Page 68 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 11(1) (2023)
P. 68
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 11 (2023), številk a 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 68‘successor states’, German was a lingua francamost dialect, Slovincian) in the west. Most prob-
for centuries, above all in the urban centres. Al- ably, Polabian, a West Slavic language, fragmen-
hereditatithough it is possible that the linguistic influence tarily documented in the first half of the 18th
was multidirectional, it is more probable that a century and extinct by the middle of that cen-
unidirectional linguistic influence prevailed, viz. tury, was part of this convergence area, too. Ac-
German was the influencing language while all cordingly, the view ‘I do not pay systematic at-
the other languages were the influenced ones.14 tention to Slavic languages (Sorbian, †Polabian)
The influence of German within the area, both directly influenced by German as the dominat-
on the level of vernaculars and the literary lan- ing language, as this represents another type of
guages, can be perceived mainly in the vocab- language contact’ (Kurzová 2019, 262) is simply
ulary (cf. German loanwords as well as struc- untenable if the Central European convergence
tural and semantic calques),15 and to a lesser area is to be understood as a chronologically de-
extent in the domain of grammar (i.e. syntax and limited phenomenon. Indeed, until the end of
morphology). the First World War, there was no difference be-
tween the influence of German on Slovenian (es-
Central European Slavic languages. Accord- pecially in the Central Slovenian area within the
ing to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the Central Inner Austria) or Sorbian, for example.17
European Slavic languages include Czech and
Slovak as the ‘core’ languages, Polish and Slove- The hierarchy of linguistic criteria. The hier-
nian as the ‘peripheral’ group, and ‘Serbo-Cro- archy of linguistic criteria for determining the
atian’ as a transitional zone between the Cen- Central European convergence area and the in-
tral European and the Balkan Slavic languages. ternal division of Central European Slavic lan-
Considering the historical facts and linguistic guages into ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ languages in
features of the examined languages, such a geo- Kurzová (1996 and 2019) lacks cogency. Name-
graphical demarcation appears to be oversimpli- ly, the placement of the accent on the first sylla-
fied. As already pointed out, the Central Euro- ble, i.e. phonological level, is applied as the high-
pean Slavic languages were all those languages est criterion. As it has already been mentioned,
which were for a certain period of time linked unlike in detecting linguistic relatedness, where
to the political centres in the German speaking the highest criterion is represented by historical
area and were consequently influenced by Ger- phonology, the syntactic and the morphological
man. These languages were Slovenian and Cen- criterion are more relevant in determining struc-
tral South Slavic (at least its western part) in the tural linguistic similarity. A different hierarchy
south,16 as well as Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Pol- of linguistic criteria would drastically change
ish and Pomeranian (its easternmost periphery the subdivision of the influenced languages
is represented by Kashubian and its northern- within the hypothesized convergence area into
‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ ones.
14 In determining the mutual influences in the Central Euro-
pean linguistic area up to at least the end of the First World Syntax and morphology. The common syn-
War, one must take into account other situations of lan- tactic and morphological features of Central
guage contact, namely, the influence on the level of liter- European languages should not be defined in
erary languages, e.g. the influence of Literary Czech on relation and in contrast to the neighbouring lin-
Literary Slovak (as well as that of Literary Hungarian on guistic areas, especially the Balkan languages,
Literary Slovak), the influence of Literary Croatian on Lit- but should describe the specific linguistic fea-
erary Slovenian, etc. tures of the Central European languages. Such
15 For German loanwords in Slovenian, the Slavic language 17 Unlike other Central European Slavic languages, the en-
that is/was in contact with German the longest, cf. Stried- tire Sorbian speaking area (like Slovenian in the Austrian
ter-Temps (1963). part of Carinthia and Styria as well as Croatian in the Aus-
trian part of Burgenland) (cf. Bayer 2006) remained in in-
16 The Central South Slavic linguistic area in fact forms a tensive contact with German even after the First and Sec-
transition between Central European and Balkan lan- ond World Wars.
guages, which is confirmed by older German borrowings
and later loans from Turkish in the domain of vocabulary.
for centuries, above all in the urban centres. Al- ably, Polabian, a West Slavic language, fragmen-
hereditatithough it is possible that the linguistic influence tarily documented in the first half of the 18th
was multidirectional, it is more probable that a century and extinct by the middle of that cen-
unidirectional linguistic influence prevailed, viz. tury, was part of this convergence area, too. Ac-
German was the influencing language while all cordingly, the view ‘I do not pay systematic at-
the other languages were the influenced ones.14 tention to Slavic languages (Sorbian, †Polabian)
The influence of German within the area, both directly influenced by German as the dominat-
on the level of vernaculars and the literary lan- ing language, as this represents another type of
guages, can be perceived mainly in the vocab- language contact’ (Kurzová 2019, 262) is simply
ulary (cf. German loanwords as well as struc- untenable if the Central European convergence
tural and semantic calques),15 and to a lesser area is to be understood as a chronologically de-
extent in the domain of grammar (i.e. syntax and limited phenomenon. Indeed, until the end of
morphology). the First World War, there was no difference be-
tween the influence of German on Slovenian (es-
Central European Slavic languages. Accord- pecially in the Central Slovenian area within the
ing to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the Central Inner Austria) or Sorbian, for example.17
European Slavic languages include Czech and
Slovak as the ‘core’ languages, Polish and Slove- The hierarchy of linguistic criteria. The hier-
nian as the ‘peripheral’ group, and ‘Serbo-Cro- archy of linguistic criteria for determining the
atian’ as a transitional zone between the Cen- Central European convergence area and the in-
tral European and the Balkan Slavic languages. ternal division of Central European Slavic lan-
Considering the historical facts and linguistic guages into ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ languages in
features of the examined languages, such a geo- Kurzová (1996 and 2019) lacks cogency. Name-
graphical demarcation appears to be oversimpli- ly, the placement of the accent on the first sylla-
fied. As already pointed out, the Central Euro- ble, i.e. phonological level, is applied as the high-
pean Slavic languages were all those languages est criterion. As it has already been mentioned,
which were for a certain period of time linked unlike in detecting linguistic relatedness, where
to the political centres in the German speaking the highest criterion is represented by historical
area and were consequently influenced by Ger- phonology, the syntactic and the morphological
man. These languages were Slovenian and Cen- criterion are more relevant in determining struc-
tral South Slavic (at least its western part) in the tural linguistic similarity. A different hierarchy
south,16 as well as Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Pol- of linguistic criteria would drastically change
ish and Pomeranian (its easternmost periphery the subdivision of the influenced languages
is represented by Kashubian and its northern- within the hypothesized convergence area into
‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ ones.
14 In determining the mutual influences in the Central Euro-
pean linguistic area up to at least the end of the First World Syntax and morphology. The common syn-
War, one must take into account other situations of lan- tactic and morphological features of Central
guage contact, namely, the influence on the level of liter- European languages should not be defined in
erary languages, e.g. the influence of Literary Czech on relation and in contrast to the neighbouring lin-
Literary Slovak (as well as that of Literary Hungarian on guistic areas, especially the Balkan languages,
Literary Slovak), the influence of Literary Croatian on Lit- but should describe the specific linguistic fea-
erary Slovenian, etc. tures of the Central European languages. Such
15 For German loanwords in Slovenian, the Slavic language 17 Unlike other Central European Slavic languages, the en-
that is/was in contact with German the longest, cf. Stried- tire Sorbian speaking area (like Slovenian in the Austrian
ter-Temps (1963). part of Carinthia and Styria as well as Croatian in the Aus-
trian part of Burgenland) (cf. Bayer 2006) remained in in-
16 The Central South Slavic linguistic area in fact forms a tensive contact with German even after the First and Sec-
transition between Central European and Balkan lan- ond World Wars.
guages, which is confirmed by older German borrowings
and later loans from Turkish in the domain of vocabulary.
