Slavic. What languages ​​belong to the Slavic group? South Slavic literary languages

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

The South Slavic languages ​​are a group of Slavic languages ​​that includes Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian (Serbo-Croatian), Macedonian, and Slovene. Distributed on the Balkan Peninsula and adjacent territory: in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, as well as in neighboring countries (Greece, Albania, Austria, Hungary, Romania, USSR), in other European countries, in America (mainly the USA and Canada) and in Australia. The total number of speakers is over 30 million people.

They are divided into 2 subgroups: eastern (Bulgarian and Macedonian) and western (Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian). Yu. i. ascend, like all Slavic languages, to the Proto-Slavic language. While maintaining closeness with each other and with other Slavic languages ​​at all levels of the language, significant differences are also found. In each of them, elements of the Proto-Slavic heritage are interspersed with innovations. General features characterizing Yu. Ya. as a single group: Proto-Slavic combinations ort, olt at the beginning of a word with descending intonation were transformed into rat, lat, and not rot, lot, as in other Slavic languages ​​(cf .: Bulgarian “equal”, “lakt”, Macedonian “ramen” ”, “Lakot”, Serbo-Chorvian “raven”, “lakat”, Slovene raven, lakat and Russian “smooth”, “elbow”, Czech rovne, loket); the ancient nasal k in most South Slavic dialects has changed to "e"; differences in nominal inflections are revealed: masculine and neuter nouns have a solid declension in Yu. Ya. the ending -om prevailed (with the West Slavic and East Slavic endings -ъм); nouns with -a soft declension in the genitive singular and nominative and accusative plurals have the ending?k [with West Slavic and East Slavic m (?)]; the polyfunctional union "yes" is widely used; ancient common South Slavic lexical units are known that are absent or little known among Western and Eastern Slavs (for example, a verb with the meaning `to step': Bulgarian "gazya", Macedonian "gazi", Serbo-Chorv. "gaziti", Slovenian. gaziti.

Phonetics Yu. Ya. -- the result of the transformation of the Proto-Slavic phonetic system. Reduced vowels have disappeared or turned into full vowels of varying quality, cf. lexemes with the meaning `dream', `day', `today (today)": Bulgarian "son", "den", "dnes", Macedonian "sleep", "den", "denes", Serbo-Chorv. "san "", "dan" (in the dialects of these languages, also "sen", "son", "den", "dn"), "danas", Slovenian sen, dan, danes, denes; nasal vowels have changed with the loss of nasal articulation, cf. Proto-Slavic roka `hand', Bolg. "rka", maked. "Raka", Serbo-Chorv. "hand", Slovenian. roca; Praslav pkt `five', Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Chorvian 'pet', Slovak pet. Ancient m (?) is replaced by vowels ranging from 'i' to 'a'; the western subgroup phonologically distinguishes between long and short vowels, in the eastern (including the eastern subdialects of the Serbo-Croatian language) quantitative differences are lost. Consonantism is characterized by affricates varying in languages ​​and dialects, changes in the category of hardness / softness: consistent hardening of semi-soft consonants in the western zone, widespread hardening " r ". Accentuation is diverse: in the eastern subgroup, the stress is monotonic, in Bulgarian and the eastern dialects of the Serbo-Croatian language it is multi-local, in Macedonian it is fixed; in most of the territory of the western zone, i.e. in the Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian languages, the stress is polytonic, heterogeneous, tonic characteristics and distribution of stress in word forms are different in dialects.

The historical development of the grammatical system in Yu. Ya. marked by a non-uniform reorganization of the structure in languages ​​and dialects. In the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages, the nominal declension and the infinitive have been lost, the old forms of degrees of comparison are replaced by prefixed formations, the article has appeared, these same features arose in the process of development of a number of other languages ​​of the Balkan region (Albanian, Greek, Romanian). However, a complex system of forms of the past tense has been preserved. In Slovene and in many dialects of Serbo-Croatian, the declension is stable, but the forms of simple past tenses have disappeared or are disappearing. The Slovenian language has retained the forms of the dual number and supina. The loss of declension forms in the Eastern subgroup was associated with transformations in syntax - with an increased development of prepositional constructions.

In the vocabulary of Yu. I. with the predominance of Slavic formations, stratifications are revealed that arose as a result of contacts with a foreign-speaking population in the Balkans. Numerous borrowings from Turkish, there are borrowings from the Greek language, Romance languages ​​and dialects, from German and Hungarian. There are many internationalisms in literary languages, as well as borrowings from the Russian language. The oldest literary Slavic language, the Old Church Slavonic language, which arose in the 9th century, had a great influence on all Slavic languages. Ancient alphabets: Cyrillic and Glagolitic. Modern Serbo-Croatian speakers use a script based on the converted Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, Slovenes use the Latin alphabet, Bulgarians and Macedonians use the Cyrillic script. Cyrillic has been converted based on the Russian civil script. The Glagolitic alphabet functioned until the first half of the 20th century. as a regional church letter among the Croats.

Modern South Slavic literary languages ​​were formed in unequal socio-historical conditions, at different times and typologically differ significantly. The norms of the Bulgarian literary language were established in the second half of the 19th century. His dictionary was enriched with lexical means of Russian and Church Slavonic languages. The Macedonian literary language was formalized in the middle of the 20th century. The literary Serbo-Croatian language was formed in the first half of the 19th century. on a folk-speech basis with the assumption of varying elements, in particular phonetic ones (Ekavian and Iekavian pronunciation). Based on the marginal dialects of the Serbo-Croatian language and in connection with the old written tradition, there are regional literary languages ​​Chakavian and Kajkavian, functionally limited to the sphere of fiction, mainly poetry. A special regional language based on Chakavian is developing in Austria. The Slovene literary language as a system of book and written norms stabilized in the second half of the 19th century; its oral variety functions as a collection of local colloquial koine.

South Slavic languages ​​and dialects - a general designation for the languages ​​​​of the southern Slavs: Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian and Sloven, with their dialects, sub-dialects and dialects. These languages ​​are more or less harsh and characteristic features differ from other Slavic languages ​​and dialects, and at the same time, no sharp differences can be found between the individual languages ​​and dialects of this group.

Classification

eastern subgroup:

Bulgarian;

Macedonian;

Old Church Slavonic †;

Church Slavonic;

western subgroup:

Serbo-Croatian, splitting into:

Bosnian;

Croatian;

Montenegrin;

Serbian;

Slavic Serbian †;

Slovenian.

The linguistic commonality of the South Slavic languages ​​is less obvious than that of the West Slavic and East Slavic languages. Modern South Slavic languages ​​are divided into two very different subgroups: Western (Slovene, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian) and Eastern (Bulgarian and Macedonian). Possible reasons sharp differences between them:

The Balkans were populated by Slavs in two streams: eastern and western;

the language of the Bulgarians and Macedonians was greatly influenced by the surrounding non-Slavic peoples.

Main features

A striking difference between the South Slavic languages ​​and the East and West Slavic languages ​​is the preserved system of conjugation of verbs with many past tenses (imperfect, aorist, pluperfect), in which, however, the infinitive either does not exist at all (in Bulgarian), or its use is narrowed. To form compound forms of the future tense, not “to be” or “to have” (as in Ukrainian), but “to want” is used as an auxiliary verb.

The declension has been simplified (in Bulgarian, until the complete disappearance of cases, the remnants of which are visible only in pronouns and in phraseological units; in Serbian and Croatian, the dative, instrumental and prepositional plurals coincided).

The vocabulary has a strong oriental influence (many Turkish words and borrowed through Turkish).

However, the South Slavic language has a certain similarity with the Russian language, associated with the centuries-old influence on Russian of the Church Slavonic book tradition, which has penetrated into all elements of the language: phonetics, vocabulary, word formation, etc.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

The question of the classification of the languages ​​of the southern subgroup of the Slavic group has not yet been fully resolved. Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Slovenian are officially accepted as these languages. Division by western(Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian) and eastern(Bulgarian, Macedonian) zones conditionally.

In fact, the South Slavic languages ​​are divided into three zones: western (Kajkavian, Slovene), central (Shtokavian, Chakavian, Torlak), eastern (Bulgarian, Macedonian). Torlak is a transitional language between the central and eastern zones.

The languages ​​of the western zone retained the Old Slavic sound combinations /tzh/ and /j/, and in Bulgarian and Macedonian they moved to /st/ and /zd/ (the so-called line of E. Petrovich - isoglosses /st/ and /zd/ - passing along the border of Serbia and Bulgaria, and separating these two languages). Konstantin Zhirechek line divides the Balkan languages ​​into zones of Greek and Latin influence, it runs along the Stara Planina ridge. The Balkan-Romance languages, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian (Shtokavian, Chakavian, Torlakian, Kajkavian), Slovene are included in the sphere of influence of Latin, and Bulgarian and Macedonian - in the zone of Greek influence.

A closer examination shows that the "dialects" of the "Serbo-Croatian" language are so far apart from each other that they are independent linguistic units. Between Bulgarian and Macedonian, which are considered different languages, on the contrary, there is a lot in common. It is also worth noting that the boundaries between languages ​​are blurred, dialects of one often flow into dialects of another. Dialect division in the former Yugoslav republics does not coincide with the national one. Nationality there is determined by a religious factor: all Catholics are Croats, all Orthodox are Serbs (Orthodox Black Mountains are Zechans or Montenegrins, Montenegrin Serbs), all Muslims are Bosnians.

At the same time, two subdialects are common among Serbs Shtokavian (ekavian and Iekavian) and Torlak language, among Croats - two sub-dialects Shtokavian (Iekavian and Ikavian), kajkavian and Chakavian languages. Bosnians speak Iekavian subdialect(Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla) and Ikavian subdialect(Bihac, Travnik), both sub-dialects are spoken in Mostar. Montenegrins speak East Herzegovinian (North) and Zeta (South).

Proto-Slavic supershort sounds are transmitted in central (Shtokavian and Chakavian) C and western (Kajkavian and Slovene) Z usually with one phoneme.

On May 28, 1850, Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian scientists signed the Literary Agreement in Vienna, in which they proposed the idea of ​​creating a single literary language not on the basis of mixing dialects, but by choosing one of the most common dialects. This dialect was the one spoken in the vicinity of Belgrade (one of Kosovo-Resavian dialects of the Ekavian subdialect of the Shtokavian language). The development of the literary language was led by the prominent Serbian scholar Vuk Stefanovich Karadzic. The new language did not receive proper distribution, but it managed to supplant the then widespread Church Slavonic.

In 1946, during the creation of the SFRY, the Constitutions of the federal republics indicated Serbian and Croatian languages ​​(namely the Kosovo-Resavian variant of the Ekavian subdialect and the Western variant of the Iekavian subdialect of Shtokavian).

In 1951, in the city of Novi Sad (Serbia), the Agreement on the literary norms of the Serbo-Croatian (Croatian-Serbian) language was signed.

With the adoption of the Constitutions of 1963, the language began to be called "Serbo-Croatian" in the Constitutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and "Croatian-Serbian" in the Constitution of Croatia. The Constitution of Montenegro did not mention an official language at all.

In the late 1960s appeared the so-called Declaration on the name and status of the Croatian literary language", published in 1966 on behalf of 140 Croatian intellectuals and 18 Croatian scientific and cultural centers. This Declaration specifically emphasized the difference between the Croatian literary language (the Western version of the Iekavian subdialect of Shtokavian) and the Serbian (Kosovo-Resavian version of the Ekavian subdialect of the Shtokavian language), although the differences were less than between Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian, which for political reasons were considered dialects of Serbo-Croatian.Immediately after the appearance of the Declaration at their annual meeting, 42 Serbian writers signed the so-called Suggestions for reflection, in which it was proposed to consider the Vienna and Novi Sad language agreements as invalid, and the Serbian and Croatian languages ​​should continue to develop independently of each other. At the time, the desire to separate the languages ​​was seen as a nationalistic act and was suppressed by political measures.

However, in the late 80s. controversy on this issue flared up with renewed vigor. A stormy discussion was caused by the issue of amending the article of the Croatian Constitution concerning the name of the official language. The article states that in Croatia "the Croatian literary language is in use - the standard form of the vernacular language of Croats and Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian or Serbian". An amendment was proposed, according to which in "SR Croatia the Croatian or Serbian language is officially used, the standard form of the vernacular language of Croats and Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian literary language, as well as the literary language of the Serbs in Croatia".

The division of the Serbo-Croatian (Croatian-Serbian) language undertaken in Croatia into Serbian (Kosovo-Resavian version) and Croatian (Western version), and the official recognition of only the Croatian language caused a negative reaction, it was especially sharp among the Serbs living in Croatia. This led to increased tension in the Serbian Krajina, and subsequently to fighting.

Below are maps of the settlement of the peoples of Bosnia at the beginning of the 1990s (division - religious). The letter S stands for Serbs, the letter C for Croats, M for Muslim Bosnians. Despite the wider area of ​​settlement, the Serbs were at that time in second place in terms of numbers after the Muslim population. Croats are represented mainly by representatives Iekavian subdialect and settled in the south in the region of the Dinaric mountains. Muslim Bosniaks populate separate enclaves.

The unity of the South Slavic dialect languages ​​relative to the Slavic north is explained primarily by the fact that they presumably go back to a single dialect area of ​​the Proto-Slavic, to its so-called southern macrodialect. According to a number of traditionally distinguished differential features, the southern macrodialect approaches the eastern one (simplification of the groups *tl, *dl; transition x > s according to the laws of the second and third palatalization; development of the groups *kvm-, *gvm- into cv-, ?v-, etc. ), according to others - with various parts of the Western macrodialect (smooth metathesis; development of initial combinations *art- and *alt- under circumflex intonation in ra-, la-, etc.). After the collapse of the Proto-Slavic linguistic community, a single South Slavic proto-language could have been formed on the basis of this macrodialect. It is usually believed that the ancient South Slavic tribes formed a special community before their invasion of the Balkans and the Eastern Alps, i.e. to VI-VII centuries. (geographically, the South Slavic ancestral home can be placed, for example, in ancient Pannonia or Dacia), while, however, it is important to take into account that many common South Slavic phenomena and processes are quite late and cannot be dated before the appearance of the Slavs in the Balkans. The following features are attributed to the South Slavic parent language:

1) the transition of a case ending with a nasal yate into a regular nasal vowel (in the north, denasalization in *m);

2) the duality of the end of TV. p. units h. o-bases -ot and -t, -et and -t (in the north only -t and -t);

3) deminative suffixes with the element -с-;

4) suffix -ica in motional function, -н-ica for nomina loci;

5) the development of the union da in the final target value;

6) a number of lexical features.

However, along with the opinion that the South Slavic language group is based on a single Proto-South Slavic heritage, another was also expressed, namely that, despite the close relationship of its constituent languages, it is still heterogeneous and developed on the basis of a mixture of dialects of different Slavic groups (which sometimes are presented as an archaic periphery of the Proto-Slavic) and as a result of their secondary contacts in the new territory and late convergent development. Since it is obvious that the processes of linguistic integration can be as ancient as the processes of differentiation, and since in the development of the Slavic languages ​​the former constantly accompany the latter, turning out to be equally probable and possible in different periods of the formation of the modern language map of Slavism, then we can assume a greater dynamism of the speakers of the right (South) Slavic language and the possibility of coexistence of groups of different origin within the same area. Thus, one can doubt that the modern South Slavic languages ​​and dialects quite directly reflect the Proto-Slavic dialect division or even the geographical distribution of the most ancient Slavic groups in the Balkans. South Slavic language classification Balkan

The solution to the problem of the linguistic ethnogenesis of the South Slavs should, therefore, in particular, contain answers to the questions to what extent each of the South Slavic languages ​​and dialects retains genetic identity throughout the development and to what extent it reflects the dialectal differentiation of the Proto-Slavic language. When restoring the genetic links of the South Slavic dialects, it is also necessary to separate the Proto-Slavic language features from the late convergent common South Slavic ones.

One of the central tasks of South Slavic studies is to isolate the possible most ancient Proto-Slavic component in individual South Slavic languages ​​and dialects, which is established on the basis of Proto-Slavic archaisms proper or partial South Slavic-North Slavic connections, which can reflect both the most ancient Proto-Slavic dialect connections, and later general development trends, due precisely to these ancient connections. In search of archaisms, one usually pays attention to such facts as the preservation of the *tl, *dl combinations that have undergone simplification in the vast majority of South Slavic dialects in the northwestern dialects of the Slovene language or as evidence of the Romanian mocirlg< *moиidlo о том, что «сочетание dl было и в некоторых диалектах восточной части южных славян»

The work begun more than a century ago to identify separate South Slavic-Northern Slavic ties continues. From the time of Yagich Special attention attached to isoglosses that combine Bulgarian and Macedonian with East Slavic languages:

1) the absence of coincidence of the reflexes of the two Proto-Slavic reduced ones;

2) phonologically relevant palatalization of consonants;

3) the absence of quantitative or qualitative oppositions in accentuation;

4) the presence of reductions of unstressed vowels.

In this regard, Yagich himself pointed out the formation of the future tense form with the help of the auxiliary verb *imo? On the other hand, B. Tsonev’s line of research continues on the ancient connection between the ancestors of the Macedonians and Bulgarians with the ancestors of the Pomeranians and Poles, as well as work on establishing new lexical isoglosses that unite Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects with all North Slavic languages ​​(i.e., isolating vocabulary, distributed throughout the Slavic territory, except for one area - Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian

There are also isoglosses that unite the South Slavic northwest with the Slavic north. In addition to rather narrow, for example, Slovene-Serb Lusatian connections such as the verbal suffix *-no? (acting in Slovene in the form -ni, in Upper Sorbian - ny), numerous lexical similarities, and in addition to the already mentioned preservation of the *dl combination in Slovene dialects in the north and northwest, these include:

1) the transition of g into g in various Western Slovene and in a number of northwestern Chakavian dialects, which has parallels in the Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages;

2) the vowel of the e series as a reflex of coinciding reduced in a strong position in the northeastern and partly northern Slovene dialects and in most of the Croatian Kajkavian dialects, which is parallel to the processes in a large West Slavic territory;

3) ending *-o? in tv. pad. units h. a-stems in the Slovenian language and in the Croatian Kajkavian dialect, as well as in the northwestern Chakavian dialects, in the presence of the same inflection in Czech, Polish and other North Slavic languages;

4) prefix *vy- in a number of Slovene dialects in the north, northwest and in some northwestern Chakavian dialects.

The Croatian ethnologist M. Gavazzi drew attention to the fact that the Kaikavian Croats, the majority of Slovenes and the Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks have a number of common lexemes of appellatives and toponyms that are not found among the Shtokavians, Chakavians, Macedonians and Bulgarians, and in addition, common customs and elements of material culture, general anthropological indicators and archaeological facts. These and similar facts allow L. V. Kurkina to talk about the possible existence on the territory of Great Moravia in the 7th-9th centuries. tribal union, in which the tribes of the West and South Slavic types were “striped”, contacts between which were interrupted by the invasion of the Hungarians in the 9th century.

The fact established by P. Ivic is extremely important that the South Slavic dialects, which are spatially closest to the geographical center of the Slavic linguistic territory (Serbo-Croatian Slavonian and Vojvodina), do not show connections with the North Slavic territory, while such connections are characteristic precisely for the western and eastern poles of the South Slavic language. range. Thus, it can be argued that the Proto-Slavic territory did not look like a segment of the Proto-Slavic area, but as a sector, the outlying parts of which, being cut off from the North Slavic dialectal mass by the German, Hungarian and Romanian elements, began to develop further together with the central ones. That is why on the modern dialectological map of the Slavs there are no transitional dialect types between west and south, south and east.

In areal terms, on the outskirts of the territory of the South Slavic languages, as well as on the outskirts of the territory of the Slavic north, it would be expected to preserve linguistic archaisms that oppose the archaic periphery to the innovative language center (for example, the absence of smooth metathesis in the Slavic toponymy of Greece or in the few words of the Old Slavonic language such as aldii, alkati) . From a common Slavic perspective, in addition, it may be appropriate to turn to the study of exceptional lexical correspondences between the marginal Slavic zones (separate Slovene, Chakavian, Kashubian, South Macedonian, North Russian, Lusatian, etc.), which would be absent in geographically central zones and, therefore, could be assessed as undoubted Slavic archaisms. However, long-term observations of N. I. Tolstoy, for example, over Chakavian-Great Russian lexical parallels (about 250 units of the type chak. zabit “forget”, chak. zadrohnit “sleep”, etc.) showed that Chakavian-Great Russian or even Chakavian-East Slavic, almost all of them still had fixation in the West Slavic languages ​​or in Slovenian, Bulgarian ... ".

That is, it turned out to be difficult to identify "correspondences of marginal zones that would not be found in non-marginal zones and central zones." And as a result, we have to admit that, in contrast to the Romance linguistic area, in the Slavic linguistic territory, the geographical center is by no means always a source of innovation, and the periphery is only an area for preserving linguistic archaism; the Slavic area as a whole is characterized by the preservation of the Proto-Slavic linguistic archaic not only in the peripheral zones, but also in the non-marginal and central Slavic regions. Actually, the arealogical "central-peripheral opposition in the general Slavic plan (scale) can hardly justify itself in solving cardinal diachronic and ethnogenetic problems, and, apparently, it is more correct for the same purposes to operate with the conditional concepts of "archaic" and "non-archaic" zones.

It would seem that the publication of maps of the All-Slavic Linguistic Atlas will finally resolve the issue of the relationship between the South Slavic areas of archaisms and innovations. However, recently undertaken by T.I. Venda's attempt, by combining the areas of phonetic and lexical archaisms (in particular, by combining the areas of preservation of phonological individuality *m with the areas of distribution of common Slavic Proto-Slavic lexemes), to single out the South Slavic zones of archaism led to the discovery as such, in addition to the expected Slovene, Kajkavian and Macedonian Aegean, as well as Serbo-Croatian Shtokavian (Slavonian, East Bosnian, Zeta, even East Herzegovinian and Smedsrevian) dialects. As a result, this picture, in principle, does not confirm the traditional idea of ​​the general archaism of the linguistic periphery, since not only marginal, but also geographically central South Slavic dialects turned out to be archaic.

Whether due to their common origin or as a result of later convergent development, the South Slavic languages ​​can be considered throughout the entire territory of their distribution as an uninterrupted chain of local dialects, which, each retaining its individuality, imperceptibly, like the colors of a rainbow, pass into each other (in novelism, this effect is known like a “swaying field”), i.e. represent a single linguistic continuum.

The notion of a linguistic continuum has been widely used in linguistic and predominantly linguogeographic studies since the last quarter of the 19th century, and is especially active in connection with the idea of ​​the similarity of contacting languages ​​and dialects of the same area. The South Slavic continuum can be thought of as a chain of dialects (“mehrere Glieder der südslavischen Gesammtkette”), at each point in which speakers of one dialect can understand speakers of other dialects living in the neighborhood, hardly understand speakers of dialects located further along the chain, and, finally, perhaps they will not understand the speakers of the most remote dialects at all. Each member of such a chain is thus the most closely related and connecting link between the links surrounding it. So, for example, Yagich believed that the language of the central Balkan tribes of Serbs and Croats in many respects organically continues in both directions, Slovenian and Bulgarian, and, presumably, this continuum already existed in the 6th-7th centuries. A. Margulies correlated the most ancient South Slavic language continuum with the chain of early state formations zhups (Gau), which, in his opinion, should have covered "the entire South Slavic people" . And the Serbo-Croatian language, according to Yagich, can be imagined as the same chain of dialects, so it would be erroneous, for example, to think that “Ikavism” is a proper Croatian feature, and “Ekavism” is Serbian, or that there are only Chakavian and Shtokavian dialects; on the contrary, "es gibt vielmehr eine stufenweise sich ablagernde Pluralität von Dialekten"]

Long before the linguo-geographical method began to be used to study the South Slavic languages, Yagich (using such classification units as Slovene, Chakavian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian), and after him V. Oblak, using the example of phonetic features, proved the gradual geographical transition from one unit to the next and the absence of sharp dividing lines between them. So, Slovene and Chakavian are united by the presence of two reflexes *m - i and e, of which the second is also characteristic of Serbian and Macedonian, which is opposed by Bulgarian with its "a. The history of palatal r" combines Slovene and Chakavian (where we have rj), with one one side, and Serbian and Bulgarian with their hardened r, on the other. By reflexes *dj, Slovene with its j is connected with Chakavian with its j and?m, which is combined with Serbian by the second reflex; Serbian, for its part, is close to the Macedonian reflex?, which differs from the Bulgarian ћd.

In the second half of the XX century. P. Ivich proved the gradual transition from one South Slavic point to another in the field of morphology, and, for example, when the observer moves from the southeast to the northwest, the use of infinitive and supine forms, as well as synthetic case forms, increases, while when moving to the southeast, on the contrary, the number of tense forms of the verb increases, and the use of the infinitive, supine and synthetic case forms decreases.

As P. Ivic notes, one of the most significant characteristics of the dialectal division of any language area is the grouping of isoglosses according to directions. In some areas, for example, there are about as many isoglosses in the north-south direction as there are in the east-west direction. In other areas, there are more isoglosses in any one direction than isoglosses in other directions. It is striking that in the South Slavic language area the most important isoglosses run in the direction north-northeast south-southwest, which direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the South Slavic language area, stretching from the western slopes of the Julian Alps to the Black Sea. (The exception here is the isoglosses that highlight the dialects of the Adriatic coast and represent a rather late and not always compact distribution of the so-called Dalmatianisms, reflecting primarily the Romanesque influence on the corresponding Serbian and Croatian dialects). In the field of phonetics, the following isoglosses pass in the indicated direction:

1) saving the *dl group;

2) phonetic transition *zgj, *z?, *zdj > ћ;

3) *dj > j in most examples;

4) lack of coincidence of reflexes *skj, *s?, *stj with љt;

5) *-ћe- > -re- in the present tense forms of the verb mozhi;

6) preservation of quantitative phonological oppositions;

7) coincidence of reflexes of both reduced ones;

8) lack of coincidence of the reflex *tj with the reflex *skj;

9) reflex *m not wider than e.

In the field of morphology, there are:

1) preservation of forms of the dual number;

2) the use of the interrogative pronoun kaj;

3) lack of coincidence of the forms of the dative and the instrumental pl. h. nouns a-bases;

4) distinction in the plural of at least five case forms;

5) absence of enclitic pronominal forms ni, vi;

6) synthetic declination system;

7) the absence of a postpositive article;

8) personal pronoun 1 l. pl. hours in the form mi (mie), not nie;

9) possessive pronoun 3 l. plural in the form nihov-, nihn-, not *tehn-.

P. Ivic also has a convincing meaningful interpretation of the observed picture. Firstly, it is obvious that here we cannot talk about the direct impact of geographical factors proper, since the considered isoglosses cross the largest natural obstacles (the Dinaric Mountains and the Balkans) and the most convenient lines of communication (the Sava and Danube valleys) at an angle of 90 degrees, and there are no more or less significant isoglosses that would coincide for a considerable distance, for example, with any of the above-mentioned mountain ranges. (Slavistics of the 19th century noted that in the same way, the impenetrable Velebit mountain range did not prevent the spread of the Chakavian population on both sides of it.) Secondly, it is possible that the oldest of the mentioned isoglosses reflect the direction of the migrations of the southern Slavs to the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. Third, it is likely that some of the isoglosses reflect old political boundaries between medieval Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Fourthly, in part of the territory one can see in the direction of the isoglosses a reflection of the opposition of the western (Catholic) regions to the eastern (Orthodox) ones, interspersed with Bogomil and then Muslim areas. Fifth, the migrations of the population in modern times can be figuratively imagined as ethnic rivers descending from high mountain ranges around the Adriatic-Danubian and Aegean-Danubian watershed (Dinaric Mountains, Balkans, etc.), primarily in search of better living conditions in the fertile lowlands. The isoglosses of linguistic phenomena also coincided with the boundaries of these migration flows. Thus, it turned out that the isoglosses do not go along these ridges, but cross them at right angles. Nevertheless, attention should be paid to the fact that the considered grouping of isoglosses in directions is rather observed in the Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, and only to a lesser extent in the Bulgarian and Macedonian dialect areas.

An important role in the history of South Slavic studies was played by the old hypothesis of V. Kopitar and F. Mikloshich, which suggested the division of the South Slavic languages ​​into two large groups: Slovene-Bulgarian, on the one hand, and Serbo-Croatian, on the other. Kopitar's favorite topic was his thesis that originally in Pannonia, Dacia, in the Balkans, in the southeastern part of the Alps, to the very coast of the Adriatic, a single language and homogeneous "Slavic" ("slovenische") population settled (Sclaveni of Procopius and Jordan ), one of the most important features whose language was the retention of nasal vowels, albeit in a modified form. This linguistic continuum (“homogeneous mass”) of monolingual and ethnographically homogeneous Slavs, stretching to the Black and Aegean Seas, was torn in the middle by the later penetration of Croats and Serbs, carriers of the “Illyrian” (in Kopitar’s terminology) dialect. Along with Kopitarov, there is also a more modern opinion that when reconstructing the South Slavic ethnogenesis, one should proceed not from time differences (early - later wave of migrations), but from the relationship between the center and the periphery in the course of the development of a new territory. The marginal regions of the South Slavic area, as peripheral, are at the same time zones of preservation of archaisms in relation to the innovation center, which can be considered Pannonia

Later, some other word-formation and lexical isoglosses were established, the passage of which generally confirms Yagichev's point of view. Thus Slovene is closer to Serbo-Croatian than to Bulgarian; transitions between them are gradual. According to Yagich, these data, along with the links between Slovene and West Slavic and Bulgarian and East Slavic, allow a direct correlation between the current grouping of the South Slavic languages ​​and the position of their ancestral dialects in Late Proto-Slavic.

Somewhat absolutizing his observations, Yagich believed that, in general, neither the latest linguistic development, nor our information about its early periods, allow us to draw sharp lines between the Slovene-Serbo-Croatian area, on the one hand, and (Macedonian-)Bulgarian, on the other. Transitions, in his opinion, are always gradual: the sound and formal features of Slovene pass into Serbo-Croatian, primarily in its western part, while the phonetic features of Serbo-Croatian continue in Bulgarian, namely in its western part. As a result, the outer links of this chain (Slovenian and Bulgarian) are further apart and demonstrate less dots contact with each other than between their nearest neighbours. However, areal studies carried out in the middle of the 20th century by P. Ivich made it possible to establish a bundle of predominantly genetic isoglosses that delimits the Western and Eastern Slavic areas and passes in western Bulgaria approximately along the line Vidin - Belogradchik - Berkovitsa Breznik - Radomir - Kyustendil studies] made it possible to determine the exact number and areas of passage of the isoglosses that make up this beam; their most important geographical groupings were obtained. To assess the antiquity and history of the formation of these isoglosses in western Bulgaria, the following features are essential:

a) From the point of view of historical phonetics, this bundle of isoglosses is made up of both the most ancient phenomena (reflexes *tj, *dj, then *o?, *b, *b), and the latest or relatively new ones (transition h > v / #);

b) The bundle of isoglosses often involves lexicalized single phonetic phenomena, the distribution of which, according to linguogeographical patterns, usually deviates from the main lines of demarcation that reflect the operation of sound laws;

c) Isoglosses are concentrated in the bundle extremely densely practically in one line and almost do not form transitional types.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Formation national languages. The study of individual Germanic languages. General characteristics Germanic languages. Comparison of the words of the Germanic languages ​​with the words of other Indo-European languages. Features of the morphological system of the ancient Germanic languages.

abstract, added 08/20/2011


Features of the study and grouping of languages ​​of the world based on the determination of family ties between them, the identification of language families. The use of dictionary correspondences for the genealogical classification of languages, the problem of the reality of intermediate proto-languages.

abstract, added 12/14/2010


The concept of classification of languages. Genealogical, typological and areal classification. The largest families of languages ​​in the world. Search for new types of classification. Indo-European family of languages. Language families of the peoples of Southeast Asia. The problem of the extinction of the languages ​​of the world.

abstract, added 01/20/2016


Consideration of a number of basic problems of general linguistics and the relationship between logical and grammatical categories languages. The study of the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen in a broad sense and on the material of a large number of languages ​​of various structures.

book, added 05/07/2009


Typological classification of Humboldt-Schlegel, stadial and quantitative, their features. Basic level classifications of languages: phonological, morphological, syntactic. Varieties of languages ​​according to these classifications.

term paper, added 06/14/2012


The structure of the word in the languages ​​of the world as the basis of morphological classification. Contensive typology of languages ​​in the works of M. Meshchaninov and G. Melnikov. Classification of languages ​​in the teachings of W. Humboldt, A. Schleicher. Typological classification according to J. Greenberg.

term paper, added 03/07/2012


Interaction of languages ​​and patterns of their development. Tribal dialects and the formation of related languages. Formation of the Indo-European family of languages. Education of languages ​​and nationalities. The formation of nationalities and their languages ​​in the past, at the present time.

term paper, added 04/25/2006


Classifications of world languages, their criteria and factors. The essence of the typological and genealogical classification of languages, their varieties and distinctive characteristics. Language families, branches and groups in the modern world. The emergence of the Indo-European languages.

test, added 02/03/2010


Comparative characteristics of the phonetic systems of the Avar and Arabic languages. The composition and system of vowels, consonants of these languages. Phonetic adaptation of Arabisms in the Avar language. Features of the use of stress in the studied languages.

thesis, added 07/28/2012


The formation of Romance languages ​​in the conditions of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the formation of barbarian states. Distribution zones and major changes in the field of phonetics. The emergence of supra-dialect literary languages. Modern classification Romance languages.

A subgroup of Slavic languages ​​spoken in the countries of the Balkan Peninsula: Bulgarian and Macedonian (eastern grouping), Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian (western grouping)

Bulgarian and Macedonian are part of the Balkan Language Union; compared to other Slavic languages, they have undergone a significant restructuring of the language system (lost the nominal declension, infinitive, developed the postpositive article and a number of other grammatical features)

On the basis of the Thessalonica dialects of Macedonia in the 2nd century, the most ancient Slavic literary idiom was formed - Old Slavonic language.

• - ABYSSINIAN LANGUAGES belong to the Semitic group of languages. , forming an independent branch, quite close to the Arabic ...

  Literary Encyclopedia

• - diverse to such an extent that they make mutual relations of individual tribes completely impossible, they represent, however, a certain commonality of character, in pronouns and numerals, and sometimes in separate ...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

• are a family of languages ​​spoken by the indigenous people of Australia. More than 600 A.I. are known, of which about 450 have almost completely disappeared ...
• - a family of languages ​​proposed by some linguists, uniting: 1) Austroasiatic languages, 2) Austronesian languages, 3) Tai-Kadai languages, including Thai languages ​​in ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Austroasiatic, a family of languages, the most important groups of which are the Mon-Khmer and Munda languages ​​...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Agau, Cushite languages ​​of northern Ethiopia: Aviya, Damot, Kemant, Kvara, Kayla, Khamir, Hamta, Bilin. Prior to the migration of the Semites from southern Arabia to A. Ya. almost all of modern northern Ethiopia spoke. Islets...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• - Guinean, a family of languages ​​spoken in the East of the Ivory Coast, in the south of Ghana, in Togo, Dahomey and the southwestern part of Nigeria. The number of speakers is about 34 million people. ...

  Great Soviet Encyclopedia

• is a family of South American Indian languages. Includes languages: Kaingang, Canela, Suya, etc. Distributed in the southeast of Brazil...
• - languages ​​spoken in Liberia, in the east of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, in Ghana, Togo, Benin and southwestern and eastern Nigeria. Subfamily of the Niger-Congo language family...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - a family of related languages ​​of the Sioux Indians. Includes languages, some of which are considered dialects: Dakota, Assiniboine, Omaha, Kansa, Iowa, Winnebago, Mandan, Hidatsa, the extinct languages ​​of Biloxi, Tutelo, and...

  Big encyclopedic dictionary

• - The group of languages ​​of the Indo-European family - "Western", as well as Hittite and Tocharian, in which the palatal series of guttural consonants reconstructed for the Indo-European proto-language is reflected in the same way as the velar Po...
• - The group of languages ​​​​of the Indo-European family - "Eastern", in which the palatal series of guttural consonants reconstructed for the Indo-European proto-language is reflected differently from the velar series, usually as spirants: ...

  Handbook of etymology and historical lexicology

• - A group of related languages ​​which, together with the Dardic, Nuristani and Iranian languages, forms the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages...

  Handbook of etymology and historical lexicology

• - See langues agglomerantes...

  Five-language dictionary of linguistic terms

• - ...

  Dictionary of Russian Argo

• - Secret languages ​​used by various closed social groups: wandering merchants, beggars, artisans - otkhodniks, etc. Secret languages ​​are usually distinguished by a set of words and a specific system ...

  Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

"South Slavic languages" in books

Languages