 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(January 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Slavic microlanguages are literarylinguistic varieties that exist alongside the better-knownSlavic languages of historically prominent nations. The term "literary microlanguages" wascoined byAleksandr Dulichenko in the late 1970s; it subsequently became a standard term inSlavistics.[citation needed]
Slavic microlanguages exist both as geographically and socially peripheraldialects of more well-established Slavic languages and as completely isolatedethnolects. They often enjoy a written form, a certain degree ofstandardisation and are used in a variety of circumstances typical of codified idioms—albeit in a limited fashion and always alongside a nationalstandard language.[1][2]
In terms ofclassification, each Slavic 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.
Pannonian (Yugoslav) Rusyn — spoken byRusyns ofVojvodina and Croatia; genetically, Pannonian Rusyn is related to theSlovak language, however, it has experienced strongsubstrate andadstrate 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 onBunjevac dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken inVojvodina, introduced at the turn of the 20th century.Bunjevci activists have established National Council of the Bunjevac Ethnic Minority (Nacionalni savet bunjevačke nacionalne manjine) andBunjevačka matica;Bunjevci themselves are hypothesised to be CatholicSerbs[citation needed] who had once migrated to Vojvodina fromDalmatia and see themselves either as a distinctethnic group or a subgroup of theCroatian ethnic group.Bunjevačke novine ("Bunjevac Journal") publishes articles in the Bunjevac language, and a number of primary schools have introduced Bunjevac language classes in areas populated by Bunjevci.[4]Silesian and Goral (standard based on thePodhale 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 ownwriting,orthography andgrammar variants. Nonetheless, efforts are made to create literary works in these languages, particularly, theGospel has been translated into Goral.[5][6]
Native speakers of contemporary Slavic microlanguages either live among unrelated linguistic communities, thereby constituting an ethnic "island", or live on the geographicalperiphery of their historicalethnic groups. Correspondingly, these microlanguages can be divided into insular and peripheral categories (the latter of which can also be calledregional languages). The prominent insular standards are:Rusyn,Burgenland Croatian,Molise Croatian, theResian dialect (which may also be characterised as "peninsular") andBanat Bulgarian. The peripheral group includesPrekmurje Slovene,Literary Eastern Slovak [ru],Lachian [ru],Carpathian Rusyn [ru],West Polesian and others.
The precisehierarchical relationship between national standard languages and microlanguages can be ascertained by examining internal attributes, such as the disparity between strictly enforcedstandardisation 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 divergentdialects). Likewise, the difference can be seen in external attributes such as extensivefunctionality and explored genres in the case of national languages, compared to the narrowness ofgenres and limited functional role of microlanguages.
As literary microlanguages are, in terms of functionality, more expansive than their correspondingdialects, they display a tendency toward standardised norms, which entails a significant enlargement of thelexicon and a more systematised, codifiedgrammar, often by way of foreign borrowings, and recourse to a previous literary andlinguistic tradition alien tovernacular 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 predominantlySlavic 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.
The majority of Slavic microlanguages are not represented bynations, 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 areChakavians,Kajkavians in Croatia.
Insular ethno-linguistic groups — represented by the "islands" ofnational minorities — correspond with the insular literary microlanguages — such are theBurgenland 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 theBulgarian ethnic group, the Chakavians and the Kajkavians, as well as the Burgenland Croats and the Molise Croats — as part theCroat ethnic group. Pannonian Rusyn can be considered an independent Slavic language instead of a literary microlanguage, since it is used by anethnic 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.
Conditions necessary for the emergence of literary microlanguages include: compactly populated area of speakers and the resulting isolation from the maindialect 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 beenProtestantism (in the 16th century), the Slavicnational 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.
Theory of “Slavic microlinguistics” is critically assessed by the Russian Slavic scholarSergey Skorvid [ru], who believes that due to the vague and ambiguous definition of the term “Slavic microlanguages”, a number of researchers, including Aleksandr Dulichenko himself, have assigned different meanings to the concept of Slavic microlanguages. The use of this term, according to Skorvid, is inappropriate, since it can refer to completely dissimilar language varieties. All Slavic idioms of limited use can be more clearly defined by other terms. For instance, theSorbian languages (Upper andLower Sorbian) in Germany, Pannonian Rusyn in Serbia and Croatia, Carpathian Rusyn in Slovakia,Lemko [ru] in Poland and some other idioms should rather be classified as minority languages. Kashubian in Poland, Carpathian Rusyn in Ukraine, Kajkavian and Chakavian in Croatia, as well as other similar idioms, whose speakers have a distinct regional ethno-linguistic identity, should rather be considered regional languages. Written languages such as Podlachian, used byJan Maksymiuk [pl],Masurian inPoland or the already defunctLachian [ru], used byCzech poetÓndra Łysohorsky, and West Polesian promoted byNikolai Shelyagovich inBelarus, can be classified as "literaryidiolects" and "literary dialects".[7]
Czech researcherVladislav 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 asBiblical Czech,Bernolákova Slovak [ru],Trnava Slovak,Camaldolese Slovak andTransylvanian 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]