Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The vowel /a
¨
/ may occur also after velars: CS-Slk kamen
ˇ
‘stone’,
Cen-Slk ka
¨
men
ˇ
.
Final /l/ in l-participles becomes [u9], a feature only colloquial in
the standard: CS-Slk dal ‘gave’ [-al], Cen-Slk [-au9].
3. Eastern
Stress is penultimate, as in Polish, and phonemic quantity is lost,
as in Polish and East Slavic. With the loss of quantity goes the
loss of the Slovak Rhythmic Law.
Vocalic /l
˚
/and/r
˚
/, which can be both short and long in standard
Slovak, are not found in E-Slk, as in Polish and East Slavic. In their
place are ‘vowel þ liquid’ (more rarely ‘liquid þ vowel’) sequences:
(53) CS-Slk vlk [v
˙
lk] ‘wolf’ E-Slk vil’k/vel’k (Pol wilk )
CS-Slk vrch [v
˙
rx] ‘top’ E-Slk verch (Pol wierzch,Ukrverx).
Proto-Slavic e˛, when short, becomes /e/, as in South Slavic:
CS-Slk ma
¨
so ‘meat’, E-Slk meso (Sln meso
´
, B/C/S me
&
so).
The palatal stops /t’/ and /d’/ of the standard become hard dental
affricates /c/, /dz/ as in W-Slk (above), though here we may see a
transition to Belarusian’s affrication (3.2.2.1, 10.3.1). Some areas
have instead post-alveolar /c
ˇ
dzˇ /, closer to Polish (c
´
dz´ ).
/s/ and /z/ are palatalized before front vowels, as in Polish: CS-Slk
seno ‘hay’, E-Slk s
´
eno; CS-Slk zima ‘winter’, E-Slk z
´
ima.
10.4.4.2 Morphology and morphophonology
1. Western
Nouns
Hard nominative singular neuter nouns have -o against CS-Slk
-e: CS-Slk vajce ‘egg’, W-Slk vajco.
Soft nominative singular neuter nouns have -e
´
/-ı
´
against CS-Slk
-ie: CS-Slk zbozˇie ‘corn, grain’, W-Slk zbozˇe
´
/zbozˇı
´
.
Nominative plural masculine animate nouns have -e
´
/-ie/-ie
´
against CS-Slk -ia: CS-Slk l’udia ‘people’, W-Slk lude
´
/lud’ie/
lud’ie
´
.
Genitive singular masculine a-stems have -i against CS-Slk -u:
CS-Slk gazdu ‘farmer’ [GenSg], W-Slk gazdi.
Nominal
The instrumental singular feminine has -u/-u
´
against CS-Slk -ou:
CS-Slk s tou dobrou zˇenou ‘with that good woman’, W-Slk stu
´
dobru
´
zˇenu
´
.
10.4 West Slavic 539
Adjectives
The soft type have ‘hard’ endings, in -e
´
ho etc., against CS-Slk
-ieho etc.: CS-Slk cudzieho ‘foreign’ [GenSg], W-Slk cudze
´
ho.
The locative singular masculine/neuter has -e
´
m against CS-Slk
-om: CS-Slk dobrom ‘good’, W-Slk dobre
´
m.
Verbs
The infinitive has hard -t against CS-Slk -t’. CS-Slk vedet’ ‘to
know’, W-Slk vediet.
The present/infinitive theme has short -e- against CS-Slk -ie:
CS-Slk nesiem ‘I carry’, W-Slk nesem.
‘Not to be’ is neni som, etc. against CS-Slk nie som ...
2. Central
Adjectives
The nominative singular neuter has -uo (o
ˆ
)/-o against CS-Slk -e
´
:
CS-Slk dobre
´
‘good’, W-Slk dobruo/dobro.
Verbs
‘They are’ is sa against CS-Slk su
´
.
3. Eastern
Nouns
Genitive singular masculine a-stems have -i against CS-Slk -u,as
in W-Slk (above).
Also like W-Slk, hard nominative singular neuter nouns have
-o against CS-Slk -e (above).
The instrumental singular masculine/neuter has -om against
CS-Slk -em: CS- Slk bratem ‘brother’ [InstrSg], E-Slk bratom.
The genitive/locative plural of all genders has -och against CS-Slk
-ov/-ø, -och/a
´
ch:
(54) ‘brother’, ‘town’ [Gen/LocPl]:
CS-Slk bratov [GenPl], bratoch [LocPl]
E-Slk bratoch [Gen=LocPl]
CS-Slk miest [GenPl], mesta
´
ch [LocPl]
E-Slk mestoch [Gen=LocPl]
The dative plural of all genders has -om against CS-Slk Masc
only:
(55) ‘woman’, ‘town’ [DatPl]:
CS-Slk zˇena
´
m, mesta
´
m E-Slk zˇenom, mestom
540 10. Dialects
Table 10.11. Dialects of Slovak
CS-Slk Cen-Slk W-Slk E-Slk
Phonology
Vowels
PSl jers e, a, o ¼ CS e e
PSl e˛ a
¨
,a,ia ¼ CS a e
vocalic liquids þ¼CS ¼ CS –
diphthongs ie, uo ¼ CS ı
´
/e
´
,u´ /o
´
i, u
PSl o
&
rC-, o
&
lC- raC-, laC- ¼ CS roC-, loC- roC-, loC-
Consonants
PSl tl dl tl, dl l ¼ CS ¼ CS
/t’ d’/ t’, d’ ¼ CS ¼ CS c, dz
/s z/ before front V s, z ¼ CS ¼ CS s
´
,z´
PSl stj etc. s
ˇ
t’ ¼ CS s
ˇ
c
ˇ
s
ˇ
c
ˇ
/l/ and /l’/ þ¼CS – ¼ CS
final /v/ u
˘
¼ CS f f
gemination – ¼ CS þ¼CS
Suprasegmentals
stress initial ¼ CS ¼ CS penult
phonemic quantity þ¼CS ¼ CS –
Rhythmic Law þ¼CS – –
Morphology
Nouns
NomSg Neut e ¼ CS o o
NomSg Neut -j ie ¼ CS e
´
/ı
´
e
NomPl MascAnim ia ¼ CS e
´
/ie/ie
´
i/e/ove
GenSg Masc a-stems u ¼ CS i i
InstrSg Masc/Neut em ¼ CS ¼ CS om
GenPl all M ov, N ø ¼ CS ¼ CS och
LocPl all M och, N a
´
ch ¼ CS ¼ CS och
DatPl all M om, N a
´
m ¼ CS ¼ CS om
Adjectives
Soft type ie-ho e
´
/ie/i-ho e
´
-ho e-ho
NomSg Neut e
´
o/o
´
/uo e
´
e
NomPl Poss Anim i, Inan e ¼ CS ¼ CS o
LocSg Masc/Neut om ¼ CS e
´
mim
Nouns, adjectives and pronouns
InstrSgFem ou ¼ CS u/u´ u
Verbs
Inf t’ ¼ CS t ¼ CS
1Pl Pres m ¼ CS ¼ CS me
Pres/Inf theme ie ¼ CS e e
‘be’ l-participle bol- ¼ CS ¼ CS bul-
‘they are’ su
´
sa ¼ CS sa/su
‘not to be’ nie som ... ¼ CS neni som ... n
ˇ
e som ...
10.4 West Slavic 541
Adjectives
The locative singular masculine/neuter has -im against CS-Slk
-om (and W-Slk -e
´
m, above): CS-Slk dobrom ‘good’, E-Slk
dobrim.
The nominative plural of possessive pronouns and adjectives of
all genders has -o against CS-Slk -i/-e: CS-Slk vas
ˇ
i deti ‘your
children’, E-Slk vas
ˇ
o dzeci.
Verbs
The 1 Person plural present has -me against CS-Slk -m: CS-Slk
nesiem ‘we carry’, E-Slk n
ˇ
es
´
eme.
NW NE
(Est) C-Rus
(Lith) (Lith) (Lith) (Latv) C-Rus C-Rus
Polab P-New Maz SW-Bel
SW-Bel
C-Bel
C-Bel
NE Bel S-Rus
S-Rus
S-Rus
S-Rus
S-Rus
S-Rus
C-Rus
(Germ) P-New S-Kash Maz
LSorb P-New Maz SW-Bel C-Bel
USorb P-New N-Ukr N-Ukr
(Germ) P-New SW-Ukr SE-Ukr
W-/Cen-/E-Slk
W-/Cen-/E-Slk
SW-Ukr
SW-Ukr
SE-Ukr
Boh C-Mor E-Mor SE-Ukr S-Rus
(Germ) (Austr) (Austr/Hung) (Hung)
(Austr: Koroš) Štaj Pan (Hung)
(Ital) Prim Štaj Kajk E-Herc Šum-V (Rom)
(Rom)
(Ital) Prim Dol Kajk E-Herc Šum-V
Notr Dol Cak E-Herc Šum-V
Notr
Notr
Notr
Kajk/Cak
E-Herc Kos-R
Ik
Ik E-Herc Kos-Res Torlak W-Blg
W-Blg
W-Blg
W-Blg
E-Blg
E-Blg
E-Blg
Zeta Kos-Res
(Alb) Torlak
(Alb) W-Mac SE-Blg
SE-Blg
C-Mac E-Mac
E-Mac
W-Blg
(Gr) (Gr) (Gr)
SW SE
N-Rus
N-Kash(G)
(G)
(G)
Sil
Sil
Lach
(Austr)
(Rom)
Wielk
Gor
Rovt
Cz-New Boh/Cz-new
Mal
∼
Mal
∼
Figure 10.1 Slavic dialects: contacts in diagrammatic form Geographical layout:
Columns ¼ north to south; Rows ¼ west to east N ¼ north; S ¼ south; E ¼ east; W ¼ west;
C ¼ central; others as in text or Appendix A. ‘New’ ¼ areas of new mixed dialects since 1945;
brackets ¼ adjacent countries (G ¼ Germ). Single underline: transitions across languages
within major groups (vertically or horizontally). Double underline: transitions across major
groups ('')
542 10. Dialects
‘Not to be’ is n
ˇ
e som ... against CS-Slk nie som ... (/e/ for /ie/).
‘They are’ is both sa and su against CS-Slk su
´
.
The ‘be’ l-participle has the stem bul- against CS-Slk bol-
(cf. Ukr bul-).
10.4.4.3 Lexical
‘What?’ is co (the common West Slavic form) in E-Slk, against CS-Slk, Cen-Slk and
W-Slk c
ˇo
(cf. C
ˇ
ak c
ˇa
).
In summary, key features of the dialects are shown in table 10.11.
10.5 Dialects: summary
The interconnections and transitions between the languages and dialects are shown
diagrammatically in figure 10.1.
10.5 Summary 543
11
Sociolinguistic issues
11.1 The sociolinguistics of the Slavic languages
With the exception of language standardization and regional variants (chapter 10),
the sociolinguistics of the Slavic languages has been under-researched. Much remains
to be done in the area of sociolects, for instance, except in so far as they overlap with
questions of the national language, language planning, language in education, corpus
planning and what the Russians call kul
0
tu
´
ra re
´
c
ˇ
i – the ‘culture of (good) speech’.
Raskin (1978) regarded this deficiency under Communism as mainly ideological:
a classless society is difficult to reconcile with sociolectal variation, and attempts
to work out a genuinely Marxist–Leninist philosophy of language have so far failed
to solve this question – though investigations like the Soviet Russian Russkij jazyk i
sovetskoe obs
ˇ
c
ˇ
estvo (Panov, 1968; Krysin, 1974; 11.3.1) provided a strong empirical
platform for socially correlated studies of language variation. The after-effects of
these problems of ideology and scholarship help to explain the uneven state of socio-
linguistics in the modern Slavic languages (Brang, Zu
¨
llig and Brang, 1981). Since the
decline of Communism this field has become a major growth area of research
(Cooper, 1989) in fields like colloquial language (Patton, 1988), political correctness
(Short, 1996), culture-marginal slangs (Skachinsky, 1972), graffiti (Bushnell, 1990)
and gay language (Kozlovskij, 1986), which were areas of scholarship not encouraged
at the official level under Communism. It is still too early to evaluate how lasting is the
linguistic effect of Communism, but we can begin to appreciate how the modern
languages are reinventing themselves in their new globalized context.
11.2 Language definition and autonomy
11.2.1 Status and criteria
A variety of socio-cultural criteria complement the diachronic analysis of the
emergence of the Slavic national languages (chapter 2, especially 2.5). Picchio
544
(1984) identifies two central factors in determining language-hood: dignitas and
norma. These criteria correspond approximately to ‘‘status’’ and ‘‘standardiza-
tion’’. A language needs to be valued, especially by its speakers but also by out-
siders. It needs a description which defines it as distinct from others (Kloss’s
abstand), and to capture its internal consistency (Garvin, 1959; Issatschenko, 1975).
It should also cover the required social and functional roles (Kloss’s ausbau [1952]),
and should be stable enough to constitute a defined and constant core around
which its identity is defined and maintained. But, at the same time, it should exhibit
‘‘flexible stability’’ (Cz pr
˚
uzˇna
´
stabilita), a concept developed by linguists of the
Prague School (Havra
´
nek and Weingart, 1932; Havra
´
nek, 1936, 1963; Mathesius,
1947), allowing it to adapt to changing circumstances, social needs and commu-
nicative demands. We can augment the criteria presented in Stewart (1968) to
arrive at the following characteristics.
1. Standardization. A standardized language is formally unified, and
culturally unifying. The lack of a standardized variant has prevented
Kashubian from qualifying as a separate language. Standardization
needs to be exemplified in grammars, dictionaries, style and usage
guides, and orthoepy, and it needs to be realized in written and spoken
usage, and in policy, the media and education.
2. Autonomy (abstand). Languages need to assert their formal autonomy
(distinctiveness) and cultural autonomy (independence). The auto-
nomy of two modern Slavic languages is under some threat: Belarusian
(2.3.3), which feels the cultural pressure of Russian; and, to a lesser
degree, Macedonian (2.2.3), though here internal loyalty to the lan-
guage counterbalances the Bulgarian perception that Macedonian is a
western dialect of Bulgarian. Of the rest, Bosnian (2.2.4.3) is still estab-
lishing and defining its autonomy; Croatian (2.2.4.2) is distancing itself
from Serbian; and Ukrainian (2.3.2), about which there were some fears
under Russian-dominated practices in the USSR, is looking increasingly
secure, though not necessarily stable or homogeneous (Pugh and Press,
1999: introduction).
Among the means of maintaining, safeguarding and promoting
autonomy are Lencek’s (1982) criteria of ‘ ‘Slavization’’ and ‘‘vernacul-
arization’ ’ (9.2.4). Lexical purification is one of the most obvious signs
of this policy, particularly since it lends itself to direct management more
than other aspects of language planning and policy.
3. Historicity. Historicity is concerned with early linguistic monuments
and continuous cultural development. Authentic historicity is an
11.2 Language definition and autonomy 545
advantage to a language-culture, for instance in the Classical lan-
guages. Languages lacking historicity may try to establish claims to
historicity in order to avoid the appearance of an upstart culture-
come-lately. Competing claims for historicity can cause tension:
between Bulgarian and Macedonian over Old Church Slavonic cul-
ture; and between Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian for old East
Slavic culture. Lencek’s (1982) criterion of ‘‘archaization’’, the con-
scious and directed evocation of historical models, is an expression of
historicity. It is seen in the revival of the Czech, Sorbian and Slovenian
literary languages during the Romantic era. It also describes, in a
rather different way, the strong continuing presence of Church
Slavonic elements in modern Russian. A recent re-analysis of the
history of Slovak (Lifanov, 2001) aims to establish a deeper historicity
vis-a
`
-vis Czech than has hitherto been accepted.
4. Ausbau is the way in which a language develops to fulfil society’s
functional, cultural and social roles. Languages which lack a full
range of communicative roles are thereby restricted. A common restric-
tion is liturgical, a role filled by Latin or Church Slavonic for most of the
history of the Slavic literary languages. Another was political: in the
former Czechoslovakia, for instance, German occupied many public
roles until 1918. Belarusian is currently constrained by the parallel use
of Russian in some public roles, including administration and intellec-
tual life. Kashubian has little presence at the intellectual, journalistic or
administrative level, and so is functioning more as a language of local
solidarity, folklore and literature. The establishment of a full range of
styles in Macedonian after 1944 replaced functions which had been
fulfilled by Bulgarian, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian. A similar task now
faces Bosnian vis-a
`
-vis Croatian and Serbian.
5. Vitality. A vital language has sufficient numbers of speakers to defend
itself against cultural invasion or dilution. A vital language is used in all
contexts and walks of life, and has first claim for all relevant language
roles. Sorbian shows a genuine lack of vitality, since its numbers are
declining and the dominating German culture fulfils many language
roles, especially in non-spoken contexts. And Belarusian has long been
lacking in vitality in its interaction with the Russian language.
6. Prestige. Prestige may be based on an awareness of a standardized
norm, autonomy, historicity or vitality. It may also involve loyalty
and pride, and a cultural self-awareness. Prestige is of fundamental
importance to the survival of languages in e
´
migre
´
communities. It has
546 11. Sociolinguistics
also played a vital part in the survival of the less populous Slavic
languages – especially Sorbian, Macedonian and Slovenian – and in
the maintenance of larger languages like Bulgarian, Polish, Czech and
Ukrainian through periods of foreign invasion and domination.
Prestige can also be enhanced by status planning and institutionaliza-
tion, the use of the language in public life (including administrative
functions, for instance in the chancery language of the East Slavs).
7. Monocentricity vs pluricentricity. Most Slavic languages are typically
monocentric, with a single, well-defined monolithic standard. But
languages like English, French and German (Clyne, 1991a,b;
Clyne ed., 1991) have multiple standards, depending on their geogra-
phical dispersion. Within Slavic, B/C/S (Brozovic
´
, 1991) is a stereo-
typical case of a pluricentric language, and moreover one established
by political agreement (2.2.4.1). A contrasting example is that of
Macedonian (Tomic
´
, 1991), where the failure to establish a pluricentric
language in collaboration with Bulgarian contributed to the abstand
formation of a new Macedonian literary language. A similar set of
circumstances contributed to the emergence of Slovak vis-a
`
-vis Czech.
The notion of pluricentricity also offers possibilities for the study of
other Slavic literary languages, particularly those where there have
been competing centres and standards during the emergence and
establishment of the national language. Here we find the Kiev
Moscow, and later Moscow St. Petersburg dichotomy in Russian;
western eastern tensions in Ukrainian; the Great Poland and Little
Poland elements in Polish, as well as the Kashubian Polish dichot-
omy; Upper and Lower Carniolan variants in Slovenian; and western
eastern tensions in Bulgarian recensions of Church Slavonic and in the
dialectal input between Ta
˘
rnovo and Sofia in the emergence of
Contemporary Standard Bulgarian. The dichotomy between Upper
and Lower Sorbian also lends itself to pluricentric interpretation.
Whereas Lower Sorbian may have enough typological properties to
warrant status as a separate language, the sociolinguistics of its current
position allow us to interpret Upper and Lower Sorbian as the two foci
of a single pluricentric language.
11.2.2 Standardization
In contrast to Schleicher’s view of languages as organic organisms (organische
Naturk
¨
orper) (Robins, 1967: 196, n. 73), which should be left to develop according
11.2 Language definition and autonomy 547
to their own dynamics, the Slavs overtly manage their languages through legisla-
tion and standardization. Without such language engineering the contemporary
languages would look very different. Arguably, some might not have survived to
modern times.
In the Slavic countries education and the media are highly centralized, and there
are Language Institutes of the Academies of Science in each country, one for each
language, with printing houses and journals whose specific concern is the culture,
promotion and defence of the native tongue. Even before the political disintegra-
tions of 1991–1992, there were two such academies in Czechoslovakia: one in
Prague for Czech; and one in Bratislava for Slovak. In Yugoslavia there were
four: in Ljubljana for Slovenian; in Zagreb for the Croatian variant of Serbo-
Croatian; in Belgrade for the Serbian variant; and in Skopje for Macedonian. In the
German Democratic Republic, in spite of the numerical domination of German,
the Academy in Berlin included an ‘Institut fu
¨
r sorbische Volksforschung’, and a
new Sorbian Institute (‘Serbski Institut’) opened in Bautzen in 1992. These lan-
guage institutes continue in the new autonomous states. They make policy, and
publicize, implement and monitor decisions about the national language. In this
way they can bring about a degree of uniformity and top-down direction which is
impossible for contemporary English. Historically speaking, the convention of
language legislation in orthography, grammar and lexis (through either church,
or state, or both) influenced the formation and standardization of all the Slavic
literary languages. In some cases, it was precisely the official legislating institutions,
together with institutions devoted to the promotion of the national language and
culture, which were among the most effective influences in promoting the new
literary languages, for instance the various nineteenth-century Matice (language
and culture institutes, often with strong nationalist missions grounded in ethnology
and folklore (Herrity, 1973) ).
The acceptance of a language as part of a constitution or national language
policy is a powerful way of reinforcing its standing, defending it against the
language of military or cultural invaders, and providing it with a de iure basis in
the legal and educational structures of a country. Serbo-Croatian could never have
been established as a national language without both legislation and agreement
(2.2.4). And Slovak in Czechoslovakia was recognized as a separate language only
after the Second World War, and officially established as such in one of the few
solid results of the Prague Spring of 1968 (D
ˇ
urovic
ˇ
, 1980).
It is also true that centralized control allows language to become an instrument
of political power. The rhetoric of Communism, for instance as it is illustrated
in Soviet journalistic style, was powerfully reinforced by the ability of a central
body to legislate on the language. The definition of the language itself was subject
548 11. Sociolinguistics