Slavic microlanguages

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Slavic microlanguages are literary linguistic varieties that exist alongside the better-known Slavic languages of historically prominent nations. The term "literary microlanguages" was coined by Aleksandr Dulichenko in late 1970s; it subsequently became a standard term in Slavistics.[citation needed]

Slavic microlanguages exist both as geographically and socially peripheral dialects of more well-established Slavic languages and as completely isolated ethnolects. They often enjoy a written form, a certain degree of standardisation and are used in a variety of circumstances typical of codified idioms—albeit in a limited fashion and always alongside a national standard language.[1][2]

List of microlanguages

In terms of classification, each literary microlanguage is traced back to one of the major Slavic languages or is closely related to it. Pannonian Rusyn is the only language that poses a challenge in this regard.

South Slavic

West Slavic

East Slavic

Pannonian (Yugoslav) Rusyn — spoken by Rusyns of Vojvodina and Croatia; genetically, Pannonian Rusyn is related to the Slovak language, however, it has experienced strong substrate and adstrate influence of East Slavic Rusyn dialects. Based on a set of criteria, this language occupies an intermediate position between microlanguages and the main Slavic languages.

According to Aleskandr Dulichenko, the formation process of new literary microlanguages is still ongoing. One example is the Bunjevac literary standard based on

Podhale dialect) may also be considered newly formed Slavic microlanguages. Movement for the creation of literary standards in Silesian and Goral dialects has begun in Southern Poland in the 1990s; such movements are typically decentralised: different communities propose their own writing, orthography and grammar variants. Nonetheless, efforts are made to create literary works in these languages, particularly, the Gospel has been translated into Goral.[5][6]

Insular and peripheral microlanguages

West Polesian
and others.

Functional characteristics

The precise

hierarchical relationship between national standard languages and microlanguages can be ascertained by examining internal attributes, such as the disparity between strictly enforced standardisation in the case of the former and, in the case of the latter, a more relaxed standard. The national language often displays a standardised spoken form whereas such a regularity is absent from microlanguages (whose spoken form often consists of divergent dialects). Likewise, the difference can be seen in external attributes such as extensive functionality and explored genres in the case of national languages, compared to the narrowness of genres
and limited functional role of microlanguages.

As literary microlanguages are, in terms of functionality, more expansive than their corresponding

vernacular dialects
. In contrast to a dialect exploited for artistic purposes, every minor literary Slavic language is to a greater or lesser degree governed by an organised literary and linguistic process that provides for the establishment and development of a literary microlanguage, and which presents it as such.

In terms of location, Slavic microlanguages exist in both predominantly Slavic and non-Slavic areas, earning some the designation of linguistic "islands" resulting from a past migration, whereas others exist indigenously, having never been entirely separated from their genetic and geographic points of origin.

Ethnic factor

The majority of Slavic microlanguages are not represented by nations, but rather the cultural-linguistic and ethno-linguistic groups which are in turn branches of larger Slavic ethnic groups or nations.

Peripheral literary microlanguages function in the environment of cultural and linguistic groups that exist within the peripheral (ethnic) area and are distinguished within its framework only by local features of culture-historical and linguistic (dialectal) nature – such are Chakavians, Kajkavians in Croatia.

Insular ethno-linguistic groups — represented by the "islands" of

national minorities — correspond with the insular literary microlanguages — such are the Burgenland Croats, Molise Croats, Banat Bulgarians; unlike cultural-linguistic groups, these are more distinct in terms of ethnicity and language. Both peripheral and insular branches consider themselves to be an inseparable part of the corresponding Slavic ethnic nation: the Banat Bulgarians see themselves as part of the Bulgarian ethnic group, the Chakavians and the Kajkavians, as well as the Burgenland Croats and the Molise Croats — as part the Croat ethnic group. Pannonian Rusyn can be considered an independent Slavic language instead of a literary microlanguage, since it is used by an ethnic group, recognised by some to be a distinct nationality. There is a number of other cases where the border between microlanguages and independent Slavic languages may be indistinct: for example, the "insular" Sorbian, spoken by the Slavic national minority in Germany, and the "peripheral" Kashubian
in Poland are both generally considered to be separate languages by the Russian linguists.

Origin and history of Slavic microlanguages

Conditions necessary for the emergence of literary microlanguages include: compactly populated area of speakers and the resulting isolation from the main dialect continuum; awareness of linguistic and ethnic distinctiveness; complexity of the dialectal environment, which prompts speakers to introduce their own literary language (especially during the formation of national literary languages) on the basis of a close group of dialects; pre-existing literary tradition in a related or unrelated language, which could provide ground for experiments in using the native language as a literary standard. The number of speakers alone does not guarantee the emergence of a literary standard, although it influences the potential outcome of the literary language formation process. Historical factors stimulating the emergence of a number of Slavic microlanguages has been Protestantism (in the 16th century), the Slavic national revival movements (19th century), and subjective factors such as prominent enlightenment figures giving an impetus to the development of the emerging literary standard based on their dialect, mainly by the power of their literary works.

It is noteworthy that almost all peripheral literary microlanguages at the initial stage of their development (that it, before the period of national revival) were regional varieties that competed to become the basis of the emerging national literary language.

Criticism

Theory of “Slavic microlinguistics” is critically assessed by the Russian Slavic scholar

Lachian [ru], used by Czech poet Óndra Łysohorsky, and West Polesian promoted by Nikolai Shelyagovich in Belarus, can be classified as "literary idiolects" and "literary dialects".[7]

Czech researcher Vladislav Knoll points out to “the lack of a strict definition of the key terms in the literary microlanguage theory". This, in his opinion, gives ground to refer to an increasing number of Slavic idioms of both the present and the past as Slavic microlanguages, which has recently become a trend. In particular, modern varieties such as Podhalian, Masurian, Silesian and Moravian, as well as historical languages such as Biblical Czech, Bernolákova Slovak [ru], Trnava Slovak, Camaldolese Slovak and Transylvanian Bulgarian have all been labeled "new microlanguages".[8] Most of the linguistic varieties that Aleksandr Dulichenko groups as "microlanguages", are classified as "literary dialects" by Vladislav Knoll. In Knoll's opinion, it is necessary to separate the group of literary idiolects, such as the project of the Lachian language and the group of regional literary languages, such as Molise Croatian and Pannonian Rusyn, and, possibly, Kashubian and Slovakian Rusyn.[9]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Grażyna Balowska (2000). "Mikrojęzyki literackie". In Władysław Lubaś (ed.). Socjolingwistyka. Vol. 16. Wydaw. Instytutu Języka Polskiego Polskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 41–49.
  2. ^ "Литературный микроязык". Академик. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
  3. ^ Милетич, Любомир. Нова латинска писменост за македонските българи под Гърция. — Македонски преглед, С., 1925, г. I, кн. 5 и 6, с. 229–233. (Miletich, Lyubomir. New latin alphabet for Macedonian Bulgarians under Greece, Macedonian review, 1925, vol. 5-6, pp. 229–233)
  4. ISBN 978-5-9765-0321-2
    .
  5. ISBN 978-5-9765-0321-2
    .
  6. ISBN 978-5-9765-0321-2
    .
  7. ISBN 978-5-87902-356-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help
    )
  8. ISBN 978-5-87902-356-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help
    )
  9. ISBN 978-5-87902-356-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help
    )

Bibliography

  • Dulichenko A.D. Malyje slavianskije literaturnyje jazyki (mikrojazyki) // Jazyki Mira: Slavianskije Jazyki. М.: Academia, 2005
  • Dulichenko A.D. Slavianskije literaturnyje mikrojazyki. Voprosy formirovanija i rasvitija. Tallinn, 1981.
  • Dulichenko A.D. Jazyki malyh etničeskih grupp: funkcionaljnyj status i problemy razvitija slovaria (na slavianskom materïale) // Modernisierung des Wortschatzes europäischer Regional- und Minderheitensprachen. Tübingen, 1999.
  • Dulichenko A.D. Kleinschriftsprachen in der slawischen Sprachenwelt // Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 1994, Bd. 39.
  • ISBN 978-4-938637-94-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help
    ) Retrieved 2020-10-30.

References
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_microlanguages&oldid=1195594528"