The Question of 'Cultural Language' and Interdialectal Norm in 16th Century Slovakia

(1)

Slavistische Beiträge ∙ Band 335

(eBook - Digi20-Retro)

Verlag Otto Sagner München ∙ Berlin ∙ Washington D.C.

Digitalisiert im Rahmen der Kooperation mit dem DFG-Projekt „Digi20“

der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München. OCR-Bearbeitung und Erstellung des eBooks durch den Verlag Otto Sagner:

http://verlag.kubon-sagner.de

«Verlag Otto Sagner» ist ein Imprint der Kubon & Sagner GmbH.

Mark Richard Lauersdorf

The Question

of 'Cultural Language' and Interdialectal Norm in 16th Century Slovakia

A Phonological Analysis of 16th Century Slovak Administrative-Legal Texts

Mark Richard Lauersdorf - 9783954790883 Downloaded from PubFactory at 01/10/2019 03:02:51AM via free access

(2)

S L A V I S T I S C H E B E I T R Ä G E

B e g r ü n d e t v o n A l o i s S c h m a u s

H e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n P e t e r R e h d e r

B e i r a t :

Tilm an Berger * W alter Breu Johanna Renate Döring-Smimov

W ilfried Fiedler * W alter KoschmaJ * Ulrich Schweier • M iiol Sedmidubskÿ • K laus Steinke

B A N D 3 3 5

(3)

Mark Richard Lauersdorf

The Question o f ‘Cultural Language’ and Interdialectal Norm in 16th Century Slovakia

A Phonological Analysis

o f 16th Century Slovak A dm inistrative-Legal Texts

(4)

oaye risch#

S taatsbibliothek MüncfcM

ISBN 3-87690-640-7

(5)

F O R E W O R D

Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde am 20. A pril 1995 vom Departm ent o f Slavic Languages and Literatures und am 24. April 1995 von d er G raduate School der University o f Kansas als D issertation angenommen. An dieser Stelle m öchte ich zunächst H erm Prof. Dr. Peter Rehder für die A ufnahm e dieser Dissertation in seine Reihe danken. Ich m öchte auch meine

D ankbarkeit mehreren Personen gegenüber zum A usdruck bringen, die m ir bei dieser Arbeit behilflich w aren und besondere A nerkennung verdienen.

Dr. M aie G reenberg, as director o f the dissertation, is certainly deserving o f honorable m ention here. His professionalism in all aspects o f the p ro je c t from critical com m entary to professional guidance, was instrum ental in bringing this project to a successful close and made the entire dissertation process a relatively painless experience. The other dissertation committee m em bers, Dr. Joseph Conrad, Dr. Jadw iga M aurer, Dr. R obert Rankin and Dr. Donald

W atkins, also deserve a w ord o f acknow ledgem ent for their efforts o n m y behalf.

H erm Prof. D r. Lewis Tusken, m einem ersten Russischlehrer und jetzt guten Freund, der m ir einm al gesagt hat, “yo u d o n 4 really set out to get a Ph.D., you ju st keep going until all o f a sudden you’re there", möchte ich hier gestehen, daß er vollkom men recht hane.

T o m y parents, the Rev. Richard and Charlene Lauersdorf, w ho were convinced that I w ould never get out o f school, I w ould like to say thanks for the innum erable things that they have done along the way.

A m es beaux-parents, Michel et Jacqueline Dupuis, qui nous ont gâtés de nombreuses m anières ces dernières années, je dis m erci de tout coeur.

C 'e st finalement à m a femme. Josée, à qui je dois le plus . . .

M ark Richard Lauersdorf M ärz 1996, Lawrence. K ansas, USA

(6)

(7)

F o re w o rd ... 5

Lisi o f tables... 9

List o f m a p s ... JO A bbreviations...11

G ram m atical, geographical and language abbreviations... 11

Phonological sy m b o ls... 13

A bbreviations for dialect divisions cited in this work and correspondences between abbreviations and dialect names/geographical regions...!4

C hapter I: Introduction... 19

The m ajor Slovak dialect regions...20

T he sociolinguistic situation in the Slovak lands before 1500 ...21

C zech in Slovakia... 24

Cultural Slovak... 26

T he present investigation... 30

C hapter П: T he C o rp u s... 33

G eography...33

C h ro n o lo g y ... 34

Corpus size... 36

T ext type... ... ... 37

O rthography... 38

C hapter Ш: Introduction to the phonological investigation... 45

1) vocalization o f strong ъ and ь... .47

2) developm ent o f syllabic f and / (and related С гъ С and С / ъ С ) ... 51

3) fronting and raising o f long and short á , a / C'__C* , C '__ # ... 60

4) fronting o f long and short ú . и ! C ' _ ... ...66

5) diphthongization o f long 6^and 'è...69

6) diphthongization o f long й / С י... ... ...75

7) assibilation o f d !__j... 79

8) assibilation o f d , t ł__è, / , e . ь . ą (i.e., all front vow els)...82

9) palatalization o f r /__è . i, e, ь, f ,y (i.e., all front vowels and j )... 87

C hapter IV: Investigation o f the Moravian Slovak corpus... 91

A nalysis o f the textual data... 91

1) vocalization o f strong ъ and b... 91

2) developm ent o f syllabic f and / (and related СгъС and С Іъ С )... 91

3) fronting and raising o f long and short à , a / C' C' , C' # ... .92

4) fronting o f long and short ú t и / C ’... ... 95

5) diphthongization o f long ó and ' i... ...96

6) diphthongization o f long ú / C״... ...98

7) assibilation o f d f__j... 99

8) assibilation o f d yt /__è t i ye, ь , < (i.e.. all front vow els)... 99

9) palatalization o f г /__è (i.e.. all front vowels and » ... 100

Sum m ary analysis o f the anested MSIk reflex patterns... 100

C hapter V: Investigation o f the W est Slovak corpus... 105

A nalysis o f the textual data...105

1) vocalization o f strong ь and ь... 105

2) developm ent o f syllabic f and / (and related СгъС and С Іъ С )... 105

3) fronting an d raising o f long and short á ча / C'__C' , C'__f f... 106

(8)

4 ) fronting o f long and short й, u i С... ... ļ 10

5) diphthongization o f long Ô and V ...110

6) diphthongization o f long ú / C *... ...113

7) assibilation o f d l i... ... П4 8) assibilation o f d t í ł І , i , e , b , ç (Le., all front vow els)... ...114

9) palatalization o f r /__І J t e > b > ( J (i.e., all front vow els and y )... 115

Sum m ary analysis o f the attested W Slk reflex patterns... 116

C hapter VI: Investigation o f the Central Slovak corpus...123

A nalysis o f the textual data... 123

1) vocalization o f strong ъ and ь...123

2) developm ent o f syllabic ļ and / (and related С гъС and С І ъ С )... 123

3) fronting and raising o f long and short á , a f С__С , С__f f... 125

4 ) fronting o f long and short ú , и l С ״... ... 128

5) diphthongization o f long ô and ,ë... ... 129

6) diphthongization o f long 1Í / C ' ... ...132

7) assibilation o f d I__j...133

8) assibilation o f d , t /__è J , b , ę (i.e., all front vow els)... ...133

9) palatalization o f r /__è J . e 9b9ç , j (i.e.. all front vowels and J )... 134

Sum m ary analysis o f the attested C Slk reflex patterns...135

C hapter VU: Investigation o f the East Slovak corpus...141

A nalysis o f the textual data...141

1) vocalization o f strong ъ and ь ...141

2) developm ent o f syUabic j* and / (and related С гъС and С / ъ С ) ... 141

3) fronting and raising o f long and short á , a / С__С , С__f f... 142

4 ) fronting o f long and short й , и l С... ...146

5) diphthongization o f long Ó and V ... 146

6) diphthongization o f long û / C '... ...1⁵⁰ 7) assibilation o f d /__j...J51 8) assibilation o f d , t /__è , / , е . ь , ( (i.e., all front v o w els)...1^{5 1} 9) palatalization o f r f__é . i, e , ь . * J (i.e., all front vowels and j )... 152

Sum m ary analysis o f the attested ESlk reflex patterns...J 53 C hapter ѴШ: Sum m ary and conclusion...159

Review o f the individual regional analyses... I59 Com parison o f the individual regional analyses... 160

Regional cultural language form ation... 164

Interregional cultural language form ation... 167

Interaction o f the literary Cz norm and the Slk dialects in the formation o f Cultural Slovak... ПО Conclusions o f this study and recom m endations for further research ...176

A ppendix A: Table o f orthographic equivalences... I79 A ppendix B: Technical description o f the corpus...181

M oravian Slovak c o rp u s... j 84 W est Slovak corpus... Central Slovak c o rp u s... j 92 E ast Slovak co rp u s...j 97 T ex t distribution m ap s... 202

G lossary... 211

Index o f cited form s... ... 225

(9)

General geographical and chronological distribution o f the corpus 37

Eariy 15th c. C zech graphem es for palatal and palatalized consonants (D ćcsy 1 9 5 3 ) 39 î a ïe ] 5th с. C zech graphem es for palatal consonants (G ebauer 1871 ) 39

16th c. graphem es for palatal consonants in texts from Slovakia (Czam bel 1890) .40 Phonological developm ents investigated in the present s tu d y 45

!)v o calizatio n o f strong ъ and ь 48

G eneralized groupings o f reflex patterns for f , / (and related С г ъ С, СІъС )...52 2) developm ent o f syllabic { and / (and related СгъС and СІъС ) 53

3) fronting and raising o f long and short á , a I C ' C' , C ' _ ß 61 4 ) fronting o f long and short û , и / C '.... . 67

5) diphthongization o f long 6^and^{' i}... ... ... 70

6) diphthongization o f long ú f C '... 6^ל 7) assibilation o f d / /. 80

8) assibilation o f d , t /...è J , e %b t ę (i.e.. all front vow els) 83

9) palatalization o f r / è , i . e, ь % ą, j (i.e.. all front vow els and J) 88 Synopsis o f reflex patterns in the M oravian Slovak corpus 103

Textually attested W Stk reflexes of long 6 ¹¹⁰

Textually attested W Slk reflexes o f long ô - 1550-90 texts o n ly 111 Synopsis o f reflex patterns in the W est Slovak co rp u s 120

Textually attested C Slk reflexes o f long 6 - 1550-90 texts o n ly ... ... 130 Synopsis o f reflex patterns in the Central Slovak corpus 138

Textually attested ESlk reflexes o f long 6 - 1 5 5 0 9 0 ״ texts only 147 Ratio o f e to / reflexes (< / ) in n^wESlk and eESlk te x ts 149

Synopsis o f reflex patterns in the East Slovak corpus 156 Sum m ary o f individual regional analyses 160

G eographical scope o f consistent interdialectal reflex patterns in the corpus 169 M utual support o f reflexes in the literary Cz norm and the Slk d ia le c ts 173 Table o f orthographic equivalences: vocalic 179

T able o f orthographic equivalences: consonantal 180

O verview o f corpus size by re g io n ... 183 M oravian Slovak c o rp u s 184

W est Slovak c o rp u s 187

Central Slovak corpus... ... ... 192 E ast Slovak corpus 197

(10)

Slovak dialect d iv isio n s...16• 17

The Slovak language territory and the m ajor Slovak dialect reg io n s...20

The Slovak language territory and the m ajor Slovak dialect reg io n s... 33

I) vocalization o f strong ъ and ъ... 50

2a) developm ent o f syllabic r (and related С г ъ С ) ... ...58

2b) developm ent o f syllabic / (and related С ІъС ) ...59

За) fronting and raising o f long à / C'__ C ’ , C'__ # ... 64

3b) fronting and raising o f short a i С__С , С__ft... 65

» 4 ) fronting o f long and short w , и / C' ...68

5a) diphthongization o f long 6... ...73

5b) diphthongization o f long 'i.... ... 74

6) diphthongization o f long û / C ' _ ...78

7) assibilation o f d / /... 8 1 8a) assibilation o f d ! . è , í . í , b , f (i.e.. all front v o w els)...85

8b) assibilation o f t /__è t i t e t b t ą (i.e., all front vow els)...86

9) palatalization o f r /__è. i, e . ь , ç 4 j (i,e., all front vow els and j )...89

G eographical distribution o f texts; Entire corpus...202-203 D istribution o f texts: 1530-1539... ... 204

D istribution o f texts: 1540-1549...205

D istribution o f texts: 1550-1559...206

D istribution o f texts: J 560-1569 ...207

Distribution o f texts: 1570-1579...208

D istribution o f texts; 1580-1589 (+ 1590)...209

Distribution o f texts: 1500s (uncertain d a te )... - ... 210

(11)

A B B R E V IA T IO N S

G ram m atical, geographical an d language ab b rev iatio n s 1^st = first person

2^nd = second person 3rd = third person A = accusative case adj. = adjective adv. s adverb anim. = animate

с = central (geographically) (distinguishable from c. = century by context o f discussion) c. s century (distinguishable from с » central by context o f discussion) C Slk = Central Slovak dialects

Cz = Czech literary language D = dative case

dim. = diminutive du. = dual e = eastern

ESlk s East Slovak dialects

f. = feminine

Fren = French fut. = future tense G = genitive case G e r ־ German

I « instrumental case imp. = imperative

inan. = inanimate inf. = infinitive

ipv. s imperfecti ve aspect L s locative case Lai s Latin

1-part. = I-participle

m. = masculine

M H G = M iddle H igh G ennan M SIk = M oravian Slovak dialects N = nominative case

n & northern (distinguishable from n. = neuter by context o f discussion) n. s neuter (distinguishable from n = northern by context o f discussion) n-p. 8 non-past tense

num . = cardinal numeral

О = old (as in OC1⁼O ld Czech) O H G = O ld High German

P A P s past active participle past = past tense

pi. = plural

Pol = Polish literary language p o ss. s possessive

(12)

P P P = past passive participle P rA P = present active participle prep. = preposition

pres. = present tense pron. = pronoun

pv. s perfective aspect refi. = reflexive

s = southern

Slav s Slavic

Slk = Slovak

sg. = singular

V s vocative case (distinguishable from V = vowel by context o f discussion) w = western

W Slav = W est Slavic

W Slk = W est Slovak dialects

(13)

P h o n o lo g ical sym bols

< = derives from

> = develops into

< - o r - > = yields (e.g.. in paradigm atic derivation o f forms:

*umeti (inf.) - > *umëm (1st sg. n-p.))

= alternates w ith

[ ] = phonetic transcription / / = phonem ic transcription

< > = actual grap he m ie shape (as recorded in text(s))

# = w ord boundary

* = historically reconstructed form

s hardness o f preceding consonant (see, how ever, ù below)

י = softness o f preceding consonant (including {״'' , / ’ - see C hapter Ш, note 3 for further explanation) s vowel length (see, how ever, č . i . £ , ļ below)

= syllabic i ty o f consonant (e.g.. f ) (see, how ever. > , \ below )

= sem ivowel portion o f a diphthong (e.g., [e ) (see, how ever, > , $ below )

= nasality o f vow el (e.g.. ę )

V * vowel (distinguishable from V * vocative by context o f discussion)

С = consonant

ъ = “back je r'״, short higher m id back vowel (< * u ) (also: “reduced vowel״*) ь = “front je r”, short higher m id front vowel (< * ï ) (also: “reduced vow el”)

> o r % = “strong jer” (developed qualitatively into various vocalic reflexes)

* o r ķ = “weak je r“ (generally produced a zero reflex, although retained in some environm ents) 0 = zero reflex o f weak jer

ä = short low front vowel (i.e., fronted ( a ] )

a = long low front vowel (i.e., fronted [ á J = long [ ä J )

Č = “jat ”, Proto-Slavic front vowel whose exact phonetic value is uncertain;

this sym bol indicates f e ] in contem porary C zech orthography

ú = long high back vowel in contem porary C zech orthography (i.e.. [ ú ] ) у = high central (unrounded) vowel in Proto-Slavic and m odem Polish;

this symbol indicates [ i ) in contem porary Slovak/Czech orthography с = voiceless dental affricate

č = voiceless alveopalatal affricate

ć = palatalized voiceless alveolar affricate j a “jot״’, voiced palatal semivowel

ł = voiced labiovelar sem ivowel (i.e., lw ) )

f = trilled voiced fricative (essentially trilled [ r ] and [ ž ] pronounced together) š = voiceless alveopalatal fricative

ś = palatalized voiceless alveolar fricative x = voiceless velar fricative

1 8s voiced alveopalatal fricative

ź = palatalized voiced alveolar fricative 3 = voiced dental affricate

3 = voiced alveopalatal affricate

% = palatalized voiced alveolar affricate

(14)

A b b re v ia tio n s f o r d ia le c t d iv isio n s cited in th is w o rk a n d c o rre sp o n d e n c e s betw een a b b re v ia tio n s a n d d ia le c t n am es/g eo g rap h ical re g io n s1

abbreviation dialect nam e/peopaphical region

M SIk s M o ra v ia n S lo v ak - (includes K eletsky dialect) sM SIk = southern M oravian Slovak - Podlużsky dialect

- southern tip o f MSIk - Dolskÿ dialect

- w esternm ost region o f MSIk - K opaničifsky dialect

- south o f the towns Uh. Ostroh, Uh. Brod

- Záhorsky dialect

- w esternm ost region o f sWSIk - Tm avskÿ dialect

- region around the town Tmava - Hlohovskÿ dialect

- region around the town Hlohovec - PieSt'ansky dialect

- region around the tow n PieStany

- Dolnotrenčiansky dialect

- region around the town Trenčin - H om otrenćiansky dialect

- region around the tow n Pov. Bystrica - O ravskÿ. Turćiansky. Liptovskÿ

H om onttriansky, T eko v sky, Zvolenskÿ dialects

- the regions o f the former political districts:

O rava, Turiec, Liptov, Nitra (northern area). Tekov, Zvolen

w M Slk = w estern M oravian Slovak seM Slk = southeastern M oravian Slovak

sW S Ik = s o u th e rn W est S lovak

w -sW SIk = w estern - southern W est Slovak с-sW SIk = central - southern W est Slovak e-sW Slk 8 eastern - southern W est Slovak ne-sW Slk = northeastern - southern W est Slovak

n W S lk = n o r th e r n W e st S lovak

s-nW Slk = southern - northern W est Slovak n-nW SIk * northern - n o n h em W est Slovak

n C S Ik = n o r th e r n C e n tr a l Slovak

1 T h e d i a l e a divisio n s and n am es em p lo y ed in ihis investigation (as outlined in (his list o f abbreviations and o n th e accom panying m ap) follow those m K rajčovič 1988. Any departures from K rajčovič 1988 are specifically o utlined in th e notes to th is list o f abbreviations. I have not distinguished w hat K ra jto v ii term s '*border areas** (pomedzrU areály), but rather have included each o f these sm aller areas in (he larger dialect regions on w h ich they directly border. T h is d o e s not affect the present study in any way since none o f th e texts investigated here lie in these border areas. T he geographical borders fo r the dialect divisions (except M SIk)

(15)

- Hontiansky, N ovohradsky dialects2 - the legions o f the form er political districts:

Hont, N ovohrad (except eastern area) - Ipeïskÿ, Západogem ersky dialects2 - eastern region o f the form er political

district: Novohrad (along the ІреГ river) and western region o f the form er political district: G em er

- Stredogem erskÿ, V ÿchodogem erskÿ dialects2

- central and eastern regions o f the form er political district: G em er

- (southern areas 0 0 S p iisk ÿ , Šari$sky dialects; and A b o v sk j dialect3

- southern regions o f the form er political districts: Spi$t ŠariS; the entire region of the former political district: Abov

- (n o n h em areas of) SpiSskÿ, SariSskÿ dialects3

- northern regions o f the form er political districts: Spiš, ŠariS

- Zemplínsky, Sotácky, U isk ÿ dialects - the regions o f the form er political districts:

Zemplin, Užhorod sC S lk = s o u th e rn C e n tr a l S lovak

w -sC Slk = western - southern C entral Slovak2

с-sCSlk = central - southern Central Slovak2

e-sCSIk ־ eastern - southern Central Slovak2

w E SIk = w e s te rn E a s t Slovak

s-w ESlk = southern - w estern East Slovak3

п-wESIk ־ northern - w estern East Slovak3

eE S Ik = e a s te rn E a st Slovak

2 A division o f th e sC Slk dialect area into w estern, central an d eastern regions is a sim plification o f a rather com plex d ia le d situation. H ow ever, according to K rajčovič *The isogloss boundary (o f the H ontiansky dialect area] with th e neighboring N ovohradskÿ d ialect area is not sh a rp " (1988. 261). T hus it is not entirely

unjustified to group these dialects together into one (w*sCSIk) region. T h e sam e can be m aintained fo r the coupling o f th e Ipelsky and Západogem ersky dialects into a с *sCSlk region, since again K raļč o v ii slates: ,*The isogloss boundary (of the Z ápadogem ersky dialect} w ith the ip elsk y dialect is n o t sharp, because several characteristic traits o f the Ipelsky dialect, especially in the south, penetrate to th e b anks o f (he R im ava river, indeed even beyond them " (1 9 8 8 .2 6 8 ). T h e grouping o f the Stredogem erskÿ an d V ÿchodogem erskÿ dialects into an e-sC Sl к region is m ore problem atic. It should be stressed h ere, therefore, that th e divisio n s - w -sC Slk.

с •sCSlk, с •sC Slk - cited in th is w ork w ere chosen on th e basis o f (he phonological traits investigated in this study (not o n th e basis o f th e entire sC Slk d ialect picture), an d at tim es they represent m ere geographical designations and not strict dialectal divisions.

1 A division o f (he w ESIk dialect a re a in to northern and so uthern regions is n o t generally valid in term s of the overall ESIk dialect picture. T h e abbreviations п-w ESIk an d s-w E Slk are used in th is study o n ly as geographical designations in (he discussion o f th e reflexes o f lo n g 6 an d long V .

(16)

Slovak dialect

*M S Ik

(17)

divisions

m tjo r d iik c t group * e.g.. M O R A V I A N S L O V A K

m ajor dialect division • e.g.. n o r t h e r n W E S T S L O V A K

נ

נ — - region•! d u lc e t division em ployed ія i t e preterit study - e.g.. C'sCS%

individual dialect - e.g..

/ / / / / / / area o f m sted and non*$1k dialects (wiihin the borders o f modern Slovakia)

(18)

J T *i

!.r *; •

<

■ ־

•

« •

4

■ ד י

»ф

; ״ נ

׳►־*״׳

v II

: - и

» к «

II

-,י.■ ־

il 1

_<

^{- Ѵ}

№

к?!

' ».

־: ^• •r « « I *

״ f

1:

< ל י II

A s

ß ן

- С י ־ ׳ .

t : ;■

I I

-* * ־:

J ļ ‘%

1#1 II

(19)

C H A P T E R I: IN T R O D U C T IO N

1( is generally accepted that the present-day Slovak literary language was codified in its basic form in the m id 19th century by the Slovak scholar L udovft Š n ir (1815-1856)'. It is also generally acknow ledged that prior to Stúr and his codification, a sim ilar, but unsuccessful, attempt to create a standard Slovak language w as m ade by Anton Bem olák (1762-1813) in the late 18th century2. There is not general agreement, however, on the degree o r type of

standardization, o r better, normalization, exhibited by Slovak texts before the codifying efforts o f B em olák, Stur and their followers. As m ight be expected, the disagreem ent on this issue is greater the earlier the tim e period under consideration. The present study focuses on the 16th century and the degree and type o f standardization/normalization exhibited in a corpus of adm inistrative-legal texts w ritten in the Slovak language territory during that period3.

Essentially tw o basic m odels have been proposed in various configurations by scholars investigating the situation in 16th century administrative-legal texts from the Slovak language territory. Som e scholars have claim ed that 16th century Slovak speakers continued the 14th-

15th century practice o f using closely related C zech as their m eans o f w rinen interdialectal com m unication. T hese scholars hold that during the 16th century the appearance o f Slovak features in such C zech texts is essentially random and unsystematic. O thers have asserted that the 16th century Slovaks w rote in a language displaying distinct interdialectal Slovak norms.

These scholars consider that, although this language was either based on or m odeled after the

י S tú r’s N a u ka reČI slovenske) (1846) represents (he initial description and codification o f w hat is today (he standard S lovak literary language. T his codification (som etim es referred to in S lovak as šturovčina) was based prim arily o n th e language o f (he educated class in the C entral Slovak dialec( region. L ess than enthusiastic reactions to S lu r's codification by some o f his peers resulted ш ал agreem ent in 1851 o n several changes (prim arily in orthography, phonology and m orphology) a s proposed by Micha] M iloslav H o d ia ( I S 1 1 *1870) and codified by M artin K attala ( 1821 •1903) in his G ram m atica linguae sloventcae co lla to r cum proxim a cognata bohem ica (1850) and K rótka mluvnica slovenská (1852). T his com prom ise-codification closely resem bles m odem literary S lovak in orthography, phonology and m orphology an d underw ent only relatively m inor changes in its further developm ent toward the standard language in use today. (See Õ u ro v it 1980;

Pauliny 1983, 1 7 5 0 9 9 ; Stankiew icz 1984,25-32.)

7 B e m o lá k ’s codification (som etim es referred to in S lovak as b e m o lá ko v fin a o r bernalóćtina) is considered to be based on (he language (especially spoken usage) o f th e educated class in and around T m av a (лог th e local W est S lovak T m a v a d ialect, see especially Pauliny 1 9 8 3 ,1 6 3 • 169). H is w ork w as published in several volum es. D issertatio philologico-crinca de U tens slavorum . d e divisio n e illarum , n ec n o n accentibus (1787):

Linguae slavonicae p e r regnum h u n g û h a e usitatae com pendiosa sim u l, e t fa c ili orthographia (1787);

G ram m atica slavica (1790); E tym ologia vocum stavicarum sistens m odum m ultiplicandi vocabula p er derivationem e t com positionem (1791); Slavicae nom enclaturae diversarum rerum fatine, kun g a rice. et

germ anice redditae ( 1791); a n d Slow ár Słow eński. C e s к о • L a hnsko'flem ecko • Uh er s k i (published a fte r his death, 1825• 1827). B ernolákovtina w as the chosen language o f com position o f th e w riter Ju r F in d li (Jura] Fándly)

<1754-1811) and th e poet Ján H ollÿ (1785-1849). H ow ever, due (0 both socio-historical and linguistic

circum stances it failed to gain universal acceptance as th e Slovak literary language. (See C>urovi£ 1980; Pauliny 1983,160-174; Stankiew icz 1984, 25*32.)

1 A full description o f (he textual corpus for th is investigation, including th e reasons behind th e choice o f period ( 16th century) and tex t ty p e (adm inistralive-legal texts), is presented in detail in C h a p ter U o f th is study.

(20)

C zech literary language (alongside Polish in the east), it exhibited consistent иs e o f distinctly Slovak features under the influence o f regional Slovak dialect system s.

T h e m a jo r Slovak dialect regions

T h e S lo v ak la n g u a g e te r r ito r y a n d th e m a jo r S lo v a k d ia le c t reg io n s

T he Slovak language territory is traditionally divided into four m ajor dialect regions:

M oravian Slovak (M SIk). W est Slovak (W Slk), Central Slovak (CSlk). East Slovak (ESlk).

(See, for exam ple, Cun'n, et al. 1977; Havránek 1934; K rajčovič 1988; Lehr-Splaw iński and Stieber 1957; Stanislav. 1967a; V à in ÿ 1934.) T here are several points, concerning the relationship o f these Slovak dialect regions to the neighboring Slavic languages and to one another, that m ust be mentioned here as background inform ation for this investigation.

The MSIk dialects form a transition zone between the C2ech language territory to the west and the rest o f the Slovak language territory to the east. A s such, they share phonological traits both w ith the C zech dialects on their western border, as well as w ith the Slovak dialects o n their eastern border.

A s m ight be expected, the W Slk dialects (particularly the w esternm ost Záhorsky dialect) share several phonological traits w ith C zech and MSIk to the west. Som ewhat unexpectedly how ever, the W Slk dialects are, in their basic phonological structure, closer to the

geographically more distant ESlk dialects than to the im m ediately neighboring CSlk dialects to the east.

T he CSlk dialects have many phonological traits in com m on w ith W Slk and ESlk.

H ow ever, there are a num ber o f phonological traits that clearly distinguish the CSlk dialects

(21)

resem ble traits o f the South Slavic language group.

A s m entioned above, the ESk dialects stand phonologically closer to W Slk than to CSlk.

However, at the same time it is important to note that the ESlk dialects display a num ber o f phonological traits in com m on w ith P o l which directly borders on the ESlk region in the north4.

T his four• region dialectal arrangem ent o f the Slovak language territory provides the general fram ework w ithin which the differentiation o f the individual Slovak dialects, as well as the developm ent a 16th century standardized/normalized Slovak language form, must be considered.

T h e soci 01 in g u is tic situ a tio n in th e Slovak lan d s b efo re 1500

It is often the case that dialect divisions within a language arise along natural geographical boundaries in the territory w here the language is spoken. It is also common for artificial political/administrative boundaries to play a role in dialect development. Both types o f

4 T h e dialect divisions and relationships outlined here have been explained as th e result o f the early linguistic contacts and early patterns o f m igration o f th e Slavic peoples w ho settled the regions in question.

R egarding th e relationship W S lk -E S lk vs. CSlk:

,*The East S lovaks are a p a n o f that C zechoslovak (linguistic] group from which the W est Slovak and M oravian Slovak dialects were also form ed. They arrived in their present-day a rta s o f sen lem ent approxim ately at th e sam e tim e as the W est Slovaks, only they crossed th e C arpathian M ountains by w ay o f the East

Slovakian passes and the W est Slovaks, along with th e M oravians, w ent by way o f the M oravian gale. . . . T h e ancestors o f the C entral Slovaks probably penetrated from the south [where they had first settled (see P auliny 1963, 1 7 -1 9 » up to O rava. T uriec an d Liptov and divided the E ast Slovaks from th e W est Slovaks. It is difficult to determ ine if this happened soon after arrival in th e present-day areas o f settlem ent o r first after retreat from th e M agyar advance in the IOth century. H ow ever, it is certain that it w as earlier than th e 13th century. T hus th e E ast Slovak dialect w as divided from its clo ser W est Slovak counterpart and becam e th e neig h b o r o f th e less close Central Slovak dialect” (Pauliny 1 9 6 3 ,5 0 -5 1).

R egarding th e divergent features in C Slk and the relationship C S Ik-S outh Slavic:

"(T ļh ese features (resem bling South Slavic] arose in Slovak as a result o f South Slavic־S10vak contiguity.

. . . som e o f th e so-called South Slavism s in C entral Slovak, o r a t least the basis for them , arose alread y in the S lav ic proto-hom e land" (Pauliny 1 9 6 3 ,3 8 ). “ (I)t is necessary to assum e that the ancestors o f th e C entral S lovaks w ere settled contiguous to th e ancestors o f the South Slavs already in the proto •hom eland an d took so m e linguistic tra its from them already there. As regards the positioning o f the C entral Slovak dialects among th e S lovak d ialects it is necessary again to assum e . . . thai the Proto Central Slovaks m oved from th e proto•

hom eland first o u t o f all the Slovaks. T hey probably follow ed th e South Slavs, w ith w hom they w ere probably neighbors in th e proto-hom eland, an d settled probably betw een th e T isza and the Danube, south o f th e present- d ay Slovak territory and in present-day south Central Slovakia on the low er course o f the !pel‘ and H ron rivera.

F rom there th ey probably then m oved to th e north into the present-day region o f Central S lovakia" (Pauliny 1963. 18).

Regarding th e relationship E S lk-P ol:

"T hanks to its m arginal geographical position. East Slovak underw ent separate developm ent in m any f e a tu re s .. . . T h e contiguity o f Polish and U krainian (with ESlk] w as not w ithout significance fo r this developm ent, b u t to speak o f Polish influence in the sense o f som e so n o f non-organic interference in connection w ith som e parallel Polish •East Slovak features w ould not be correct. F o r exam ple, the loss o f quantity, stress on the penultim ate, softness o f consonants, th e change / ' , d > ( y ,fa n d som e other features developed o rganically in East Slovak, parallel to Polish, but not under Polish influence. O f co urse, the

co n tig u ity o f P o lish was not w ithout m eaning here. For som e other features for which th e necessary conditions also exhisted in E ast Slovak. Polish served as a m odel for concrete resolution" (Pauliny )963, 51). See also K otu Иг 1963 regarding the issues o f th e relationship E Slk-Pol.

(22)

boundaries were relevant in the early formation o f the Slovak language and its dialect divisions, but the political/adm inistrative boundaries are more im portant for the discussion here. W ith the rise o f the H ungarian kingdom in the 10th century, a political border arose betw een the MSIk dialect region, w hich cam e under the control of the Czech kingdom (Bohemia• M oravia within the Holy Rom an Em pire), and the remaining three Slovak dialect regions, w hich fell u nder the rule o f the Hungarian kingdom. This political border, separating out the MSIk dialect region w hile bringing together the rest o f the Slovak language territory, caused th a tиConditions were also created for convergent linguistic development o f all the Slovak linguistic regions [within the Hungarian kingdom , i.e. not MSIk] despite dialectal disunity, thus* for exam ple, the W est Slovak dialects from that tim e onward had closer [ties] to the Central Slovak dialects than to the M oravian Slovak dialects, although before the I Oth century it was the opposite״* (Pauliny 1950, 42).

The role o f political/administrative boundaries in Slovak dialect form ation was even more significant as regards the differentiation o f individual dialects w ithin the W est, Central and East Slovak regions. M any o f the Slovak dialect divisions within the W est, Central and East Slovak regions follow the natural geographical divisions in those parts o f the Slovak language territory.

However, these sam e geographical divisions mark the boundaries o f many o f the internal political districts established for the governing o f the Slovak lands within the Hungarian state5.

In those areas w here there are no natural geographical boundaries, but there were internal political/adm inistrative boundaries, the borders o f the individual Slovak dialects run roughly along the political borders o f those former Hungarian adm inistrative districts. Pauliny states that the political boundaries ,,left deep traces in the dialectal division o f the Slovak region**

(1950,41 ). Krajčovič in discussing 13th-15h century phonological developm ents, remarks that

‘4T he isoglosses o f older traits in many places follow the old political district borders” (1 9 7 1, 97). H abovitiak (1972) m akes the claim (primarily on the basis o f lexica) data) that even in instances w here geographical boundaries coincided with political boundaries, the Slovak dialect divisions were influenced to a greater degree by the political boundaries*.

The division o f the Slovak lands into smaller adm inistrative districts within the Hungarian

5 O pinions vary on tbc actual origin o f (he political divisions o f S lovakia w ithin th e H ungarian stale, how ever, it 1$ generally ag reed that they dale from the beginnings o f H ungarian rule and th ai they lasted until th e period follow ing W o rld W ar I. For a synopsis o f view s o n th e issue an d further references see H abovJtiak

1972, e sp . 120.

* “ N o t o n ly the borders o f th e individual adm inistrative districts ran along th e region o f these m ountains and m ountain ranges, but also isogloss bundles arose in these sam e places. In such cases it is difficult to say w ith certainty which factors w ere decisive in the em ergence o f dialectal d ivisions, i.e., w hether th e geographical factor w as prim ary, o r w hether the socio-tconom icaJ factor is to be given priority. T he geographical factor had,

(23)

0 0 0 6 1 9 2 2

state w as the political status quo for several centuries leading up to the tim e period in question.

According to Pauliny, “O ne can then say that before the Tartar invasion (1 2 4 Ы 2 4 2 ) the entire present day Slovak territory (within the defense lines and outside the defense lines) w as already integrated into the Hungarian state adm inistration” (1983,50). Only for a b rief period at the beginning o f the 14th century was there a different arrangement o f political adm inistration when the Slovak areas o f the Hungarian kingdom cam e under the rule o f regional oligarchs, the m ost pow erful o f w hich were M átyás Csák, w ho held m ost o f W est and Central Slovakia, and the O m ódé family w hich ruled m uch o f East Slovakia. Because each o f the Hungarian

adm inistrative districts developed into a politically and economically more o r less independent unit, the individual dialects that arose within each o f these districts remained som ew hat isolated w ith respect to one another. M ore importantly, because o f this relative independence o f the districts there was little opportunity for any one city or region within the Slovak lands to develop into an interregional economic, political, o r cultural center whose dialect could quickly rise to the level o f a prestige dialect and serve as the basis for the formation o f a broader interregional, interdialectal norm (as happened, for example, with the Central C zech dialect around Prague). Thus, as stated by Pauliny, “T his (relative independence o f districts] brought about the result that the Slovak language, developing within the framework o f these districts, for a long tim e did not display any distinct convergent features, or convergent features in developm ent were for a long tim e offset by divergences in development. T his affected the dialects and the form o f the language for the entire society. It is thus possible to explain the slow and uneven formation o f the Slovak nationality and people and the late em ergence o f a literary language form for the entire society” (1983,48).

D uring the 15th century, the growing im portance o f the cities and their wealthy classes and the increasing contact on many levels am ong the members o f the upper classes in the respective adm inistrative districts brought about a greater need for a means o f interdialectal written

com m unication that would be m ore widely accessible than Latin (which was at that tim e the official language o f legal and adm inistrative affairs in the Hungarian kingdom). Because no prestige dialect or other indigenous interdialectal formation that m ight have served as a nascent Slovak literary language prevailed, the way w as left d e a r for the implementation o f the closely related and already highly standardized C zech literary language as a m eans o f written

com m unication among the Slovak upper classes7.

י F o r a detailed presentation o f th e socio-histoncaJ a s w ell as linguistic variables (hat played a role in the introduction o f C zech a s the vehicle o f w ritten com m unication in (he Slovak language territory in th e 14th* 15th centuries « e am ong others: D écsy 1955; K irály 1958; Pauliny 1956a, 1966,1972, 1983 (esp. 76-78); V a n ik 1956c. 11-69.

(24)

C zech in Slovakia

The early standardization o f Czech and its influence at that tim e beyond the borders o f the C zech lands is w ell-docum ented. Extant exam ples o f 14th century Czech religious and secular prose and poetry, as well as late 14th century adm inistrative and legal records in C zech, show that the language w as in u se in most areas o f written production in the C zech lands by the start o f the ] 5th century. The period o f the Hussite m ovem ent, which arose at the beginning o f the

15th century around the religious reform er and scholar Jan H us (1 3 7 Ы 4 1 5 ), was m arked by the increased use o f C zech in both religious and secular affairs in the C zech lands. According to A uty, “By the tim e the Hussite wars ended in the 1430*s the C zech language w as in use in m ost spheres o f national life— W hen we consider that the relative uniformity o f the

phonological and m orphological structure o f the language remained unimpaired, and that its orthography w as in the process o f consolidation, w e can establish the m id-fifteenth century as the period o f origin o f the Czech literary language as a normalized, polyvalent, nationally recognized idiom " ( 1980, 169-70)*

The influence o f this 14th- 15th century C zech literary language beyond its b o rd e n is clearly evident in early Polish religious manuscripts. Polish scribes often used C zech m odels as

reference sources for their work. To cite only one exam ple, the translators o f the earliest com plete Polish Bible, the *,Queen Zofia Bible1* com pleted in 1455, made use of a Czech translation in their work from a Latin original (see W ydra and R2epka 1984,60). T he early influence o f literary C zech on the developm ent o f Polish is also seen in the Polish lexicon, w here a substantial num ber o f lexical items, particularly specialized terminology from various cultural spheres, w as borrow ed from Czech9.

1 In the history o f m any E uropean languages, th e translation o f th e Bible played a m ajor role in th e early developm ent o f th e literary language. T h e sam e is true for the developm ent o f literary C zech in th e 14th and

15th century C zech lands. T he first com plete C zech translation o f th e Bible i» dated 10 th e 1380s. an d a num ber o f C zech B ible m anuscripts were produced during the period around the H ussite m ovem ent (see A uty 1980• 166-7; M erell 1956. 7-29). It is interesting to note that w hat m ight be considered th e f i n t translation of th e B ible into S lovak is not accom plished until th e m id 18th century w hen th e C am aldolite m o nks, in their efforts to standardize th e language used b y th e Slovak C atholics, produced th e Sw a té B ib lia S lo w én ské aneb P jsm a SwQiého âásika / .. //. T h e earliest ex tan t copy o f th is translation dates from the years 1756-59 <see Pauliny 1983, 146).

’ K lem ensiew icz concludes that “ It is an indisputable fact, w hich m ust be kept in m ind in th e history o f th e developm ent o f th e P o lish lexicon, that (he P o lish M iddle A ges w ere subject to the very strong appeal o f o f C zech culture, literature, an d also indeed la n g u a g e .. . . O u r w orkers in th e field o f th e w rin en w ord had (0 look to th e C zech m o d els, o u r translators w anted and had to take advantage o f already finished C zech translations" (1985a, 134).

H avránek states th at ,,If we take a look at th e Bohem ism s that already at th at tim e m ake up th e perm anem assets o f literary P olish, w e see (hat Polish borrow ed from C zech above all specialized term s o f cultural and civilized life th at w ere necessary for the task s o f a literary language. T hese are religious an d theological as well a s o th e r specialized term s (from education, m edicine, botany, e t c . ) ____M any legal and adm inistrative term s

(25)

Czech also exerted strong linguistic influence in the Slovak language territory at an early stage. W hereas in Poland literary C zech served as a model and supplemental source o f lexical material for the nascent Polish literary language, in the Slovak lands the C zech literary language itself served for a tim e as a m eans o f w ritten expression. Early C zech m anuscripts, especially religious w ritings, w ere being used and reproduced on a lim ited basis in the Slovak lands already in the 14th century1 °. By the 15th century C zech began to be used on a broader scale for the production o f written docum ents o f m any different types, first in W est Slovakia and later throughout the Slovak language territory. *4C zech began to take root and be used systematically in letters and docum ents am ong the landed gentry, the city gentry, the military com m anders, the sovereigns and also in the contact o f the royal chancellery with addressees in Slovakia” (Pauliny 1983,77). Administrative and legal records also began to be w ritten in Czech during this time*

A s stated initially, there are som e scholars w ho consider that this situation persisted into the next century. They assert that C zech w as used in a relatively unadulterated forni for the writing o f docum ents and correspondence o f an adm inistrative and legal nature in the Slovak lands in the 16th century as well. L udovít Novák considers that the language o f 15th-16th century texts from the Slovak lands reflected the contem porary Czech norm w ith greater o r lesser num bers o f

10 A ccording 10 Pauliny. “ It can be concluded that a ' least in th e W est S lovak c ap itu lar schools C zech was already in use at th e en d o f th e 14th century. C zech w as cultivated there in connection w ith th e education o f the next generation o f p riests, precisely so th at the priests could use it in their pastoral practice** (1983. 72). He goes on to say that " in the 14th century C zech w as only used in m onum ents o f a literary nature in Slovakia: its u se w as thus lim ited rather one-sidedly. T h is lim ited use o f C zech in Slovakia in th e 14th century show s thal it is not possible to co nsider C zech a s a literary language in Slovakia before the 15th century. A s o u r currently v ery incom plete know ledge concerning th is issue inform s us, th e fruits o f O ld C zech literature arrived in Slovakia, th ey w ere copied there, that is th ey w ere copied by C zechs b o m in th e С гесh lands and in M oravia (it is possible th at there w ere also S lovaks am ong them ) w ho w ere living in Slovakia, an d w h o thus acquired certain S lovak traits in their language. B ut e v id e rc e . a s it seem s, show s that in th e 14th century C zech d id not yet have an y m ore prom inent social binding force in Slovakia. It was used w ithin the circles o f C zech clergy w orking in S lovakia, th at is those clerg y used it w ithin their surroundings, it is also possible that S lovak clergy in W est S lovakia used it in their w riting, b u t it w as n o t ye( a literary language o f th e general public**

(1983. 72).

11 T he best exam ple o f th e 15th century use o f C zech in adm inistrative and legal record keeping in Slovakia is the Ż iiin a T ow n B ook (ZUinská m estská *п/Ла). T h is tow n book contains a G erm an ed itio n o f the

M agdeburg law code from 1378 and en tries starting in th e late 14th century in G erm an an d Latin. T h e first entry recorded in C zech appears in 1451, an d after 1462 the entries are recorded ex clusively in C zech. In 1473 a C zech translation o f th e )aw code is added to th e book, and by 1561. the d ate o f th e last entry in th e book, the total num ber o f C zech entries is 72. (See C haloupeckÿ 1934.) T h e fact that C zech beg an to be u se d in tow n adm inistration and record keeping in th e 15th century is usually attributed to the increasing percentage o f S lovak inhabitants in the tow ns, and thus th e increasing presence o f S lovaks in to w n governance, d u rin g the

15th century (see D o n ila 1984, V arsik 1935a, 1935b. 1956c).

(26)

Slo vak i sm s12. N. A. Kondrašov holds essentially the same opinion stating that “up until the 18th century the m ajority o f the Slovak m onum ents maintain a Czech character” ( I 9 6 0 ,8 )1 *.

В ranista v V a n ik states that his research showed no evidence o f conscious “Slovakization” of the literary Czech norm except in the use o f specific legal and administrative term inology14.

M ore recently Robert Auty expresses the view that the language o f texts written in Slovakia before about the 17th century must be considered a form o f Czech - that it w ould be

“exaggerated” to consider the language o f such texts as Slovak15.

C u ltu ra l Slovak

Such a view concerning the use o f literary C zech in 16th century Slovakia is disputed by the m ajority o f those w ho have worked on the question o f the linguistic nature o f 16th century Slovak administrative-legal texts. The general assertion o f this majority is that already in the

16th century the language attested in m any Slovak admmistradve-JegaJ texts exhibits a relatively stable, linguistically m ixed form incorporating the consistent use o f Slovak linguistic features alongside features o f literary Czech. This linguistically m ixed language is considered to have

12 “ W hen we com pare w ith th e analyzed m aterial from the 15th century for exam ple o n ly th e Slovakism s from the linguistically analyzed m onum ents from th e second h alf o f th e 16th century, tow n records an d upper c la ss docum ents and letters from Central and E ast Slovakia, we ascertain an incontestable grow th in th e num ber and variety o f Slovakism s. B ecause the know ledge o f C zech was actively spread in Slovakia d u rin g th is period by m ean s o f indigenous schools, th is increase in the num ber and variety o f Slovaki sm s can be ex p lain ed first of all through th e greater areal broadening and deeper social penetration o f literary C zech into public and private life in S lovakia" (N ovák 1938, 219).

13 In discussing 16th and 17th century w ritings from th e Slovak lands he stales: “ In (he w orks o f m any authors, an d even in private an d official docum ents, there appear S lovak peculiarities explainable as involuntary m istakes o f Slovaks using C zech for writing purposes. T h ese local S lovak phonetic and m orphological peculiarities, which penetrated for various reasons into the C zech literary norm on S lovak soil, are called Slovaki sm s. . . . T h u s, in O ld S lovak m anuscripts, an d less often in printed m onum ents, we fin d a greater or lesser num ber o f Slovakism s. . . . H ow ever, up until the 18th cem ury th e m ajority o f th e S lo v ak m onum ents m aintain a C zech character" (Kondrašov I 9 6 0 ,7-8).

14 “ In th e 15th century there w ere still relatively few people w ho knew how to w rite, an d the docum ents that have been preserved from those tim es were w ritten for the m ost part only by highly edu cated people, especially scribes, an d for that reason are stylistically and linguistically relatively w ell-w ritten an d contain relatively fewer dialectal traits. But in the 16th century, in the period o f th e R eform ation, the num ber o f those w h o knew how to read an d w rite greatly increased, and there are m any extant docum ents from the 16th century w n tten in Czech w hich w ere already w ritten not o n ly by scribes b u t also by sim ple city gentry an d landed g entry, indeed such docum ents even a n se in th e village*. For thai reason it is only obvious that the further (rem oved), th e more dialectal traits penetrate into su ch docum ents. . . . H ow ever, it is necessary t o state that 1 have not found anyw here a conscious e ffo n to disturb the literary norm and thus to Slovakize th e literary language used in S lovakia in th e 15th and 16th centuries. C onscious use w as m ade o n ly o f several special term s fo r offices and o fficials an d sim ilar item s w hich had other, different nam es in Slovakia . . . ” (V arsik 1956c. 85).

15 4’C zech texts w ritten in the Slovak dialect-area are found from th e fourteenth century, and in the fifteenth century the use o f C zech fo r adm inistrative purposes w as fairly w idespread in th e tow ns, especially in western Slovakia. In the course o f tim e m any Slovak features found th eir w a y into th e language o f th e texts. T hese

(27)

exhibited interdialectal tendencies in its use o f specific linguistic features16. The term

com m only used by scholars for this relatively stable Slovak *Czech interdialectal linguistic form is 44C ultural Slovak" (kultúrna sloveniina)*7. There is not com plete agreem ent cm w hether 16th century Cultural Slovak is the result o f Slovak adaptation and reworking (“Slovakizing”) o f a C zech literary language base o r whether it is based on Slovak spoken interdialectaJ tendencies w orked out in w rinen form merely on the model o f literary Czech. Indeed, som e scholars consider that both processes contributed to the array o f Cultural Slovak form ations that are extant in the texts1 *. The first view involves the rew orking o f the literary Czech norm through the relatively consistent penetration o f Slovak linguistic features (“Slovakism s‘*) into that norm.

It is som etim es claim ed that these consistent Slovakism s were consciously introduced into the texts by their authors, but this is by no m eans a universally held view. W hatever the motivation behind the introduction o f Slovak features into the Czech norm, it is held that the presence o f these consistent Slovak traits represents a systematic restructuring o f the C zech norm,

producing a m ore o r less stable “Slovakized Czech** interdialectal norm. The second view is based on the existence o f spoken interdialectal fom is o f Slovak that were the vehicles o f oral com m unication am ong the Slovak intellectuals o f the time. It is held that these spoken interdialectal form s o f Slovak form ed the linguistic base o f written Cultural Slovak, w ith the syntax and style m odeled on the w ritten style o f literary Czech. Again, the end result o f this process is considered to be a relatively stable, linguistically m ixed, Slovak •Czech interdialectal norm.

י* S ee L ehm ann 1982 and 1988 for theoretical view s on language contact and interaction in the form ation o f interdialectal language form s during the periods before th e developm ent o f a standard literary language, an d the role o f these interdialectal language form s in th e developm ent o f standard literary languages, especially in the Slavic world.

17 A ccording to KondraŠov (1 9 6 9 .3 7 an d )9 7 4 ,2 4 ), th e term **cultural language" w as first used by th e 19th•

20th century Polish linguist A leksander B n lck n er to designate the ,'transitional form b etw een the P o lish dialects an d literary P olish", and then becam e consistently em ployed by anoiher Polish linguist, K azim ierz N itsch, and his students. I have been unable to locate the reported orig in o f th e term w ith B rückner. H ow ever, its greater acceptance in Polish linguistic circles seem s to have arisen from N itsc h 's form ulation o f th e term an d concept in his 1913 article on the origin and developm ent o f literary Polish: "O w zajem nym stosunku gw ar ludow ych i jeży k a literackiego” (־ N itsch 1954) (cf. A uty 1 964,155; K ondraiov 1 9 6 7 .2 1 5 & 2 2 6 note 2; K otulič 1969.

352 note 25). K arel H o rile k is credited with introducing th e term into C zech and S lo v ak linguistic circles (in H orálek 1954). w here th e S lovak linguist E ugen Pauliny is chiefly responsible fo r b ringing il im o com m on use in th e study o f S lovak (cf. K otulič 1969, 352).

T h e term w as o rig in ally applied essentially o n ly to spoken language form s but gradually cam e to be applied to w ritten linguistic m anifestations as w ell, especially through th e use o f th e term by S lovak linguists to refer to the language o f early S lovak docum ents.

B ecause o f the large num ber o f scholars holding to th e existence o f 16th century C ultural S lovak and because o f the quite extensive literature by these scholars o n th e issue, th e specific theories o f individual scholars w ill n o t be dealt w ith separately here, but will rather be sum m an zed into several m ain points. T he m ost prom inent am ong those w ho hold to th e existence o f various form s o f a relatively stable, lingusiticalty m ixed, interdialectal language in 16th c en tu ry texts are: Ján D o n ila. K atarina HabovStiaková. Izid o r K otu lit.

R u d o lf K n j i o v i t . E ugen Pauliny. M ost o f th e m ajor w ritings from these scholars o n th e issue o f Cultural S lovak are listed in th e bibliography o f th is study.

(28)

M any o f the scholars w ho posit a w ntten 16th century Cultura] Slovak also state that administrati ve •legal texts from Slovakia displaying essentially “pure" C zech as well as such texts show ing essentially **pure” Slovak occur throughout the 16th century alongside texts exhibiting Cultural Slovak19. Instances o f 16th century *'pure" C zech administrative-legal texts are said to occur especially in the regions o f Bratislava and T m ava, w here socio-econom ic ties w ith the C zech lands w ere the strongest (see Pauliny 1983, 118). The “pure** Slovak texts are said to occur m ost often w here spoken use was recorded in a m anner true to the usage o f its speaker (e.g.. recorded testim ony o f witnesses - see D orula 1967a, 25). The argum ent is m ade, how ever, that such texts exhibiting “pure” language usage are in the m inority (cf. note

19), an d that even the “pure‘* Czech texts often display certain Slovakism s (see Krajčovič 1962, 71-74 and 1978, 185). w hile the “pure1‘ Slovak texts also frequently show a certain num ber o f B ohem ism s (see D o n ila 1967a, 25).

A s previously stated, the Cultural Slovak manifested in 16th century administrative-legal texts is considered to show relative stability in form and fairly high consistency in use of

specific features. Scholars investigating these texts draw attention to the frequent occurrence o f individual linguistic features in the specific texts w ith which they are w orking and cite these features as typical for Cultural Slovak. Som e have even draw n up lists o f the features that they consider characteristic o f Cultural Slovak generally and/or in its specific regional variants (see, for exam ple. D o n ila 1967a, 30; Pauliny 1983, 123). However, as cautioned by D orula, “T hese features do not alw ays occur altogether in one text, but together they are characteristic for [the]

C zech (used) in Slovakia in administrative-legal documents, giving it an individual character”

(1967a, 25-6). Hence, although Cultural Slovak is considered to be m arked by a certain relatively stable norm, this norm may not always be present to the same degree in every text in w hich Cultural Slovak is said to be attested0״.

Cultural Slovak is considered to have existed in regional variants incorporating specific dialectal features o f each region in which it was used. Hence, the narrow er term s Cultural W est

19 A ccording 10 K otulič, “ It is true that som e preserved texts show that the indigenous cultural language (i.e., an indigenous, interdialectal, p u rely Slovak linguistic forni) as well a s borrow ed C zech in m any instances m aintain tb eir o w n linguistic character, alm ost com pletely unm arked o r only little m arked by the influence o f (he o th er cultural language. T h a t is th e exception rather than th e rule, but it is necessary to assum e thal alongside that new h y b rid and significantly com plex linguistic form ation, w hich we luiow from num erous attested texts and w h ich is th e result o f the interference o f th e indigenous cultural language and C zech, both the indigenous cultural language as well a s borrow ed Czech m aintain their independence an d continuity for the w hole p erio d o f th eir existence and u se as cultural linguistic form ations o f the Slovak nationality*’ (1968, 144-

145). In th is reg ard see also KrajČovtČ 1962 where he illustrates, w ith specific exam ples o f texts, th e concurrent use o f these different w n tten language form s during the 16th century.

20 H abovSúaková states: '*The linguistic character o f the w ritings in Slovakia oscillates betw een tw o poles:

betw een C zech in alm o st its purest form and m anifestations w ritten in Slovak (w ith a tone very close to the