Page 64 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(1) (2023)
P. 64
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 11 (2023), številk a 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 64fining this linguistic area in Kurzová (1996 andFinally, the defining Central European morpho-
2019) can easily be deduced. The methodology of syntactic features seem to have been inspired by
hereditatithe areal linguistic typology, at least in this case, the model of, and in contrast to, the features of
resembles that of linguistic genealogy, which, the Balkan languages (cf. Table 1: Morphosyn-
however, is not justified on all counts. The defi- tactic features of the ‘Balkan’ and ‘Central Euro-
nition of the Central European linguistic area pean’ Slavic languages).7 The problems that such
within European languages is based on the geo- methodology creates are perhaps best addressed
graphical distribution of linguistic phenomena, by contrasting the approach of linguistic geneal-
which is a well-known principle in linguistic ge- ogy with that of linguistic typology.
nealogy, cf. the wave theory (German Wellenthe-
orie), explaining the spatial spread of linguistic Linguistic genealogy
innovation within a dialect continuum (Schmidt Linguistic genealogy groups idioms, i.e. linguis-
1872, 27). However, unlike linguistic genealogy, tic systems and diasystems, within a linguistic
the areal linguistic typology presented by Kur- continuum (originally geographical, secondari-
zová does not take into account the (relative and ly social as well) of genetically related idioms ac-
absolute) chronology of the emergence/forma- cording to the degree of their genetic affiliation,
tion of the linguistic phenomena under consid- i.e. genetic identity in diachronic perspective.
eration. In addition to that, the linguistic crite- The theory and methodology of genealogical
ria for the delimitation of the Central European linguistic classification have been most precise-
linguistic area in relation to the neighbouring ar- ly elaborated in the comparative linguistic stud-
eas, as well as the criteria for the internal diversi- ies of the Indo-European languages, as well as in
fication of the analysed area itself, are rather het- the comparative linguistics of the individual In-
erogeneous and without a clear hierarchy. The do-European branches, including Slavic.
criteria seem to span the domain of morphology
(the type of nominal and pronominal inflexion, Linguistic genealogy takes into account di-
comparison of adjectives and adverbs, system of vergent linguistic change in a linguistic contin-
verbal tenses), syntax (the type of sentence struc- uum – usually referred to as dialect continuum
ture), and phonetics (placement of the accent). – whereby from an ‘ancestor’ idiom several ‘de-
scendant’ idioms arise. A common linguistic
Table 1: The morphosyntactic features of ‘Balkan’ ‘ancestor’ gradually transforms into smaller ‘de-
and ‘Central European’ Slavic languages scendant’ idioms due to geographically limited
linguistic innovations. Consequently, because
‘Balkan’ Slavic languages ‘Central European’ Slavic of language change, linguistic diversity of genet-
languages ically related idioms arises. In order to designate
analytic nominal and pro- the genetic relationship between idioms, lin-
nominal inflexion synthetic nominal and pro- guistic genealogy uses terms such as proto-lan-
analytic comparison of adjec- nominal inflexion guage (German Ursprache, Italian protolingua,
tives and adverbs synthetic comparison of ad- Russian prajazyk) and language family (German
jectives and adverbs Sprachfamilie, Italian famiglia linguistica, Rus-
complex system of verbal three-dimension- sian jazykovoe semejstvo), language branch or lan-
tenses al system of verbal tenses guage group, language, dialect base (macro-area)
(past-present-future) or dialect group, dialect, local dialect.8 Genealog-
presence of formal and se-
mantic (functional) distinc- absence of formal and seman- 7 For linguistic Balkanisms cf. Banfi (1985); Asenova (2002);
tion between different past tic (functional) distinction Mišeska Tomić (2006); Fiedler (2009). For Balkanisms in
tenses between different past tenses Macedonian and Bulgarian cf. Šekli (2018, 51–72).
peripheral future with a vol-
untative auxiliary meaning peripheral future with an in- 8 The pairs proto-language – language family, language
*‘to want’ gressive auxiliary meaning branch – language group, and dialect base – dialect group
*‘to become’, *‘to grab’ denote linguistic entities, the genetic relationship of which
2019) can easily be deduced. The methodology of syntactic features seem to have been inspired by
hereditatithe areal linguistic typology, at least in this case, the model of, and in contrast to, the features of
resembles that of linguistic genealogy, which, the Balkan languages (cf. Table 1: Morphosyn-
however, is not justified on all counts. The defi- tactic features of the ‘Balkan’ and ‘Central Euro-
nition of the Central European linguistic area pean’ Slavic languages).7 The problems that such
within European languages is based on the geo- methodology creates are perhaps best addressed
graphical distribution of linguistic phenomena, by contrasting the approach of linguistic geneal-
which is a well-known principle in linguistic ge- ogy with that of linguistic typology.
nealogy, cf. the wave theory (German Wellenthe-
orie), explaining the spatial spread of linguistic Linguistic genealogy
innovation within a dialect continuum (Schmidt Linguistic genealogy groups idioms, i.e. linguis-
1872, 27). However, unlike linguistic genealogy, tic systems and diasystems, within a linguistic
the areal linguistic typology presented by Kur- continuum (originally geographical, secondari-
zová does not take into account the (relative and ly social as well) of genetically related idioms ac-
absolute) chronology of the emergence/forma- cording to the degree of their genetic affiliation,
tion of the linguistic phenomena under consid- i.e. genetic identity in diachronic perspective.
eration. In addition to that, the linguistic crite- The theory and methodology of genealogical
ria for the delimitation of the Central European linguistic classification have been most precise-
linguistic area in relation to the neighbouring ar- ly elaborated in the comparative linguistic stud-
eas, as well as the criteria for the internal diversi- ies of the Indo-European languages, as well as in
fication of the analysed area itself, are rather het- the comparative linguistics of the individual In-
erogeneous and without a clear hierarchy. The do-European branches, including Slavic.
criteria seem to span the domain of morphology
(the type of nominal and pronominal inflexion, Linguistic genealogy takes into account di-
comparison of adjectives and adverbs, system of vergent linguistic change in a linguistic contin-
verbal tenses), syntax (the type of sentence struc- uum – usually referred to as dialect continuum
ture), and phonetics (placement of the accent). – whereby from an ‘ancestor’ idiom several ‘de-
scendant’ idioms arise. A common linguistic
Table 1: The morphosyntactic features of ‘Balkan’ ‘ancestor’ gradually transforms into smaller ‘de-
and ‘Central European’ Slavic languages scendant’ idioms due to geographically limited
linguistic innovations. Consequently, because
‘Balkan’ Slavic languages ‘Central European’ Slavic of language change, linguistic diversity of genet-
languages ically related idioms arises. In order to designate
analytic nominal and pro- the genetic relationship between idioms, lin-
nominal inflexion synthetic nominal and pro- guistic genealogy uses terms such as proto-lan-
analytic comparison of adjec- nominal inflexion guage (German Ursprache, Italian protolingua,
tives and adverbs synthetic comparison of ad- Russian prajazyk) and language family (German
jectives and adverbs Sprachfamilie, Italian famiglia linguistica, Rus-
complex system of verbal three-dimension- sian jazykovoe semejstvo), language branch or lan-
tenses al system of verbal tenses guage group, language, dialect base (macro-area)
(past-present-future) or dialect group, dialect, local dialect.8 Genealog-
presence of formal and se-
mantic (functional) distinc- absence of formal and seman- 7 For linguistic Balkanisms cf. Banfi (1985); Asenova (2002);
tion between different past tic (functional) distinction Mišeska Tomić (2006); Fiedler (2009). For Balkanisms in
tenses between different past tenses Macedonian and Bulgarian cf. Šekli (2018, 51–72).
peripheral future with a vol-
untative auxiliary meaning peripheral future with an in- 8 The pairs proto-language – language family, language
*‘to want’ gressive auxiliary meaning branch – language group, and dialect base – dialect group
*‘to become’, *‘to grab’ denote linguistic entities, the genetic relationship of which
