauge K R (1999). A short grammar of contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington: Slavica.

Hristova E (2003). Baˆlgarska rech ot Albanija. Govoraˆt na selo Vraˆbnik. Blagoevgrad: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo

‘‘Neofit Rilski.’’

Ivanchev Sv T (1988). Baˆlgarskijat ezik – klasicheski i ekzotichen. Sofia: Narodna prosveta.

Kocˇev I, Kronshteiner O & Alexandrov I (1994). The fa-thering of the what is known as the Macedonian literary language. Sofia: Macedonian Scientific Institute.

Kotova N & Yanakiev M (2001). Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdateljstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.

Leskien A (1919). Grammatik der altbulgarischen (alt-kirchenslavischen) Sprache. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winter’s Universita¨tsbuchhandlung.

Mirchev K (1963). Istoricheska gramatika na baˆlgarskija ezik. Sofia: Nauka i iskustvo.

Mladenov St (1929). Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache.

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Scatton E A (1984). A reference grammar of modern Bul-garian. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

Shklifov Bl & Shklivova E (2003). Baˆlgarski dialektni tek-stove ot Egejska Makedonija. Sofia: Akademichno izda-telstvo ‘‘Marin Drinov.’’

Stojanova E P (1997). Istorija odnogo jazykovogo ostrova.

Sofia, Veliko Tarnovo: Znak’94.

Stojkov St (1967). Banatskijat govor. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Stojkov St (1993). Baˆlgarska dialektologija. Sofia: Izda-telstvo na Baˆlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Vaillant A (1948). Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’e´tudes slaves.

Videnov M G (1990). Savremennata balgarska gradska ezikova situacija. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo ‘‘Sv.

Kliment Ohridski.’’

Videnov M G & Angelov A G (eds.) (1999). ‘Sociolinguis-tics in Bulgaria.’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language (special issue, 135).

Weigand G (1907). Bulgarische Grammatik. Leipzig, Germany: Johann Ambrosius Barth.

Bulgarian

J Miller, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

alternation, in, e.g., adjectives: bjalo ‘white’ (neuter singular) versus beli (plural).

The Common Slavic ‘l’ and ‘r’ plus jer (extra-short vowel) and syllabic ‘l’ and ‘r’ became ‘uˇr’ and ‘uˇl’ in polysyllabic words before two consonants and ‘ruˇ’ and

Bulgarian has lost the Slavic case-suffixes but has developed definite articles, attached to the first word in noun phrases: Bulgarian knigata ‘the book,’ kniga

‘a book,’ novata kniga ‘the new book,’ nova kniga ‘a new book.’ In written Bulgarian masculine nouns

take different subject and oblique forms of the article:

(j)at and (j)a. In spoken Bulgarian (j)at is typically not used.

Bulgarian has preserved the Indo-European tense-aspect system of imperfect and aorist alongside the newer perfective-imperfective system. Typically, im-perfect suffixes are added to imim-perfective stems and aorist suffixes to perfective stems. Bulgarian does offer examples of perfective stems with imperfect suffixes in subordinate clauses introduced by, e.g., shtom ‘as soon as’ and in main clauses; they express a completed action that is repeated. The following example (1) is from Feuillet (1995: 36).

(1) Vecher sedneshe na chardaka Evening sit-down–3SG on verandah-DO

‘In the evening he would sit down on the verandah’

Sedn is perfective and -eshe is imperfect.

There are two future constructions, one for asser-tions and the other for denials. The former structure uses the particle shte, derived from the verb xoshto˜

‘I want/wish.’ The meaning ‘want’ is now expressed by iskam, cognate with the Russian iskat’ ‘search for’.

Compare (2) and (3).

(2a) Dimo shte dojde utre

Dimo particle come-PERF-3SG tomorrow

‘Dimo will come tomorrow’

(2b) azshte dojda utre

I particle come-PERF-1SG tomorrow

‘I will come tomorrow’

(3) az iskam da dojda

I want-IMPERF-1SG

conjunction come-PERF-1SG

‘I want to come’

The future-conditional still consists of a verb (orig-inally the imperfect of xoshto˜) plus a da complement clause: shtjax da dojda ‘I would come,’ shteshe da dojdesh ‘you would come.’

The negative future construction consists of the invariable njama, originally a negative form of imam ‘have,’ plus a da clause, as in (4).

In document EVOLUÇÃO DA EDUCAÇÃO DE INFÂNCIA (página 97-104)