کلمات کلیدی مربوط به کتاب O jeziku slovanskih prebivalcev med Donavo در Jadranom v srednjem veku (pogled jezikoslovcev): زبانها و زبانشناسی، زبانشناسی، زبانشناسی اسلاوی
در صورت تبدیل فایل کتاب O jeziku slovanskih prebivalcev med Donavo in Jadranom v srednjem veku (pogled jezikoslovcev) به فرمت های PDF، EPUB، AZW3، MOBI و یا DJVU می توانید به پشتیبان اطلاع دهید تا فایل مورد نظر را تبدیل نمایند.
توجه داشته باشید کتاب O jeziku slovanskih prebivalcev med Donavo در Jadranom v srednjem veku (pogled jezikoslovcev) نسخه زبان اصلی می باشد و کتاب ترجمه شده به فارسی نمی باشد. وبسایت اینترنشنال لایبرری ارائه دهنده کتاب های زبان اصلی می باشد و هیچ گونه کتاب ترجمه شده یا نوشته شده به فارسی را ارائه نمی دهد.
Zgodovinski časopis / Historical Review 66/3–4 (146): 276–305
The essay responds to historians and
archaeologists using linguistic data to enrich or justify their
explanations about populations in the past, focusing on the
language of the Slavic population between the Danube and the
Adriatic Sea at the turn of the first millennium AD and its
differentiation from the languages of other groups of Slavs for
the purpose of clarifying both the precepts and practice of
historical and comparative linguistics as well as demonstrating
the intricate argumentation needed to draw conclusions from the
linguistic data. As such, the article attempts to contribute to
a better understanding of linguistic reconstruction, relying
not just on the comparative method, but on the application of
other methods, including the insights of geo- and
sociolinguistics. The authors take a post-modernist
perspective, meaning that as scholars they are and should be
aware of their own historical viewpoint; thus, following
Benedict Anderson’s view of the nation as an imagined
community, historical linguists (and others) must avoid the
pitfall of blithely projecting the imagined communities of the
nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first centuries onto the past.
While this means that a speech community and an ethnicity (the
latter being a mental construct) are matters of a different
order, it does not mean that they are unrelated. Rather,
linguistic innovation, reflected in the rise of isoglosses, is
an index of group formation. It remains for linguists,
anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists to interpret
this complex relationship. Part of the confusion in using the
results of historical linguistic interpretation comes from
traditional professional jargon, which is used with
heterogeneous meanings even inside the linguistic field,
leaving open the possibility of (understandable, if
regrettable) misapprehension outside of it. Thus, terms like
Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic, which can refer variously to
periodization with or without regard to internal dialect
differentiation, might lead an external observer to assume that
the language was uniform before the appearance of national
languages. The view from within the linguistic field has become
more sophisticated with time. While the use of the comparative
method of the nineteenth century is still a valid and central
tool for linguistic reconstruction, additional tools add much
more subtlety to linguistic reconstruction. In particular,
advances in sociolinguistics help us to consider not just
language change as a process, but one in which speakers shape
language in relation to their group identity. An illustration
of this is the example of rhotacism in South Slavic languages.
The comparative method indicates a uniform conditioned change
of ž r throughout the South Slavic area by the 11th c. AD. By
the 14th century, however, in most lexical categories in which
the change occurred, it was reversed in South Slavic speech
communities associated with the Byzantine confessional style
and reinforced in those associated with the Roman rite. Such
para-comparative techniques can also help linguists dig further
into the past. So, for example, an early phono-semantic
innovation *gъlčěti : *mъlčěti ‘make noise’ : ‘be silent’
‘speak’ : ‘be silent’ was carried from an emergent dialect of
(pre-migration) Proto-Slavic and is now distributed in three
disparate regions—central Russia, central Bulgaria, and
north-eastern Slovenia. Philology, too, has its contribution to
make to understanding speech communities as communities of
practice as oral traditions yield to written ones. We note, for
example, a promising trend in the literature which investigates
the process of written traditions that require the intervention
of individuals and groups that over time negotiate the features
of emergent literary languages, e.g., Trubars awareness of a
coherent reading public for his liturgical translations
andIllyrianism before the Illyrian movement, which precede the
appearance of modern European national languages of the
nineteenth century. The second half covers the primarily
phonological linguistic innovations in the relevant
geographical space up to the end of the first millennium AD.
From the Freising Folia and contemporary onomastic data we
learn that this language had by then carried through these
innovations: (1) liquid metathesis, (2) the change d’ j (3) the
change t’ k’ (or even ć), (4) contraction, (5) fronting of y i
(except after labials) and that the following processes were
underway: (6) assimilation of tv t, (7) rhotacism, as well as,
possibly, (8) the forward shift of the Proto-Slavic circumflex;
moreover, we find in this language an important archaism, i.e.,
(9) the retention of the consonant cluster dl. Though the
majority of these processes are common to at least the
Kajkavian and Čakavian dialect continuum, innovations (6), (8),
as well as the archaism (9) are exclusive to Slovene. The
differential features between Slavic idioms around the year
1000, which must be understood as parts of systems, were few in
number – as one would expect—yet they were irreversible and
thus decisive in that they determine a speech territory from
which Slovene dialects, and not others, were to develop, as
further philological evidence also affirms. From this evidence
the conclusion follows that the Freising Folia and contemporary
onomastic evidence belong to the Slovene linguistic continuum,
for which reason the term Old Slovene is warranted. The
terminology is based on (1) the general practice of naming the
oldest evidence of a particular idiom with the name of the
present-day language that continues it, adding the qualifier
Old; (2) the linguistically determined fact that only today’s
Slovene dialects could develop from the idiom in question; and
(3) the consensus of linguists that crystallized through
debates in the second half of the 20th century, the principal
ones being adduced in the article. Our knowledge of a past
idiom in time and space is founded on a comparative linguistic
analysis of extant texts and other linguist material, enriched
by the results of geo and sociolinguistics, which permit a more
nuanced interpretation of the facts. Since the appearance of
linguistic innovations require a community in which such
innovations carry prestige value, it follows from our analysis
the synthesis that in the relevant time and space there was a
community with its own identity that as such had differentiated
itself from other, neighboring Slavic communities, i.e.,
Štokavian and Czech-Moravian-Slovak as well as, to a lesser
extent, Kajkavian and Čakavian. At the frontiers of these
communities of identity in the following centuries isoglosses
continued to bundle, representing ever more palpable
disjunctures in the dialect continuum; these may be innovations
of a progressive nature, static archaisms, or even regressive
phenomena, such as the reversal of rhotacism. At the time of
the cultivation of standard languages, the borders of these
communities of identity were recognized as the linguistic
borders.