Page 66 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(1) (2023)
P. 66
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 11 (2023), številk a 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 66odological considerations aiming to explain theThus, commonly borrowed vocabulary usu-
rise of convergence areas are given from the van- ally means a lower degree of linguistic influence
hereditatitage point of historical linguistics. and convergence, while common innovations in
the domain of grammar mean a higher degree of
A convergence area is not limited just in linguistic influence and convergence. A conver-
terms of place, but in terms of time as well. In gence area is therefore defined primarily on the
linguistic terminology, the linguistic term con- basis of convergent grammatical innovations.
vergence area thus denotes a historical linguistic Using mathematical terminology, it could be
phenomenon that has a beginning and an end. said that the linguistic influence on the vocabu-
The term has a historical linguistic value and as lary presents a necessary condition, while the in-
such cannot have a panchronic meaning. Name- fluence on the grammar is a sufficient condition
ly, convergence processes in a given linguistic for the definition of a convergence area. Like in
area involve different geolects (as well as their so- linguistic genealogy, it is the shared innovations
ciolects), irrespective of their genetic affiliation, and not the archaisms that are relevant in de-
and are characteristic of a limited period of time. termining the putative convergent grammatical
They may last for different periods of time and features of a convergence area.
depend on the interaction of a given language
with other languages of the area.11 In defining a convergence area, the relevant
hierarchy of linguistic criteria must be estab-
Linguistic influence can be unidirection- lished, i.e. which criteria are decisive and which
al (i.e. subversion) or multidirectional (i.e. con- are not. In contrast to linguistic genealogy, areal
vergence), whereby a convergence area is usually linguistic typology must ‘reverse’ linguistic cri-
characterized by a multidirectional linguistic in- teria. In detail, within linguistic genealogy, lin-
fluence (cf. Hock 2021, 648–656). This results in guistic criteria in defining a dialect continuum
a high degree of linguistic interaction between of genetically related idioms are prioritized fol-
the members of a convergence area. lowing a ‘bottom-up’ principle, i.e. phonetics,
morphology, and syntax. Differently, when de-
The extent and the degree of foreign lan- fining a convergence area of genetically non-re-
guage influence and of the consequent linguis- lated idioms, it is more appropriate to proceed
tic borrowing and imitation depend on the du- following a ‘top-down’ principle, as the linguis-
ration and/or the intensity of language contact tic influence and the consequent linguistic bor-
as well as on the structural similarity of the in- rowing and imitation follow the principle ‘words
fluencing and the influenced idioms. Specifical- first, grammar later’. It turns out that the syntac-
ly, longer and/or more intense language contact tic and morphological level are more relevant in
means stronger linguistic influence, while great- determining common structural linguistic char-
er structural similarity results in a lower degree acteristics of the languages involved in a conver-
of linguistic borrowing and imitation. As a rule, gence area, while the phonetic, more precisely
borrowing and imitation of vocabulary precedes its segmental level, is less relevant (cf. Birnbaum
the imitation of grammatical structures, follow- 1965, 43). However, common vocabulary, bor-
ing the principle ‘words first, grammar later’ (cf. rowed and/or calqued on a foreign model is an
Weinreich 1953; Thomason 2001; Trovesi 2004; indicator of intense language contact, which is
Bayer 2006; Reindl 2008). a prerequisite for the formation of a convergence
area.
11 The Balkan convergence area is a historical linguistic en-
tity, which started to dwindle with the ‘national revivals’ In addition to the synchronic aspect, the di-
from the end of the 18th century onwards and the attempts achronic perspective, i.e. the chronology of the
to create ‘national states’ in the Balkans; the consequences putative convergent linguistic innovations, is in-
of all of this are the homogeneity of the official languguag- dispensable in understanding the formation of a
es in the newly established states as well as the transition
from a collective multilingualism to predominant mono-
lingualism achieved in the 20th century (Steinke 2012).
Cf. also the term ‘Carolingian Sprachbund’ (Hock 2021,
659, 719–724).
rise of convergence areas are given from the van- ally means a lower degree of linguistic influence
hereditatitage point of historical linguistics. and convergence, while common innovations in
the domain of grammar mean a higher degree of
A convergence area is not limited just in linguistic influence and convergence. A conver-
terms of place, but in terms of time as well. In gence area is therefore defined primarily on the
linguistic terminology, the linguistic term con- basis of convergent grammatical innovations.
vergence area thus denotes a historical linguistic Using mathematical terminology, it could be
phenomenon that has a beginning and an end. said that the linguistic influence on the vocabu-
The term has a historical linguistic value and as lary presents a necessary condition, while the in-
such cannot have a panchronic meaning. Name- fluence on the grammar is a sufficient condition
ly, convergence processes in a given linguistic for the definition of a convergence area. Like in
area involve different geolects (as well as their so- linguistic genealogy, it is the shared innovations
ciolects), irrespective of their genetic affiliation, and not the archaisms that are relevant in de-
and are characteristic of a limited period of time. termining the putative convergent grammatical
They may last for different periods of time and features of a convergence area.
depend on the interaction of a given language
with other languages of the area.11 In defining a convergence area, the relevant
hierarchy of linguistic criteria must be estab-
Linguistic influence can be unidirection- lished, i.e. which criteria are decisive and which
al (i.e. subversion) or multidirectional (i.e. con- are not. In contrast to linguistic genealogy, areal
vergence), whereby a convergence area is usually linguistic typology must ‘reverse’ linguistic cri-
characterized by a multidirectional linguistic in- teria. In detail, within linguistic genealogy, lin-
fluence (cf. Hock 2021, 648–656). This results in guistic criteria in defining a dialect continuum
a high degree of linguistic interaction between of genetically related idioms are prioritized fol-
the members of a convergence area. lowing a ‘bottom-up’ principle, i.e. phonetics,
morphology, and syntax. Differently, when de-
The extent and the degree of foreign lan- fining a convergence area of genetically non-re-
guage influence and of the consequent linguis- lated idioms, it is more appropriate to proceed
tic borrowing and imitation depend on the du- following a ‘top-down’ principle, as the linguis-
ration and/or the intensity of language contact tic influence and the consequent linguistic bor-
as well as on the structural similarity of the in- rowing and imitation follow the principle ‘words
fluencing and the influenced idioms. Specifical- first, grammar later’. It turns out that the syntac-
ly, longer and/or more intense language contact tic and morphological level are more relevant in
means stronger linguistic influence, while great- determining common structural linguistic char-
er structural similarity results in a lower degree acteristics of the languages involved in a conver-
of linguistic borrowing and imitation. As a rule, gence area, while the phonetic, more precisely
borrowing and imitation of vocabulary precedes its segmental level, is less relevant (cf. Birnbaum
the imitation of grammatical structures, follow- 1965, 43). However, common vocabulary, bor-
ing the principle ‘words first, grammar later’ (cf. rowed and/or calqued on a foreign model is an
Weinreich 1953; Thomason 2001; Trovesi 2004; indicator of intense language contact, which is
Bayer 2006; Reindl 2008). a prerequisite for the formation of a convergence
area.
11 The Balkan convergence area is a historical linguistic en-
tity, which started to dwindle with the ‘national revivals’ In addition to the synchronic aspect, the di-
from the end of the 18th century onwards and the attempts achronic perspective, i.e. the chronology of the
to create ‘national states’ in the Balkans; the consequences putative convergent linguistic innovations, is in-
of all of this are the homogeneity of the official languguag- dispensable in understanding the formation of a
es in the newly established states as well as the transition
from a collective multilingualism to predominant mono-
lingualism achieved in the 20th century (Steinke 2012).
Cf. also the term ‘Carolingian Sprachbund’ (Hock 2021,
659, 719–724).
