The paper analyzes two parallel cases of grammatical borrowing in the Albanian dialectal varieties spoken in the village of Mandritsa, Bulgaria, and in the village of Karakurt, Ukraine. The two village communities have been multiethnic and multilingual for the last several centuries. A brief description of the sociolinguistic situations shows that the Albanian variety of Mandritsa has been subject to contacts with Bulgarian and, to a lesser extent, Greek and (Ottoman) Turkish, while in Karakurt intimate contact of the Albanian variety with Bulgarian and Gagauz played a major role in the contact-induced change. Besides the various contact-related structural features and numerous loanwords, one finds dative pronominal clitics borrowed from Bulgarian in the Albanian varieties under study. The clitics can be used as nominal possessive modifiers, which is typical for Balkan Slavic and unusual for Albanian. Further analysis of data from the published dialectal texts and the author’s unpublished fieldwork materials from Karakurt discovers peculiar structural effects, such as the incorporation of the possessive clitics into the Albanian nominal case forms in Mandritsa and the presence of double-marking in possessive noun phrases in Karakurt. The paper describes and compares the possible mechanisms and factors of grammatical borrowing in the two Albanian varieties, and tests the hypothesis of a possible correlation between the linguistic consequences of language contact and the types of contact situations. It is suggested that grammatical borrowing in Mandritsa is related mainly to the Albanian-Bulgarian bilingualism, and the main factors were the incomplete L2 acquisition of Albanian by Bulgarian speakers and the different degrees of L2 acquisition of Bulgarian by early and late Albanian bilinguals. In Karakurt, multilingualism and the relatively balanced nature of the contact situation could contribute to the borrowing of Bulgarian pronominal clitics and the adoption of the model with double-marking of possessor due to the interlingual identification of Albanian, Bulgarian and Gagauz possessive constructions. In general, the studied case shows that considering contact situations as (non-)balanced and taking into account their internal heterogeneity makes it possible to shed some light on the mechanisms of the emergence of similar, but, upon closer examination, not identical linguistic consequences of language contact.