Czech-Slovak Language Contact

Czech-Slovak languagecontact: forms, results,

attitudes

Mira Nábělková

Institute of Slavonic and East European Studies

Faculty of Arts, Charles University in [email protected]

themes of the paper- a quick overview of the current Czech-Slovak

language contact situation- language contact of Czech and Slovak as closely-

related West Slavic languages (in relation to Polish)- Czech-Slovak language systems comparison with

respect to the contact phenomena- relations between literary languages and Czech-

Slovak dialectal continuum- leitmotif of the paper: multiple interdependence of

language relatedness ↔ language contact ↔mutual intelligibility ( → receptive multilingualism)↔ the contact impact on systems of respectivelanguages

Czech and Slovak – schematically

• closely related West Slavic languages

• a high degree of similarity on each languagesystem level - partly due to contact phenomena, especially in lexicon

• mutual intelligibility to a large extent• possibility to use own language when

communicating with a speaker of the otherlanguage – receptive multilingualism / semicommunication

some remarks on current Czech-Slovak contact situation

New period after the split of Czechoslovakia (1993):Czech and Slovak changed from official to minority languages on the

teritory of the other country. New official and legislative actsconcerning language coexistance came into force. More striking developmental changes can be observed in the Czech environment .

Previous communicative models and strategies continue to function, interlingual communication based on receptive multilingua lismis widespread , but some restrictions of it appeared... A question ofdeveloping receptive bilingualism concerning young people newlyappeared. Widespread thought: „Czech children do not understandSlovak anymore“... In fact – for many young people contact withSlovak texts causes difficulties , at least discomfort.

Old asymmetries (wider openness of the Slovaks to Czech) dee pened(new great difference in amount of programmes in other languageon TV , differences in opportunities of access to books in the otherlanguage in bookstores...)

Current asymmetries in forms of contact – prevailing indirect contactwith Czech in Slovakia ↔ new massive contact with Slovak peoplein Czech republik (thousands of university students, employees...)

some remarks on current Czech-Slovak contact situation 2

New language situation features having positive impact to languagecontact and to the continuation of receptive multilingualism:

Important new space of intensive language contact in this period – Internet forums . Czech and Slovak websites are visited by people from bothcountries, they communicate with one another in their own languages, they negotiate forms of communication – it is a great opportunityespecially for young people to become more familiar with the otherlanguage (on Czech websites they sometimes declare communicativedifficulties and objections against the presence of Slovak...).

Latest innovation (which appeared in the last year) – various mutualtelevision programmes (Czech-Slovak Superstar, Czech-Slovak Talent, mutual Silvester, referred to as „federal Silvester“, TV series with Czechand Slovak actors)... „Czech TV brings Slovak back to TV screens“.

New project „Slovak to schools“ (2007) – expression of the officialintention to prevent the societal loose of receptive bilingualismin the Czech environment.

Current language contact situation is not stable, it is developing with many new – sometimes cotradictory – features („continuation of the story“... Nábělková, 2008).

Czech, Slovak and Polish - West Slavic languages

Ausbau languagesPeter Trudgill: Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguisticsof modern Europe, 2004:

Polish, Slovak and Czech are Ausbau languages which together formthe West Slavic dialect continuum. They are mutually intelligible, especially Polish and Slovak, and Slovak and Czech, but they formthree separate languages...- West Slavic dialect continuum

Trudgill does not go into details in this direction and does not describesignificant differences in Czech-Slovak and Czech/Slovak - Polishlanguage relations, both on the system and language contact level.

The differencies originate partly in far language history - developmentof Czecho-Slovak subgroup - Lechithic subgrouppartly in different language contact history - the special Czech-

Slovak contacts during centures before the common state andduring the existence of Czechoslovakia 1918-//-1993 - and in currentlanguage contact too

In mutual comparison Czech and Slovak are more close to oneanother on their system level + their contact was and is much more intensive...

BUT!: new frequent reflection of current language relations(especially on Internet forums)

Pro mladé Čechy, na rozdíl od jejich rodičů, se slovenština stávácizím jazykem stejně jako polština nebo ruština.

http://www.asimilovani.estranky.cz/clanky/asi-narodnosti-v-cr/Slovaci

For young Czechs, unlike their parents, Slovak becomes a foreign language just like Polish or Russian.

The quotation shows some changes in perception of Slovakin the Czech environment after the split of Czechoslovakia:

- „it becomes“ = it had not been (for older generation...)- a foreign language = a new categorization not used before- just like Polish... (often only Polish is reffered to)

?? what does it mean ?? foreign ►1. = not ours, without any special position, „normal differentlanguage“ ► 2. not intelligible, hard to understand („like Polish“)

what do we know about correspondences anddifferencies of West Slavic languages – „exactly“

Czech – Slovak comparison of lexicon :

• M. Sokolová (1991) compared 500 most frequent words:230 (46 %) completely identical words (bivalent words)154 (30,8 %) partially identical words116 (23,2 %) different words►Relatively small part of lexicons compared (in the whole lexicon

the differencies could be greater)

• J. Zeman (2004) analyzed 15000 words in Czech and Slovakpairs of texts (the results are text-depended):

40 % semanticly and formally identical words (bivalent word)53,5 % formally partially differentiated words6,5 % different words

We do not have (at least I do not know about) such data concerningcomparison with Polish.

Our measurements in the research project „Distances between SlavonicLanguages and Their Mutual Comprehensibility“ (M. Sloboda´s text analysis

- compared with Skandinavian German languages, Ch. Gooskens, 2007)

sources of Czech and Slovak lexical closeness

- common origin – cognates continuations from Proto-Slavic, mainlyin the basic lexicon (but there are many interlingual homonyms / false friends among them)

- parallel lexical borrowings from other languages – during thewhole history up to now (of course not all borowings are parallel)

- language contact in pre-codification era with direction fromCzech to Slovak (Czech with more or less Slovak features servedas a literary code for Slovaks from 14th century, in protestant sphereas a „holy language“ up to 20th century)

- (mutual) language contact in the era of National Revival– Ľ. Štúr´s codification of Slovak in 1846 represented delimitationto Czech mostly on others than on the lexical level – in this timeof standardization Slovak was deliberately enriched by manyborrowings from Czech

- mutual language contact in the common state (1918-1939; 1945-1993); official language management supporting paralleldevelopment (especially in terminology); parallel neologisms; mutual „natural“ borowings in direct or indirect contacts → contactphenomena, contact synonyms

concept of bivalency (introduced by K. Woolard) useful in thinking about language contact

Bivalency - simultaneous membership of a given element in more than one linguistic system. A bivalent utterance or segment is one that could “belong” equally to two recognized codes...

(Kathryn Woolard: Simultaneity and bivalency asstrategies in bilingualism,1999; 2005)

bivalency in closely related languages: e.g. dom (house), okno (window), malý (small) are Czech as wellas Slovak ; loans : (CZ→SL) veda (science), rozbor (analysis),

názor (opinion) (SL→CZ) znak (sign), dovolenka (holiday)...

possible result – bivalent sentences:

Starý obraz visí pod hodinami, jedna kniha le ží zaprášená na polici.Sedím na chodníku za filozofickou fakultou a celý ve čer trhám

a lepím spis o boji dobra a zla.

In monolingual situation it is not important, whether certain expressionis in other language(s) or not ↔ but it is of great importancein interlingual communication from mutual intelligibility point of view.

another bivalent sentences (a „school play“):

Katka píše tento text do prachu cesty:Auto fičí po ulici k jasnému obzoru.Siréna hučí na poplach.Jasná luna už vyšla nad lesy.Zelená je tráva, golf to je hra.Lysí chlapi objednali ten zázračný medikament

s mnohými voňavými bylinkami.

What had to be (more or less) systematically“thrown away” (1)

• different lexemes• some forms of tenses• infinitive• many plural forms of verbs, nouns and

adjectives with various different vowel andconsonant alternations in the bothlanguages...

What had to be (more or less) systematically“thrown away” (2)

• Katka píše (x písala/psala, bude písať/psát), tento text (x tieto/tyto texty) do prachu cesty (x ciest/cest):Katka writes this text into the dust of the road.

• Auto (x autá/auta) fičí (x fičia/fičí) (x po uliciach/ ulicích) (x k jasným obzorom/ obzorům):A car speeds along the street to the bright horizon.

• Lysí chlapi (x úbohí/ubozí, velkí/velcí, hluchí/hlušíchlapi): Bald men (x poor, big, deaf men).

sentences based on lexical differences(a „school play“):

• SL Prepáč, svokor, budem meškať – topánky!!CZ Promiň, tcháne, zpozdím se – boty!!

• SL Svokra vykynožila prefíkané korytnačky aj smädné ťavy.CZ Tchýně vyhubila vychytralé želvy i žíznivé velbloudy.

• SL Zabudol v krčme olovrant, zložil si z chrbta tašku.CZ Zapomněl v hospodě svačinu, sundal si ze zad kapsu.

• SL Robil murára, neskôr stolára. CZ Dělal zedníka, později truhláře.

• SL Počuli hovor vidieckych dievčat.CZ Slyšeli mluvu venkovských holek.

• SL Čudné“ povedal strapatý čudák.CZ „Divné “ řekl rozcuchaný podivín.

• SL Keď mravčala, čičíkala som ju a rozprávala jej rozprávky.CZ Když kňourala, chlácholila jsem ji a vypráv ěla jí pohádky.

asymmetry in the influence direction- regardless of the predominant direction of influence

borrowings contribute to „common (bivalent) lexicon“- BUT in Czech-Slovak mutual relations Czech has been

more influential all the time - with more serious impacton Slovak than in opposite direction

• some loans from Czech represents the only possibilityto name something , some are just alternative meansof expression (contact synonyms)

• in Slovak dictionaries they are treated differently – someof them being considered literary ones , while many others are not codified as literary - but they are oftenused in everyday communication

• their status often becomes an issue of discussions/polemics among linguists and among language userstoo – different approaches of language management compete

some contact synonyms not codified as literary in Slovak, butso common that they are - with special comments -

incorporated into dictionaries• CZ + SL/B krb (SL kozub) fireplace• CZ + SL/B závada (SL chyba, porucha) fault• CZ + SL/B kojenec (SL dojča) suckling• CZ + SL/B kotník (SL členok) ankle• CZ + SL/B kľud (SL pokoj) calm

• KSSJ krb subšt. kozub(subšt = substandard)

• KSSJ závada správ. chyba, porucha, kaz, nedostatok(správ. = correctly)

• KSSJ kojenec správ. dojča• KSSJ zrovna vhodnejšie práve, priam

(vhodnejšie = more appropriate)

interpretation of borrowing based on interlingual analogy

Lexical borrowing in natural interlingual contact between closelyrelated languages (e.i. from Czech to Slovak) could be seen as conditioned by three types of interlingual analogy (Dolník, 2010):

formal analogy, formal-semantic analogy, semantic-for malanalogy:

• 1. formal analogy: based on regular, repeated interlingualfonological correspondences

Language users with the receptive competence are aware of the correspondences and sometimesextrapolate them to more new cases

• if CZ louka : SL lúka, CZ moudrý : SL múdryCZ klika : SL kľuka, CZ klíč : SL kľúč

than (why not?) CZ pouhý : SL/B púhy, CZ spousta : SL/B spústa, CZ klid : SL/B kľud and so on...

• if CZ zámek : SL zámokthan CZ sáček : SL/B sáčok/sáčik

CZ zbytek : SL/B zbytok

formal-semantic analogy

2. formal-semantic analogy : • based on lexical polysemy in one language, that „is

supposed“ to be (and than it can appear) in the secondlanguage too (→ balancing semantic asymmetries)

• CZ podtrhnout : SL podtrhnúť → CZ podtrhnout : SL/B podtrhnúť1. podraziť 2. podčiarknuť

(on the analogy with Czech)(to trip up) (to underline)

• CZ pojednávat : SL pojednávať → CZ pojednávat : SL/B pojednávať1. viesť pojednávanie 2. zaoberať sa(to discuss) (to deal with)

semantic-formal analogy

3. semantic-formal analogy : based on interlingual wordformation similarities

– in this case word formation rules of the target languageare sometimes broken

• CZ držet : SL držať → CZ obdržet : SL/B obdržať(SL dostať + CZ)

(to hold) (to get)

• CZ díl : SL diel → CZ dílčí : SL/B dielčí (SL čiastkový) (a part/volume) (partial)

• CZ psát : SL písať → CZ dopis : SL/B dopis (SL list + CZ) (to write) (a letter)

specific interplay between literary language – dialects– contact language

Besides these types of interlingual analogy anotherimportant „supporting power“ for contactphenomena can be distinguished:

Czech-Slovak dialectal continuum.

Some remarks (wider historical context):In the interwar period the idea of Czechoslovak - considered

as continuum of Czech and Slovak dialects - was in power. In that times some dialects in Moravia (currentCzech republic) were regarded Slovak (according to theirfeatures on all levels) (Vážný, 1934). These dialects are considered and „felt“ to be Czech now.

On the other side – in Slovak dialects there are many correspondences with Czech.

interplay between literary language – dialects – contact language

Another important fact – literary Slovak was codified on the base of the Central Slovak cultural code (in Ľ. Štúr´s codification, 1846) characterised by the most signifficant differences in comparison with Czech. The West Slovak dialects are naturalymore close to Czech and in some features the East Slovakdialects too.

Due to this many words of literary Slovak originate in CentralSlovak dialects . In other cases there are literary synonymshaving their origin in different macrodialects , mainlyin Central and West dialects.

But the correspondences with Czech in West Slovakian dialectscan be sometimes found among those words that are consideredborrowings from Czech and in Slovak not codified as literaryones.

Nevertheless, they live to some extent in everyday communicationand – it is important - can contribute to the intelligibility of Czech.

The special interplay between literary language (SL) – dialects (SLD) – contact language (CZ) has not been given sufficient attention by now.

example: CZ boty LSL topánky SLWD boty (shoes)

One example from my own „language experience“ :)

SL topánky (shoes, boots) is a literary equivalent for CZ boty. But the lexem boty lives in SLWD too.In my childhood I heard boty in my mixed Czech-Slovak family

in Banská Bystrica (Central Slovakia) – it was clear bohemismthere.

Later on when living in Trnava (West Slovakia) I could hear botyeverywhere in common talk – on the base of its dialectal status there.

Lexeme boty was codified in Rules of Slovak orthography (1931) –an example of the tendencies to get literary languages more closer(it was removed from dictionaries later).

Later on a new word of Czech origin had appeared – botník (shoecabinet), not codified as literary, but (due to being widespread) incorporated - as incorrect - into new SSSJ (2006): *botník, správ. skrinka na topánky

What I want to stress is that the newer borrowing of botník could beconsidered as strengthened by the dialectal status of the word boty.

irregularities in onomasiological chainsas a result of language contact

Some other phenomena related to this can be observed.

In the case of boty/botník non of them has been „institutionalised“ as literary word.

In other similar cases the situation can differ with an interesting result- irregularities in onomasiological chains.

example: nemocnica (hospital)

• CZ regular/straight derivative chainnemoc – nemocný – nemocnice – nemocniční(illness/diseas – ill – hospital noun - adjective)

• SL choroba ↔ chorý / nemocnica – nemocničný

• KSSJnemoc vhodnejšie choroba

vhodnejšie = more appropriatenemocný vhodnejšie chorý though they are in SLWD

BUT comletely neutral nemocnica – nemocničný hospital

some examples from Atlas of Slovak language (1984)

• Atlas of Slovak language contains maps, where we cansee some different cases interesting in literary language– dialects – contact language respect:

• dialectal heteronyms that were codified as literarysynonyms - one of them being common with Czech(bivalent)

• dialectal heteronyms that were codified as literarysynonyms - none of them being common with Czech(the bivalent one not being codifed as literary)

• dialectal heteronyms without correspondences in Czech– one or more of them codified as literary

• other possibilities....

LSL synonyms džbán krčah DSL heteronyms +džbanek kančov koršov (hung.)... CZ džbán (jug)

CZ huspenina LSL synonyms huspenina studeno (aspic)

LSL synonyms žihľava pŕhľava DSL + pokriva kopriva CZ kopřiva (nettle)

CZ ledviny SL dialectal heteronyms ľadviny obličky pokrutkyLSL obličky + later ľadviny too (kidneys)

synonymic groups and interlingual communication

• dialects are just one source of synonymic groups

• synonymic groups (of various origin) containg bivalentwords can be utilized in multilingual communication as the source of „strategic bivalency“

• without code swiching they offera possibility of choice of the word more appropriate / understable for the adresse

• it helps to avoid semicommunicative misunderstandings

„strategic bivalency“ in communication

• people are consiously using bivalent elements in directbilingual Czech-Slovak communication, on TV whenadressing both societies and so on...

• user´s ability to utilize an existence of bivalent (insteadof different) means of expression – a communicative skillbased on bilingual competence – a conscious strategy, a form of accomodation to addressee

• this competence – between receptive and productivebilingual competence, nearer to the productive one

• example: a Slovak speaker may use the SL word džbánfor CZ džbán ‘jug’ rather than the SL synonym krčahwhich may be incomprehensible to his Czech partner in communication; or okno rather than oblok „window“...

special evidence of Czech-Slovak closeness: contemporary use of parallel texts on product packages

• parallel texts in both languages „as a norm“(a manifestation of a specific kind of „commonmarket“ as a reality in Czech-Slovak social and economic relations)

• bivalent, parallel, different means of expression• various/different special uses of bivalent elements• bivalency – the source and the tool for creating

Czech-Slovak simultaneous texts (sometimes witha special play creating new „bivalent graphemes“)

parallel texts ARVIT (hair tonic)

„Visegrad package“ (cleansing and moisturizing milk)

„Visegrad package“ (60 nights without mosquitos)

parallel texts – a space of language contact

Czechs an Slovaks are „imposed“ to parallel texts showingsimilarities and differencies of the languages.

It is interesting, what the customer behavior against the longerparallel instructions is – whether he/she looks for the „own one“– frequently they declare that they are reading „the first one“... But it can be different (or can change) among young generation.

The version of the parallel text is often influenced by the original onein the choice of means of expresion.

Contact phenomena often occur... Sometimes they are „proper mistakes“, sometimes more interesting cases of contact variants. Their occurrence can be considered the form of the evidence oftheir existance and the form of their support as well.

contact phenomena – SL/B ukľudňuje instead ofSL upokojuje; preposition pre instead of na

(cleansing milk... calms... for normal and dry skin)

„special arrangements of texts“: BV originál puding čokoláda PAR CZ příchuť / SL príchuť

(chocolate flavour) BV v prášku (in powder)

„sham/pretended bivalency“SL harmónia / CZ harmonie BV chuti

(harmony of taste)

BV modré SL z neba / CZ z nebe(blue from the sky)

SL hviezdičky / CZ hvězdičky (stars)

references

• Atlas slovenského jazyka IV. [Atlas of Slovak language] (1984) Bratislava: Veda.

• BERGER, Tilman (2003) Slovaks in Czechia – Czechs in Slovakia. In: J. Nekvapil – S. Čmejrková (eds.): Languages and Language Communities in the Czech Republic. (= International Journal of the Sociology of Language162). Berlin – New York: Max de Gruyter Verlag, 19–39.

• BUDOVIČOVÁ, Viera (1986) Literary languages in contact (A sociolinguisticapproach to the relation between Slovak and Czech today). In J. Chloupek and J. Nekvapil (eds.) Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics). Praha: Academia 156–175.

• BUDOVIČOVÁ, Viera (1987) Semikomunikácia ako lingvistický problém [Semi-communication as a linguistic problem]. Studia Academica Slovaca16, 51–66.

• BUZÁSSYOVÁ, Klára (1995) Aspekty kontaktov slovenčiny a češtiny [Aspects of the contact of Slovak and Czech]. In S. Ondrejovič and M. Šimková (eds.) Sociolingvistické aspekty výskumu súčasnej slovenčiny, Bratislava: Veda, 163–182.

• DICKINS, Thomas The Czechs and the Slovak language. http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/nase_spolecnost/100092se_The%20Czechs%20and%20the%20Slovak%20language.pdf

• DOLNÍK, Juraj (1992) Der Einfluß des Tschechischen auf das slowakische Sprachbewußtsein. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 37, 242–247.

references 2• DOLNÍK, Juraj (2002) Der slowakisch-tschechische Bilingualismus. In J. Štefánik

(ed.) Bilingvizmus. Minulosť, prítomnosť, budúcnosť. Bratislava: AcademicElectronic Press, 37–42.

• DOLNÍK, Juraj (2010) Teória spisovného jazyka (so zreteľom na spisovnúslovenčinu) [Theory of literary language with regard to the standard Slovak]. Bratislava: Veda.

• ĎUROVIČ, Ľubomír (2007) Česko-slovenské komunikačné a kultúrne kontinuum [Czech-Slovak communicative and cultural continuum]. In Orgoňová, O. (ed.) Jazyk a komunikácia v súvislostiach II. Bratislava: UK. http://www.fphil.uniba.sk/fileadmin/user_upload/editors/ksj/publikacie/zbornik.pdf

• GAZDÍKOVÁ, Martina (2005) Die tschechischen Kontaktworter in der slovakischen Sprachpraxis und in der Rezeption der zeitgenossischenSlovakistik. Slavistische Beitrage, Band 440. Munchen: Otto Sagner.

• GIGER, Markus (2006) Die Sprachsituation in der Slovakei: Diglossie in der Vergangenheit und ihre Spuren in der Gegenwart. In: Entwicklung slawischerLiteratursprachen, Diglossie und Gender. In J. van Leeuwen-Turnovcová (ed.) Entwicklung slawischer Literatursprachen, Diglossie und Gender. SpeciminaPhilologiae Slavicae 143. München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 91-125.

• GOOSKENS, Charlotte (2007) The contribution of linguistic factors to theintelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 28, 6, 445–467. http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/publ_JMMD_2007.pdf

• HORECKÝ, Ján (1979) Východiská k teórii spisovného jazyka [Towards thetheory of literary language]. In: J. Ružička (ed.) Z teórie spisovného jazyka. Bratislava: Veda, 13–22.

references 3

MARTI, Roland (1993) Slovakisch und Čechisch vs. Čechoslovakisch, Serbokroatisch vs. Kroatisch und Serbisch. In K. Gutschmidt, H. Keipert and Hans Rothe (eds.) Slavistische Studien zum XI. internationalen Slavistenkongreß in Preßburg/Bratislava., 289–315. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.

• NÁBĚLKOVÁ, Mira (2007): Closely related languages in contact: Czech, Slovak, "Czechoslovak". International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 183, 53–73.

• NÁBĚLKOVÁ, Mira (2008): Slovenčina a čeština v kontakte: Pokračovaniepríbehu. [Slovak and Czech in Contact. A Continuation of the Story] Bratislava –Praha: Veda, Jazykovedný ústav Ľ. Štúra – Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze.

• NÁBĚLKOVÁ, Mira (2009) Slovenčina a čeština – blízke „cudzie“ jazyky? [Slovak and Czech – close „foreign“ languages?]. In J. Pekarovičová, M. Vojtech (eds.) Studia Academica Slovaca 38. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, 2009, s s. 221–238.

• NÁBĚLKOVÁ, Mira – PÁTKOVÁ, Jana (eds.) (2006) Česko-slovenské vztahy v aktuálních souvislostech. [Czech-Slovak relations in current context]. Praha: FF UK.

• NÁBĚLKOVÁ, Mira – SLOBODA, Marián (2008) Česko-slovenská komunikácia: semikomunikácia, bivalentnosť a reflexia vzájomnej zrozumiteľnosti slovenčiny a češtiny [Czech-Slovak communication: semicommunication, bivalency, and theperception of mutual comprehensibility of Czech and Slovak]. In A. J. Tóth & A. Uhrinová (ed.) Slovenčina v menšinovom prostredí. Békešská Čaba: Výskumnýústav Slovákov v Maďarsku, 156–165.

references 4

• NEUSTUPNÝ, Jiří V. – NEKVAPIL, Jiří: Language management in the CzechRepublic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4, 2003, 3–4, 181–366.

• NEKVAPIL, Jiří – SLOBODA, Marián – WAGNER, Peter: Ethnic and LinguisticCommunities in the Czech Republic: Their Situations and Language Problems. (2007). Přehledová zpráva o ČR v rámci projektu DILING. http://www.sloboda.cz/marian/publikace/CZreport_Diling_def.pdf

• NOVÁK, Ľudovit (1935) Jazykovedné glosy k československej otázke. [Linguisticcomments to the Czechoslovak question]. Turčiansky Svätý Martin: Maticaslovenská.

• SLOBODA, Marián (2004): Slovensko-česká (semi)komunikace a vzájemná(ne)srozumitelnost [The Slovak-Czech (semi)communication and mutual(un)intelligibility]. Čeština doma a ve světě 12 (3–4), 208–220.

• SLOBODA, Marián (2006): Užívání češtiny a slovenštiny u Slováků v ČR a jazykové postoje majority (ve výsledcích dotazníkového výzkumu) [The use ofCzech and Slovak by Slovaks in the Czech Republic, and language attitudes ofthe Czech majority (results of a questionnaire survey)]. In: M. Nábělková and J. Pátková (eds.) Česko-slovenské vztahy v aktuálních souvislostech. Praha: FF UK. http://www.sloboda.cz/marian/publikace/sloboda_def.pdf

• SOKOLOVÁ, Miloslava (1991) Český jazyk [Czech]. Košice: Univerzita P. J. Šafárika.

references 5

• SOKOLOVÁ, Miroslava (1995): České kontaktové javy v slovenčine [Czechcontact phenomena in Slovak]. In S. Ondrejovič and M. Šimková (eds.) Sociolingvistické aspekty výskumu súčasnej slovenčiny, 183–206. Bratislava: Veda.

• TRUDGILL, Peter (2004) Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics ofmodern Europe. In Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.) Speaking from themargin: global English from a European perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 35–49.

• VÁŽNÝ, Václav (1934) Nářečí slovenská [Slovak dialects]. In: Československávlastivěda. Díl III . Jazyk. Praha: Sfinx.

• WOOLARD, Kathryn A. (1999) Simultaneity and Bivalency as Strategies in Bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8, 3–29.

• ZEMAN, Jiří (1997) Czech – Slovak. In H. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z. Starý and W. Wölck (eds.) Kontaktlinguistik: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischerForschung, volume II. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1650–1655

• ZEMAN, Jiří (2004) Ke konfrontačnímu studiu slovní zásoby češtiny a slovenštiny [Towards the confrontative study of Czech and Slovak vocabulary]. Sborník prací FF OU, 14, 214/2004. Ostrava: OU, 353–356.

• ZEMAN, Jiří (2007) K výzkumu vztahu češtiny a slovenštiny (přehled hlavních témat posledních patnácti let). [Towards the research of the relation betweenCzech and Slovak. Outline of the main themes of last 15 years]. Jazykovědnéaktuality, XLIV. Čeština a slovenština: vzájemné vztahy, rok 2007 [Czech andSlovak: mutual relation, year 2007], s. 6–26. http://www.sloboda.cz/marian/publikace/zeman_cs-biblio.pdf.

Linguistic groups in Austria-Hungary

Nations in Austria-Hungary

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy 1914