Page 63 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(1) (2023)
P. 63
ia universitatisan and the Balkan Slavic languages.5 The deci- pared’, literally ‘(It is) prepared lunches and din-
sive criterion here would be the placement of the ners’, Tak mu się to powiedzialo, ‘He told so (in-
centr al european con vergence ar ea: theor etical and methodological consider ations 63 accent, namely on the first syllable in the ‘core’ voluntarily)’, literally ‘So was this said to him’,
languages (i.e. German, Hungarian, Czech, Slo- Russian Mne zevaetsja, ‘I am yawning’, literally
vak) and not on the first syllable in the ‘peripher- ‘It is yawning to me’), the Central European lan-
al’ ones (i.e. Polish, Slovenian). guages are to be distinguished by the predomi-
nant absence of such sentence structures. Sen-
The Central European linguistic area is tence structures with a finite verb form and an
to be delimited in relation to the Western Eu- unmarked subject-verb-object word order are
ropean, North-Eastern European (among the predominant in the Western European languag-
North-Eastern European languages Polish, Rus- es, which is thought to be a consequence of the
sian, Belarusian and Ukrainian as well as Lithu- emergence of analyticism within the nominal
anian and Finnish are mentioned), and Balkan and pronominal systems.6
linguistic areas. First, in relation to the so-called
Western European languages, which have an an- According to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the
alytic nominal ‘declension’, the Central Europe- individual features of the languages of the Cen-
an languages can be distinguished by their reten- tral European linguistic area are supposed to
tion of a synthetic nominal morphology. This is be as follows: A) on the phonetic level: 1) the
the case of word inflection (German Wortflex- placement of the accent on the first syllable; 2)
ion) in German, stem inflection (German Stam- a phonologically relevant quantitative opposi-
mflexion) in Slavic, and agglutination in Hun- tion; and B) on the morphosyntactic level: 1)
garian. It is assumed that German retained the synthetic nominal inflexion; 2) synthetic com-
synthetic declension due to contact with Slav- parison of adjectives and adverbs; 3) a simple
ic languages and Hungarian. Second, from the three-tense verb system (consisting of past, pres-
so-called North-Eastern European languages, ent and future) without any formal and seman-
which display various types of sentences other tic (functional) distinction between the differ-
than those with finite verb form and the agent ent past tense forms; 4) periphrastic future with
and the patient in the nominative and accusa- an auxiliary verb with an ingressive meaning
tive case, respectively (Polish Gotowano obiady (i.e. German werden ‘to become’, Slavic *bǫd- ‘to
I wieczerze, ‘Lunches and dinners are being pre- become’, Hungarian fog ‘to grab, grasp’); 5) per-
iphrastic passive; 6) bicentric sentence structure
5 In the framework of genealogical linguistics, ‘Serbo-Cro- with an unmarked subject-verb-object word or-
atian’ has been replaced by the more appropriate term, der; 7) limited use of participles; 8) relative claus-
namely Central South Slavic, cf. Croatian srednjojužno- es with relative pronouns, originating from
slavenski jezik ‘Central South Slavic language’ (Lončarić interrogative pronouns; 9) productivity of pre-
1996, 29), Russian srednejužnoslovjanskie govory ‘Central fixation and, consequently, high frequency of
South Slavic varieties’ (Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij prefixed verbs.
atlas 2006, 158), etc. This geolect (i.e. a geographical lin-
guistic phenomenon) emcompasses the following dialect Linguistic genealogy vs. areal linguistic
macro-areas: Kajkavian, Čakavian, Western Štokavian, typology
and Eastern Štokavian. On the basis of the Eastern Her- From the above survey of the structural linguis-
cegovinian dialect (istočnohercegovački dijalekt), a literara- tic features of the languages of the hypothesized
ry language was formed in the mid-19th century – cf. the Central European convergence area, the over-
Vienna Literary Agreement (bečki književni dogovor) from all theoretical-methodological approach in de-
1850 – called srpskohrvatski ‘Serbo-Croatian’ or hrvatskos-
rpski ‘Croato-Serbian’. After 1991, the standard language 6 However, the Central European convergence area seems
in question split into four independent standard languag- to be open mainly to the Western European and North-
es, i.e. sociolects (note here that sociolects are social lin- Eastern European linguistic areas, but not to the Balkan
guistic phenomena and have little or nothing to do with one.
geneolinguistic classification), Croatian, Serbian, Bos-
nian, and Montenegrin. Thus, the term ‘Serbo-Croatian’
has the value of a historical denomination, i.e. it refers to
the historical literary/standard language (c. 1850–1991)
that took shape and was in use in the entire Central South
Slavic linguistic area.
sive criterion here would be the placement of the ners’, Tak mu się to powiedzialo, ‘He told so (in-
centr al european con vergence ar ea: theor etical and methodological consider ations 63 accent, namely on the first syllable in the ‘core’ voluntarily)’, literally ‘So was this said to him’,
languages (i.e. German, Hungarian, Czech, Slo- Russian Mne zevaetsja, ‘I am yawning’, literally
vak) and not on the first syllable in the ‘peripher- ‘It is yawning to me’), the Central European lan-
al’ ones (i.e. Polish, Slovenian). guages are to be distinguished by the predomi-
nant absence of such sentence structures. Sen-
The Central European linguistic area is tence structures with a finite verb form and an
to be delimited in relation to the Western Eu- unmarked subject-verb-object word order are
ropean, North-Eastern European (among the predominant in the Western European languag-
North-Eastern European languages Polish, Rus- es, which is thought to be a consequence of the
sian, Belarusian and Ukrainian as well as Lithu- emergence of analyticism within the nominal
anian and Finnish are mentioned), and Balkan and pronominal systems.6
linguistic areas. First, in relation to the so-called
Western European languages, which have an an- According to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the
alytic nominal ‘declension’, the Central Europe- individual features of the languages of the Cen-
an languages can be distinguished by their reten- tral European linguistic area are supposed to
tion of a synthetic nominal morphology. This is be as follows: A) on the phonetic level: 1) the
the case of word inflection (German Wortflex- placement of the accent on the first syllable; 2)
ion) in German, stem inflection (German Stam- a phonologically relevant quantitative opposi-
mflexion) in Slavic, and agglutination in Hun- tion; and B) on the morphosyntactic level: 1)
garian. It is assumed that German retained the synthetic nominal inflexion; 2) synthetic com-
synthetic declension due to contact with Slav- parison of adjectives and adverbs; 3) a simple
ic languages and Hungarian. Second, from the three-tense verb system (consisting of past, pres-
so-called North-Eastern European languages, ent and future) without any formal and seman-
which display various types of sentences other tic (functional) distinction between the differ-
than those with finite verb form and the agent ent past tense forms; 4) periphrastic future with
and the patient in the nominative and accusa- an auxiliary verb with an ingressive meaning
tive case, respectively (Polish Gotowano obiady (i.e. German werden ‘to become’, Slavic *bǫd- ‘to
I wieczerze, ‘Lunches and dinners are being pre- become’, Hungarian fog ‘to grab, grasp’); 5) per-
iphrastic passive; 6) bicentric sentence structure
5 In the framework of genealogical linguistics, ‘Serbo-Cro- with an unmarked subject-verb-object word or-
atian’ has been replaced by the more appropriate term, der; 7) limited use of participles; 8) relative claus-
namely Central South Slavic, cf. Croatian srednjojužno- es with relative pronouns, originating from
slavenski jezik ‘Central South Slavic language’ (Lončarić interrogative pronouns; 9) productivity of pre-
1996, 29), Russian srednejužnoslovjanskie govory ‘Central fixation and, consequently, high frequency of
South Slavic varieties’ (Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij prefixed verbs.
atlas 2006, 158), etc. This geolect (i.e. a geographical lin-
guistic phenomenon) emcompasses the following dialect Linguistic genealogy vs. areal linguistic
macro-areas: Kajkavian, Čakavian, Western Štokavian, typology
and Eastern Štokavian. On the basis of the Eastern Her- From the above survey of the structural linguis-
cegovinian dialect (istočnohercegovački dijalekt), a literara- tic features of the languages of the hypothesized
ry language was formed in the mid-19th century – cf. the Central European convergence area, the over-
Vienna Literary Agreement (bečki književni dogovor) from all theoretical-methodological approach in de-
1850 – called srpskohrvatski ‘Serbo-Croatian’ or hrvatskos-
rpski ‘Croato-Serbian’. After 1991, the standard language 6 However, the Central European convergence area seems
in question split into four independent standard languag- to be open mainly to the Western European and North-
es, i.e. sociolects (note here that sociolects are social lin- Eastern European linguistic areas, but not to the Balkan
guistic phenomena and have little or nothing to do with one.
geneolinguistic classification), Croatian, Serbian, Bos-
nian, and Montenegrin. Thus, the term ‘Serbo-Croatian’
has the value of a historical denomination, i.e. it refers to
the historical literary/standard language (c. 1850–1991)
that took shape and was in use in the entire Central South
Slavic linguistic area.
