Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
place in their official census figures. There is a wide variation in the methods of
census-compilation, the definitions of ethnic identity, and the relation of ethno-
centric activities to the overall activity of the community.
In these communities language is a central factor of ethnicity in its social,
communicative and differentiating functions. Migrant languages present several
perspectives: the language in its own right, or with reference to interaction with the
language of the host country and the homeland country, as well as in comparison to
other migrant languages. In the total context of e
´
migre
´
language groups, the Slavs
overall show a higher-than-average degree of language retention. They have a
strong, almost proprietary concern for the preservation of their languages, which
reflects the very normative bias of language education in the Slavic countries.
Nevertheless, there is considerable interference from host languages, especially
English, particularly in the areas of lexis, phonetics and inflexional morphology.
Since the fall of Euro-Communism this influence is now paralleled in the Slavic
homelands (chapter 9) as Westernization and globalization exert a new influence,
especially through the Internet.
Lexical interference is the most obvious, and most far-reaching, area of interference
from the host language. Speakers with a native command of the phonology and
grammar of their language will still use host-language words, and often with alarming
frequency. Interference often begins with new realia: the flora, fauna, weights, mea-
sures and customs of the new homeland may have no direct parallels in Slavic, and a
neologism or calque is much less readily intelligible than a borrowed word widely
known to the local e
´
migre
´
community. But other processes, including the internal
degeneration of the e
´
migre
´
Slavic lexical and grammatical systems, means that we
have to be more precise about the kinds of interference which we are dealing with.
Haugen (1953) presents a useful classification of lexical interference: transfers,
which are direct borrowings; extensions, where the meanings of a word are
extended, usually under the influence of the host-country language; loan translations
(calques), where individual parts of words or phrases are translated piece-by-piece;
and hybrids, involving mixtures of the three methods. To the Haugen classification we
must add shifts or code-switching, where whole sequences of one language are
imported unchanged into another. E
´
migre
´
Slavic languages provide an abundance
of examples of all these types of interference: the following examples are taken
principally from Benson’s (1960) data from American Russian, Albijanic
´
’s data
from Californian Croatian (1982) and Rappaport’s (1990) data from American Polish:
(32a) Transfers
American-Rus koll-ge
´
rl ‘call-girl’
CS-Rus prostitu
´
tka, prixodja
´
s
ˇ
c
ˇaja
po vy
´
zovu
11.6 Slavic languages abroad 579
American-Rus ste
´
js
ˇ
nve
´
gn ‘station wagon’
CS-Rus mnogome
´
stnyj avtomobı
´
l
0
furgo
´
nnogo tı
´
pa
(32b) Extensions
re
´
nta: CS-Rus ‘annuity, pension’
American-Rus also ‘rent’
(32c) Loan Translations
American-Rus losjo
´
n krasoty
´
‘beauty lotion’
CS-Rus zˇ ı
´
dkoe kosmetı
´
c
ˇ
eskoe sre
´
dstvo
American-Rus ogo
´
n
0
tra
´
fika ‘traffic light’
CS-Rus svetofo
´
r
(32d) Hybrids
Australian-Rus de
´
lat
0
de
´
n
0
gi ‘to make money’
CS-Rus zaraba
´
tyvat
0
de
´
n
0
gi
(32e) Shifts/code-switching
American-Serbian/Croatian ja sam rabotala ovde for nothing
‘I worked here for nothing’
It is not always easy to distinguish borrowing from the host language – here English –
from words which are in any case being borrowed into the homeland language. The
influence of English on all modern homeland Slavic languages is widespread and
growing (Filipovic
´
, 1982, 1990), and many words which are being accepted in the
homeland are also being borrowed at the same time, but in the different context of an
e
´
migre
´
language, by e
´
migre
´
Slavic languages. It is also not easy for e
´
migre
´
commun-
ities to distinguish dialectal forms, brought from the homeland, from the forms of the
national literary standard. Rappaport’s Texas Silesian informants use the
dialectal word rza˛dzic
´
, which means ‘to rule’ in standard Polish, to mean ‘speaking
Silesian dialect’; they use the regular Pol mo
´
wic
´
‘to speak’ in other contexts:
(33) Texas-Pol wy mo
´
wicie, a my rza˛dzimy
‘you speak (proper) Polish, but we talk Silesian dialect’
Borrowings of novel flora and fauna are less serious than the replacement of
viable Slavic words by host-language synonyms. Nouns are the most productive
class of lexical interference, probably because they can most easily be assimilated
into the native Slavic inflexional paradigms. Non-Slavic adjectives lack the char-
acteristic adjective suffixes like -n- and -sk-, and are less frequently borrowed,
though it is not uncommon to borrow roots and add these suffixes – see below.
Non-Slavic verbs, which are inflexionally even less like Slavic verbs, are the least
frequent borrowings in the major word-classes. E
´
migre
´
Slavic languages follow
580 11. Sociolinguistics
and extend homeland language practices in adapting adjectives (sometimes) and
verbs (always) to Slavic word formation and inflexional patterns, resulting in
hybrids like Rus komforta
´
bel
0
ny ‘comfortable’ (also listed in the Ozˇ egov and
Oxford dictionaries) or dra
´
jvovat
0
‘to drive’. Alternatively, again as in the home-
land language, the borrowed word may simply be treated as non-inflecting, which is
syntactically feasible for nouns and adjectives (Albijanic
´
1982; Jutronic
´
-
Tihomirovic
´
1985), but impossible for verbs.
This external incursion into lexical systems is paralleled by internal decline.
Alternative words representing individual concepts tend to be progressively reduced
in the direction of a single base unit or form. Rappaport’s (1990) Texas Silesian Poles
of Panna Maria have blurred the distinction between Pol chodzic
´
‘togo[Habitual,
Iterative]’ and Pol is
´
c
´
‘to go [Punctual]’, so that they say (34a) rather than (34b):
(34a) American-Pol dzieci szły do szkoły
‘the children went [daily] to school’
(34b) CS-Pol dzieci chodziły do szkoły
‘the children went [daily] to school’
There is also a reduction in alternative forms of individual words. This is why
the array of diminutive forms in Slavic nouns (8.2.2) can reduce to one or a few
forms, a base form and one or two diminutives. It is not uncommon for e
´
migre
´
Slavs, especially from the second generation, to believe that the diminutive form is
indeed the base form, since the diminutive is the form which they will hear most
often – sometimes to the exclusion of the non-diminutive root. Second-generation
Polish teenagers use words like CS-Pol piesek ‘dog, doggie’ in otherwise formal
contexts. In addition to this de-structuring, e
´
migre
´
languages tend to lose their
inherent lexical creativity. The corresponding patterns and conventions in the host
language and the homeland language are unacceptable for ethnic and ideological
reasons, respectively, and forces of e
´
migre
´
conservatism can often lead to an
emphasis on pre-migration models which are unable to match the vitality required
by poetry or, for that matter, the expressive requirements of dynamic prestige
teenage registers like that of young America.
Parallel to the decline in variety of roots and word-structures is a decline in the
range and use of inflexional morphology, as a result of contact with languages like
English which possess a less elaborate inflexional system. Marginal case forms,
complex verb paradigms and low-frequency irregular forms are among the first to
disappear from use. Among the forms which do survive, there tends to be a
confusion or levelling of distinctions between inflexional paradigms: for instance,
the genitive singular in -u or -a of masculine nouns is commonly misused (5.5.1).
And distinctions of gender, particularly secondary gender, can collapse into a single
11.6 Slavic languages abroad 581
undifferentiated category, as when masculine personal forms in the plurals of nouns,
adjectives and determiners are swallowed up in a single plural inflexion. A substantial
study of case-loss has been carried out by D
ˇ
urovic
ˇ
(1983) and his colleagues at Lund
University (Language in diaspora). They have found that the pattern of case-loss is
consistent with the analysis of Jakobson in his 1936 studies of case-markedness. The
Russian second genitive and second locative, together with the instrumental, are the
cases most at risk. In other e
´
migre
´
Slavic languages there are also examples of
interference in preposition and case usage, notably from English. Benson (1960)
notes American-Rus na ra
´
dio ‘on the radio’ instead of CS-Rus po ra
´
dio,and
American-Rus po televı
´
zion ‘on television’ instead of CS-Rus po televı
´
deniju.
Meyerstein (1969) has even more far-reaching data from American Slovak. Here
not only are the prepositions becoming confused, but the cases which they govern are
undergoing wholesale reduction, sometimes to the point of there being only a nomi-
native and a non-nominative case left, and their usage may correspond not at all to the
conventions of the standard language. Henzl (1982) reports a parallel phenomenon
from Czech, where some speakers have collapsed all cases into the nominative:
(35a) ‘the girl has a little dog’
CS-Cz slec
ˇ
na ma
´
psı
´
c
ˇ
ka/pejsec
ˇ
ka
girl-Nom have-3Sg dog-Dim-Acc=Gen
(alternative diminutives)
(35b) American-Cz slec
ˇ
na ma
´
pejsec
ˇ
ek [Acc=Nom]
She also suggests that it is possible to use inflexional morphology as a direct metric
for estimating the degree of language loss.
Typologically speaking, a decline in a language’s case-system will tend to be
accompanied either by the development of particles to mark grammatical relations,
or by a growing rigidity of word order, which then becomes one of the principal
means of marking subjects and objects. This is what happens in e
´
migre
´
Slavic in
contact with English. The OVS order (7.4.3), which is so expressive and common in
homeland Slavic, becomes progressively rarer in second- and third-generation
e
´
migre
´
Slavic speakers exposed to a SVO language like English. So, too, do
expressive inversions of modifiers and heads (7.4), or the separation of modifiers
and heads, and the topicalization of modifiers for emphasis:
(36) Rus krası
´
vuju ty
´
sebe
´
nas
ˇ
¨
el
beautiful-FemAccSg you self-Dat found-MascSgPast
de
´
vus
ˇ
ku!
girl-FemAccSg
‘you have found yourself a beautiful girl!’
582 11. Sociolinguistics
Subordinate clauses decay before coordinate ones, and speakers unsure of their
linguistic control will rephrase sentences as sequences of ‘and’ clauses rather than
risk subordinate structures. Overall, there is a trend from synthetic case-structures
toward analytic uses of prepositions in the syntactic structure of the sentence.
Among the most obvious features of e
´
migre
´
Slavic languages is their phonetic
decline. It is here that we find direct evidence of influence and interference from the
host language. The articulatory settings of the host language are copied into the
Slavic languages: even the trilled [r] can be replaced by an English-like [
r
] within five
years of arrival in English-speaking countries; dentals become alveolars, and
unaspirated initial stops are aspirated:
(37) CS-Rus tam ‘there’ [tam]; Australian-Rus [t
h
am]
In addition, articulatory distinctions which are a proper part of the Slavic
languages start to degrade. Palatal consonant series are particularly open to
degradation, like the [c
ˇ
] [c
´
] (post-alveolar alveolo-palatal) contrast of Polish
and B/C/S: they normalize on a sound close to the English [c
ˇ
], thereby obliterating
an underlying phonemic contrast in the standard languages. Stress and tone also
suffer radically, and in poor speakers can be virtually ignored, or treated randomly.
First-generation speakers, however, are still sufficiently in control of the native
phonology for them to resist pure lexical shifts, in Haugen’s sense (above), and to
Slavicize borrowed words from the host language. So freeway is pronounced
[¨frivej], and whale boat [¨vflb
c
t]. However, when words are adopted and adapted
into e
´
migre
´
Slavic languages, their pronunciation is unstable, varying from host
language-like approximations, to spelling pronunciations seen from the point of
view of Slavic orthoepy, to phonetic adaptations. Over time, and with declining
linguistic competence, the kinds of phonetic patterns found in these imported
words begin to appear in the native Slavic lexis. Within three generations, accord-
ing to Saint-Jacques (1979), there may be little left of the e
´
migre
´
language other
than some ceremonial phrases for feasts like Easter and Christmas.
Before the fall of Euro-Communism in 1989 the diasporic Slavic communities
were in an ambivalent position. From one point of view they were involuntary
e
´
migre
´
s, in the sense that those who wanted to return would have found it
difficult, and potentially dangerous, to re-establish a lifestyle in the homeland.
The community organizations – church, political groups, media and especially
newspapers, ethnic schools, social clubs and other organizations – projected and
protected the ethos of a culture in exile, one which stood for the true continuation
of the values (cultural, linguistic and other) which had allegedly been traduced by
the advent of Communism. This was particularly true for Russians, Ukrainians
and Belarusians who had left the homeland or failed to return after the Russian
11.6 Slavic languages abroad 583
Revolution; or for other Slavs who had left or not returned after the Yalta
Agreement at the end of the Second World War. Many of these e
´
migre
´
Slavs were
strongly anti-Communist and conservative, and they resisted the kinds of changes
which were taking place in the homeland. There was strong pressure in favor of
endogamy, and the larger communities provided a wide range of social structures
which could effectively support existing and new e
´
migre
´
s throughout a lifetime of
work, worship and leisure. Language and its maintenance was central to this system
of values, and tended to resist change. Older Russian e
´
migre
´
s, for instance, preserved
the use of the letter jat
0
(appendix B) decades after it had been very properly removed
from use in the Soviet Union. And the notion of cultural integrity was valued, so that
the use of Anglicisms in English-country Slavic communities, for instance, was
widely criticized. In this context the maintenance of core values of language and
culture (Smolicz, 1979) ranked high in the life of the community.
After 1989, however, this legitimacy no longer held. The removal of the
Communist regimes, and their political and military threat to the West, meant
that many e
´
migre
´
Slavs could now return to the homeland. Many did in increasing
numbers over the following decade – some to take up senior political, management
and other leadership roles. These returning Slavs included many who had grown up
in e
´
migre
´
communities. In addition, homeland Slavs were now equally able to
travel abroad and, in some cases, to emigrate. In one sense this two-way traffic
has weakened the raison d’e
ˆtre
of the e
´
migre
´
communities, which are no longer
insulated by their claim to be the exclusive true inheritors of homeland values.
On the other hand, the influx of new speakers has enriched and re-charged the
linguistic and cultural life of the communities. And unrestricted two-way commu-
nications, and access to cable and satellite television, have made possible not only
the globalization of the lives of the homeland Slavs, but also the updating of the
lives of Slavs in what is no longer a diaspora in exile.
This reunification – the word is apposite not only of Germany – of the Slavic
communities has had a further important consequence for the maintenance of
languages outside the homeland, and one which is most strongly evident in Slav
communities in the English-speaking countries. The homeland languages, as a
result of globalization and the radical de-Communization of public language,
have become more Western and, in particular, more like English. It is difficult
for e
´
migre
´
s to keep pace with the changes in the homeland language, changes for
which there are now only aesthetic, rather than ideological, objections. As a result,
the e
´
migre
´
Slavic communities are having to re-invent their sense of identity, and to
refocus their orientation to the homeland.
In the midst of this change, however, the Slavs’ allegiance to their languages
is not at risk. The Slavs remain one of the modern world’s biggest ethnic groups of
584 11. Sociolinguistics
e
´
migre
´
s. They have also, as a result of their history, come to associate language
very closely with ethnic identity and self-respect. Slavic parents abroad have con-
secrated an enormous amount of effort to continuing their language traditions, as
the dearest and the closest part of the heritage which they can pass on to their
children. The millions of e
´
migre
´
Slavs who continue to preserve their language –
perhaps not wholly pure or intact, but preserved – would approve of a remark of
Samuel Johnson:
I am always sorry when any language is lost, because languages are the
pedigrees of nations. (Boswell’s Life of Johnson, 1776)
11.6 Slavic languages abroad 585
APPENDIX A: ABBREVIATIONS
A.1 Language names
B/C/S Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (see 0.3)
Bel Belarusian
Boh Bohemia(n) (Cz)
Bos Bosnian
C
ˇ
ak C
ˇ
akavian (B/C/S)
Cen Central (C in figure 10.1)
ChSl Church Slavonic
Cr Croatian
CS Contemporary Standard
Cz Czech
Dol Dolenjsko (Sln)
E East
Ek Ekavian (B/C/S)
Eng English
ESl East Slavic
Fr French
Ger German
Gk Greek
Gor Gorenjsko (Sln)
Han Hana
´
k (Cz)
Herc Hercegovina (-ian) (B/C/S)
Ik Ikavian (B/C/S)
Jek Jekavian (B/C/S)
Kajk Kajkavian (B/C/S)
Kash Kashubia(n) (Pol)
Koros
ˇ
Koros
ˇ
ko (Sln)
Kos-Res Kosovo-Resava (B/C/S)
Lach Lach(ian) (Cz)
Lat Latin
586
Lith Lithuanian
LS Lower Sorbian (in tables)
LSorb Lower Sorbian
Mac Macedonian
Mał Małopolska (Pol)
Maz Mazovia(n) (Pol)
Mor Moravia(n) (Cz)
N North
Notr Notranjsko (Sln)
O Old (in combination with names of languages)
OCS Old Church Slavonic
Pan Panonsko (Sln)
PIE Proto-Indo-European
Pol Polish
Polab Polabian
Prim Primorsko (Sln)
PSl Proto-Slavic
Rovt Rovtarsko (Sln)
Rus Russian
S South
Sb Sorbian (dialects in Ch. 10)
Serb Serbian
Sil Silesia(n) (Pol)
Slk Slovak
Sln Slovenian
Sorb Sorbian
SSl South Slavic
S
ˇ
taj S
ˇ
tajersko (Sln)
S
ˇ
tok S
ˇ
tokavian (B/C/S)
S
ˇ
um-V S
ˇ
umadija-Vojvodina (B/C/S)
Trans Transitional (dialect)
Ukr Ukrainian
US Upper Sorbian (in tables)
USorb Upper Sorbian
W West
Wielk Wielkopolska(n) (Pol)
WSl West Slavic
A.2 Linguistic terms
Act active
Adj adjective
A.2 Linguistic terms 587
Adv adverb
Aff affix, affective
Aor aorist
Aug augmentative
Aux auxiliary
B back (vowel)
C consonant
Cl clitic
Coll collective
Colloq colloquial
Compar comparative
Cond conditional
Conj conjunction
Dat dative
Def definite
Dem demonstrative
Dent dental
Det determinate
Dial dialectal
Dim diminutive
Dir direct
Du dual
Encl enclitic
F front (vowel)
Fem feminine
Fut future
Gen genitive
Ger gerund
Imper imperative
Imperf imperfect
Impers impersonal
Imprfv imperfective
Inan inanimate
Indef indefinite
Indet indeterminate
Indir indirect
Inf infinitive
Instr instrumental
Intrans intransitive
Inv invariant
Lab labial
Loc locative
588 Appendix A