Siarhiej Zaprudski
Belarusian State University, History of Belarusian Language, Department Member
- Linguistics, Contact Linguistics, Language contact, Belarusian language, Variationist sociolinguistics, Language Variation and Change, and 52 moreHistorical Linguistics, Slavic Linguistics, Slavic Historical Linguistics, Contact Linguistics Language Contact and Sociolinguistic Variation, Diachronic Linguistics (Or Historical Linguistics), Slavic Studies, Historiography of Linguistics, History of Slavistics, Central European history, Slavonic Languages, Ukrainian Studies, Sociolinguistics, Belarusian Studies, Slavic Languages, History of Linguistics, Ukrainian Language, Xix Century, XVIII century, история России XVIII в., Slavistics, History Of Russian Language, Old Church Slavonic, Russian and Slavonic Studies, Language Standardization, Language Standardisation, Standard Language Ideology, Normative Linguistics, Language Ideology, Language Ideologies, Sociolinguistics of orthography, Linguistic purism, Linguistic Prescriptivism, Code switching and code mixing, Accomodation Theory, Sociolinguistic Variation, Surzhyk, Slavic Philology, Mixed Languages, Language and Social Interaction, Audience design, Style shifting, Slawistik, Contact-Induced Language Change, Fieldwork in linguistics, Loanwords, Language contact & change, Language Change, Languages and Linguistics, History of the Slavic languages, History and epistemology of Soviet linguistics, Belarusian History, Slavic Languages and Literatures, Bilingualism and Multilingualism, and Glottonymyedit
- gggedit
У артыкуле разглядаецца ўнёсак расійскага лінгвіста Канстанціна Калайдовіча (1792–1832) у вывучэнне беларускай мовы. Ён разумеў пад беларускай мовай пераважна культурна значны старажытны ўсходнеславянскі пісьмовы стыль, які меў змешаную... more
У артыкуле разглядаецца ўнёсак расійскага лінгвіста Канстанціна Калайдовіча (1792–1832) у вывучэнне беларускай мовы. Ён разумеў пад беларускай мовай пераважна культурна значны старажытны ўсходнеславянскі пісьмовы стыль, які меў змешаную прыроду. Нягледзячы на тое, што такі падыход не адпавядае сучаснай навуцы, яго працы, найперш артыкул “Пра беларускую мову” (1822), пракладалі шлях для наступных даследчыкаў сапраўднай беларускай мовы. The article deals with the contribution of the Russian philologist Konstantin Kalajdovic (1792–1832) to the study of the Belarusian language. He understood the Belarusian language mainly as a culturally significant ancient East Slavic writing style, which had a mixed nature. Despite the fact that such an approach does not correspond to the modern science, his works – first of all the article of 1822‘On the Belarusian language’– paved the way for subsequent researchers of the ‘real’ Belarusian language.
Research Interests:
This chapter of the book "Slovanské jazyky v pohybu" ("Slavic languages in motion") deals with the features of Belarusian writers’ discourse about the Belarusian language in late 1940s to the 1970s based on writings of poet M. Lužanin and... more
This chapter of the book "Slovanské jazyky v pohybu" ("Slavic languages in motion") deals with the features of Belarusian writers’ discourse about the Belarusian language in late 1940s to the 1970s based on writings of poet M. Lužanin and literary critic U. Jurevič. It is stated that raison d’être of writers’ linguistics was to prove the need to enrich the resources of the Belarusian by using foremost the folk language in fiction and essays. The writers accepted the ruling thesis of that time about the favorable influence of the Russian language on the Belarusian; however, they tended to diminish its meaning, including when they identified other Slavic languages (the Czech, Slovak) as the source for enrichment (Lužanin). Other authors (Jurevič) were not bothered by such influence. In Lužanin’s notes about the orthography an underlying belief was found that Belarusian linguists had not been able to reform it well
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
У артыкуле на матэрыяле беларускага перакладу 1930 года рамана «Бур'ян» украінскага празаіка Андрэя Галаўко аналізуюцца праяўленні ўкраінскага лексічнага ўплыву на беларускую мову. Асаблівая ўвага звернута на з'явы, выкліканыя лексічным... more
У артыкуле на матэрыяле беларускага перакладу 1930 года рамана «Бур'ян» украінскага празаіка Андрэя Галаўко аналізуюцца праяўленні ўкраінскага лексічнага ўплыву на беларускую мову. Асаблівая ўвага звернута на з'явы, выкліканыя лексічным пераносам і ўзнікненнем аказіяльных адпаведнікаў. Вылучаны факты станоўчага і адмоўнага вынікаў дзеяння такога ўплыву. Ключавыя словы: перакладазнаўства; Андрэй Галаўко; пераклад з украінскай мовы; пераклад на беларускую мову; лексічны перанос; аказіянальны адпаведнік.
Research Interests:
The article attempts to identify the gentry variety of the written Belarusian standard language, as based on scientific literature, Janka Kupala’s collection «The little flute» (1908) and his play «Paulinka» (1912). In the first third of... more
The article attempts to identify the gentry variety of the written Belarusian standard language, as based on scientific literature, Janka Kupala’s collection «The little flute» (1908) and his play «Paulinka» (1912). In the first third of the 20th century in Belarus there was a large number of the gentry who cultivated the Belarusian gentry speech, the Belarusian peasant speech, the Polish language in its regional form and various intermediate varieties, as well as the Russian language depending on communication situation and other circumstances. When interpreting the linguistic material of the Belarusian standard language of the first third of the 20th century the following set of reference points is used: the folk (peasant) speech, Belarusian literary language of the 19th – early 20th centuries, old Belarusian written language, Russian, Polish and Ukrainian standard languages. The lack of such a reference point as the gentry variety (cultural koine) has negative consequences since an important channel of entry of many Polonisms and diverse cultural lexis into the Belarusian standard language is not taken into account. The Polish language was more important in the early stage of Janka Kupala’s work than is commonly believed; Polish influences are recorded not only in vocabulary, but also in grammar. The gentry variant of the written Belarusian language was used as a certain register, which gave a peculiar elite flavour to the language of certain fragments of artistic works or those entire works, or was sometimes perceived as a representative of the Belarusian standard language in general
Research Interests:
This paper deals with “Belarusian” passages of Pavel Josef Safarik’s book The History of the Slavic Language and Literature by All Vernaculars (Buda, 1826) and tries to include them in the context of Belarusian studies in the first third... more
This paper deals with “Belarusian” passages of Pavel Josef Safarik’s book The History of the Slavic Language and Literature by All Vernaculars (Buda, 1826) and tries to include them in the context of Belarusian studies in the first third of the 19th century. The set of used and unused sources is assessed, the ways of adoption of information about Belarusian are discussed (Safarik explicitly refers to the works of Adelung, Bandtkie, Rakowiecki, Grech, Kalaidovich). It is ironic that Safarik cites Kalaidovich’s article, in which the term “Belarusian language” was used for the first time as a title of a publication in Ukrainian bibliography. It is stated that Safarik owes Rakowiecki, Kalaidovich and Grech his statements about the history of the Belarusian language. However, when defining the area of Belarusian, he first of all relied on the broad understanding of “Belarus” by geographer Georg Hassel, outlined in his Weimar book Vollstandige und neueste Erdbeschreibung des Russischen Reichs in Europa nebst Po...
Research Interests:
The article deals with major similar things in ‘The Serbian Dictionary’ by Vuk Karadžić of 1818 and ‘A Dictionary of the Belarusian Language’ by Ivan Nasovič of 1870. When discussing things in common, we deal with these lexicographical... more
The article deals with major similar things in ‘The Serbian Dictionary’ by Vuk Karadžić of 1818 and ‘A Dictionary of the Belarusian Language’ by Ivan Nasovič of 1870. When discussing things in common, we deal with these lexicographical works as dictionaries of national importance that were based on the vernacular. We evaluate the authors’ basis on oral sources and inner vs outer incentives in preparing these works, compare their personal background, and investigate how they treated borrowed words. Unlike Karadžić, Nasovič had mostly scientific objectives when working on and publishing his dictionary, he did not have a goal of building a literary language and its emancipation, he did not have to deal with graphic and orthographic regulations, etc.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
У артыкуле асвятляюцца пытанні, звязаныя з даследаваннем беларусістычнай лінгвістычнай спадчыны Яна Чачота. У прыватнасці, абмяркоўваюцца матывы лінгвістычнай дзейнасці Я. Чачота, выкарыстанне ім назвы «крывіцкая мова», меркаванні пра... more
У артыкуле асвятляюцца пытанні, звязаныя з даследаваннем беларусістычнай лінгвістычнай спадчыны Яна Чачота. У прыватнасці, абмяркоўваюцца матывы лінгвістычнай дзейнасці Я. Чачота, выкарыстанне ім назвы «крывіцкая мова», меркаванні пра меладычнасць беларускай мовы, месца беларускай мовы сярод суседніх славянскіх моў, сацыялінгвістычныя назіранні і памылковыя сцверджанні.
Research Interests:
Рассматривается процесс зарождения лингвистических купаловедения и коласоведения как самостоятельных направлений исследования. Отмечено, что изучение языка произведений классиков началось с попыток оценить его как важную составляющую... more
Рассматривается процесс зарождения лингвистических купаловедения и коласоведения как самостоятельных направлений исследования. Отмечено, что изучение языка произведений классиков началось с попыток оценить его как важную составляющую языка белорусов в целом и иллюстрировать историю становления письменной формы белорусского литературного языка. Указано, что на протяжении анализируемого периода преемственность между исследованиями разного времени формировалась с большим трудом: в высказываниях литературоведов послевоенных лет преобладали такие темы, как «Янка Купала и Якуб Колас – создатели белорусского литературного языка» и «Язык произведений Янки Купалы и Якуба Коласа в его связях с народным языком»; постепенно в работах лингвистов язык произведений писателей стал пониматься как классический, важный с точки зрения как истории белорусского языка, так и современности. Поскольку развитие лингвистических купаловедения и коласоведения происходило преимущественно в рамках становления ориентированной на современный язык нормативной белорусской лингвистики, изучение языка классиков в качестве современного имело четкий приоритет. Указано, что постепенно в работах о языке произведений Янки Купалы и Якуба Коласа усваивались выработанные в рамках белорусской синхронической лингвистики категории и подходы, такие как квалификация определенных слов диалектизмами, русизмами, полонизмами и др. Сделан вывод о том, что принципиальным моментом развития коласоведения и купаловедения в послевоенное время было имплицитное выделение в их творчестве двух периодов – «начального» и «основного», – в рамках которых происходило приобретение классиками надлежащей квалификации (первый период) и формирование наиболее значимых характеристик их языка (второй период).
= The article deals with the origin of linguistic study of Kupala and Kolas’ works as an independent research field. The first attempts to study the language of the classics evaluated their language as an important component of the national language as a whole; they also illustrated the history of the Belarusian language in its written form. It was very difficult to achieve continuity between studies of different times during the analysed period. In the post-war years the dominant subjects of literary scholars’ studies were «Kupala and Kolas as the creators of the Belarusian literary language» and «The connection of the language in works of Kupala and Kolas with the vernacular language». Over time, the linguists began to define the language of the writers as a classic one, which was important both for the history of the Belarusian language and for the present time. The approach to study the classics’ language as a modern one was a priority because the formation of Kupala and Kolas linguistic study was happening mostly during the development of the standard Belarusian language study that was modern language focused. The categories and approaches formulated by the Belarusian synchronic linguistics – for example defining certain words as dialectisms, Russicisms, Polonisms, etc. – were adopted in the studies about the language of Kupala and Kolas over time. It was an essential aspect of Kupala and Kolas study evolution in the post-war period to implicitly distinguish two periods in their creative work, a beginning period and main period; the classics were mastering their skill during the first one and were forging major features of their language during the second one.
= The article deals with the origin of linguistic study of Kupala and Kolas’ works as an independent research field. The first attempts to study the language of the classics evaluated their language as an important component of the national language as a whole; they also illustrated the history of the Belarusian language in its written form. It was very difficult to achieve continuity between studies of different times during the analysed period. In the post-war years the dominant subjects of literary scholars’ studies were «Kupala and Kolas as the creators of the Belarusian literary language» and «The connection of the language in works of Kupala and Kolas with the vernacular language». Over time, the linguists began to define the language of the writers as a classic one, which was important both for the history of the Belarusian language and for the present time. The approach to study the classics’ language as a modern one was a priority because the formation of Kupala and Kolas linguistic study was happening mostly during the development of the standard Belarusian language study that was modern language focused. The categories and approaches formulated by the Belarusian synchronic linguistics – for example defining certain words as dialectisms, Russicisms, Polonisms, etc. – were adopted in the studies about the language of Kupala and Kolas over time. It was an essential aspect of Kupala and Kolas study evolution in the post-war period to implicitly distinguish two periods in their creative work, a beginning period and main period; the classics were mastering their skill during the first one and were forging major features of their language during the second one.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Уводзіны Н ягледзячы на тое, што Я. Карскі з'яўляецца айцом-заснавальнікам бе-ларускага мовазнаўства, многія аспекты яго дзейнасці вывучаны яшчэ недастаткова. Да такіх належыць і тэма даследавання ім польскага ўздзеяння на беларускую... more
Уводзіны Н ягледзячы на тое, што Я. Карскі з'яўляецца айцом-заснавальнікам бе-ларускага мовазнаўства, многія аспекты яго дзейнасці вывучаны яшчэ недастаткова. Да такіх належыць і тэма даследавання ім польскага ўздзеяння на беларускую мову. З нагоды прадстаўлення заснавальнікам беларускай філалогіі Беларусі ў расійскім навуковым друку даследчыкі канстатуюць, што ён імкнуўся падкрэ-сліць самабытнасць беларускай гістарычнай і культурна-моўнай традыцыі. Адначасова, сцвярджаецца, трымаючыся пастулатаў школы «заходнерусізму», ён гэта рабіў у межах агульнарускага кантэксту [7, с. 17, 22]. У рамках гэтага кантэксту даўнія гістарычныя сувязі Беларусі з Польшчай ацэньваліся амаль выключна негатыўна, а беларускі адраджэнцкі рух трактаваўся як «польская інтрыга», інспіраваная пераважна асобамі, выхаванымі на польскай мове ў старашляхецкім асяроддзі і традыцыях [4, с. 140]. Я. Карскі выказаў свае думкі пра запазычанні з польскай мовы ў першым томе «Беларусаў» у 1903 г., калі ў расійскай навуцы захоўвала актуальнасць пытанне аб польскім складніку ў беларускай мове. Аднак гэта было не толькі акадэмічнае, але і ў значнай ступені грамадска-палітычнае зацікаўленне. У нядаўна апублікаваным аглядзе «Вывучэнне паланізмаў у беларускім мовазнаўстве і стаўленне да іх (ХІХ ст.-1930-я гг.)» М. Свістунова звярнула ўвагу на крытычныя адносіны аўтара «Беларусаў» да наяўнасці шматлікіх польскіх запазычанняў у старабеларускай пісьмовай мове. Што да паланіз-маў у вусным беларускім маўленні канца ХІХ-пачатку ХХ ст., то, паводле аўтаркі артыкула, Я. Карскі лічыў, што народнай гаворцы «паланізмы не былі ўласцівы» [9, с. 42]. У пятым раздзеле першага тома «Беларусаў» аўтар падзяліў паланізмы на чатыры групы, вылучыўшы 65 «чыста польскіх слоў» і 84 словы-паланізмы, запазычаныя шляхтай. Акрамя таго Я. Карскі вылучыў 182 агульнавядомыя іншамоўныя запазычанні, для якіх польская мова магла быць пасрэдніцай, а таксама 108 паланізмаў, вядомых «каталіцкай Беларусі і галоўным чынам сярод беларускай шляхты» [9, с. 42]. Як бачым, за аснову класіфікацыі па-ланізмаў Я. Карскі ўзяў крытэрыі іх паходжання (уласна польскага або не) і ступені адаптаванасці беларускай мовай
Research Interests:
The studies of the language of Ciška Hartny, a writer and a public figure (1887-1937), have a long tradition in Belarusian humanities. However, different circumstances have made these linguistic studies ambiguous. On the one hand, in the... more
The studies of the language of Ciška Hartny, a writer and a public figure (1887-1937), have a long tradition in Belarusian humanities. However, different circumstances have made these linguistic studies ambiguous. On the one hand, in the 1920s Ciška Hartny was a writer whose language was studied most intensively. Between the 1920s and 2010s several articles were published about the language used in his works. A big corpus was scientifically adopted. Some remarks on Ciška Hartny's language was included in the academic History of the Belarusian Literary Language (1968) and in two editions of the University handbook on the history of the Belarusian literary language (1963 and 1984). A few years ago an ambitious publication by Alieś Kaŭrus made an attempt to revise modern opinions that stem from 1950s and 1960s. On the other hand, the studies of Ciška Hartny's linguistic heritage have not been consistent and are quite fragmented. During the mid-1930s and 1950s no studies were conducted on the writer's language. This is common practice when researches do not consider the findings of predecessors. Until the present day there has been no incorporation into Belarusian linguistics of Jazep Liosik's fundamental study of the late 1920s. The relevant methodology to study Hartny's language as a part of the history of the Belarusian literary language is still absent. We observe a tendency to this day to evaluate Ciška Hartny's language as a (potential) part of the modern literary language rather than from the viewpoint of the Belarusian literary language's history. Keywords: Ciška Hartny, language of belles lettres, history of the Belarusian literary language Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Bia?orutenistyczne http://bialorutenistyka.umcs.pl
Research Interests:
The article deals with the history of usage of adjectives with the root asob in the Belarusian literary language of the 1910–30s. They form two paronymic sets in the modern Belarusian: asabovy – asabisty – asablivy and asobny – asoby. We... more
The article deals with the history of usage of adjectives with the root asob in the Belarusian literary language of the 1910–30s. They form two paronymic sets in the modern Belarusian: asabovy – asabisty – asablivy and asobny – asoby. We come to the conclusion that the semantic opposition that became a foundation for the formation of these sets had not been fully formed by the 1930s. The word asabovy was often used as a doublet of asabisty, and the lexeme asabisty – in the meaning of asablivy. The use of the forms asablivy, asobny, asoby was more or less stable, however, in contrast to the modern usage, in the 1920s the forms asabisty, asabovy, and asobny were used in the meaning ‘different from usual’ together with the word asablivy. The deficient differentiation of the words asabovy, asabisty, asablivy and asobny did not lead to the corruption of the meaning of the utterances. Polish and Ukrainian influenced the composition of this word group inclusive with derivative nouns and adverbs. The words asabovy, asabistasć, and apparently asobnasć were borrowed from these languages; and the lexeme asobienny, borrowed from Russian, later went out of usage. Several circumstances, including the interchangeability of the forms asabovy and asabisty in the 1920s; the use of the forms asabovy, asabisty, asobny by the best writers in the non-typical meanings for the modern practice; the complexity to define exact meanings in a range of usage, as well as other circumstances bring us to the conclusion that the forms asabovy, asabisty, asablivy, asobny were word-formation and/or lexical and semantic variants of the same word in the 1930s rather than independent words, with their intrinsic strict meanings.
Рассматривается история использования в белорусском литературном языке 1910–30-х гг. прилагательных с корнем асоб-, которые в современном языке образуют два паронимических ряда: асабовы – асабісты – асаблівы и асобны – асобы. Сделан вывод, что до 1930-х гг. семантические противопоставления, которые дали основание для возникновения этих рядов, еще окончательно не сформировались. Слово асабовы часто употреблялось как дублет современного асабісты, а лексема асабісты использовалась наряду с прилагательным асаблівы. Употребление форм асаблівы, асобны, асобы в основном было стабильным, однако в отличие от современной практики для выражения значения ‘не такой, как все’ в 1920-х гг., кроме слова асаблівы, использовались также лексемы асабісты, асабовы и асобны. Недостаточно дифференцированное употребление слов асабовы, асабісты, асаблівы и
асобны тем не менее не приводило к искажению смысла. На состав соответствующей группы слов (совокупно с производными от них существительными и наречиями) влияли польский и украинский языки. Слова
асабовы, асабістасць и, вероятно, асобнасць были заимствованы из этих языков, а заимствованная из русского языка лексема асобенны позже вышла из употребления. Взаимозаменяемость в 1920-х гг. форм асабовы и асабісты, ис-пользование форм асабовы, асабісты, асобны в нетрадиционных для современной практики значениях самыми лучшими белорусскими писателями, трудность в определении для ряда употреблений точных значений и другие обстоятельства свидетельствуют о том, что формы асабовы, асабісты, асаблівы, асобны до 1930-х гг. были еще не столько самостоятельными словами с присущими им строго определенными значениями, сколько словообразовательными и/или лексико-семантическими вариантами одного слова
Рассматривается история использования в белорусском литературном языке 1910–30-х гг. прилагательных с корнем асоб-, которые в современном языке образуют два паронимических ряда: асабовы – асабісты – асаблівы и асобны – асобы. Сделан вывод, что до 1930-х гг. семантические противопоставления, которые дали основание для возникновения этих рядов, еще окончательно не сформировались. Слово асабовы часто употреблялось как дублет современного асабісты, а лексема асабісты использовалась наряду с прилагательным асаблівы. Употребление форм асаблівы, асобны, асобы в основном было стабильным, однако в отличие от современной практики для выражения значения ‘не такой, как все’ в 1920-х гг., кроме слова асаблівы, использовались также лексемы асабісты, асабовы и асобны. Недостаточно дифференцированное употребление слов асабовы, асабісты, асаблівы и
асобны тем не менее не приводило к искажению смысла. На состав соответствующей группы слов (совокупно с производными от них существительными и наречиями) влияли польский и украинский языки. Слова
асабовы, асабістасць и, вероятно, асобнасць были заимствованы из этих языков, а заимствованная из русского языка лексема асобенны позже вышла из употребления. Взаимозаменяемость в 1920-х гг. форм асабовы и асабісты, ис-пользование форм асабовы, асабісты, асобны в нетрадиционных для современной практики значениях самыми лучшими белорусскими писателями, трудность в определении для ряда употреблений точных значений и другие обстоятельства свидетельствуют о том, что формы асабовы, асабісты, асаблівы, асобны до 1930-х гг. были еще не столько самостоятельными словами с присущими им строго определенными значениями, сколько словообразовательными и/или лексико-семантическими вариантами одного слова
Research Interests:
The article deals with the practice of language editing of some Belarusian-language books of 1920s. The practice to qualify the linguistic usage of 1920s according to the modern linguistic standards, as often stated in Belarusian... more
The article deals with the practice of language editing of some Belarusian-language books of 1920s. The practice to qualify the linguistic usage of 1920s according to the modern linguistic standards, as often stated in Belarusian scientific papers, is seen limited at the heuristic level. We discuss the social and cultural context of language editing, pointing out such factors as the social status of the Belarusian, the level of national identity, the presence of some incumbents of literary language speakers, the level of development of the Belarusian literature and literary critics, the corpus of Belarusian texts, the stage of maturity of the Belarusian standard language. We make a conclusion that intense editing happened from mid 1920s, at the end of 1920s it may have reached its peak. Language editing in the Soviet Belarus was at some features different from that in the Western Belarus. In some cases (editing of J. Stankevic) edits were obviously subjective, they included groundless invasion into the original text and were accompanied with a linguistic commentary. The edits reflected the desire to follow the general process of codification of the Belarusian literary language, already defined in vocabularies and grammar books. But they also mirrored subjective views of certain editors towards certain linguistic cases, their understanding of the ways to standardize the language and their understanding of the linguistic ideal. Обсуждается практика языкового редактирования некоторых изданных в 1920-е гг. белорусскоязычных книг. Часто используемая в белорусских научных работах практика квалификации языкового узуса 1920-х гг. посредством ее соотнесения с современными языковыми нормами признается ограниченной в эвристическом плане. Обсуждается социально-культурный кон-текст языкового редактирования. Делается вывод о том, что интенсивные языковые правки практиковались с середины 1920-х гг., к концу 1920-х гг. они могли достигать своей кульминации. В отдельных случаях (редактирование Я. Станкевича) правки делались на очевидной субъективной основе, включали необоснованное вторжение в авторский текст и сопровождались лингвистическим комментированием. В проведенных правках отразилось как следование представленной в словарях и грамматиках кодификации белорусского литературного языка, так и взгляды конкретных редакторов на конкретные языковые явления, а также понимание ими способов нормализации белорусского языка и своеобразного языкового идеала. Ключевые слова: языковое редактирование; образцовый язык; формирование литературного языка; история литературного языка; культура речи; языковой идеал; языковая идеология; литературная норма; нормированный язык; социальная практика; лингвистическая рефлексия.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The article represents an explicate commentary to Tacciana Ramza’s article “Ambivalence of Kandrat Krapiva’s attitude towards the issues of the Belarusian language speech culture”. On the one hand, the author considers Ramza’s effort... more
The article represents an explicate commentary to Tacciana Ramza’s article “Ambivalence of Kandrat Krapiva’s attitude towards the issues of the Belarusian language speech culture”. On the one hand, the author considers Ramza’s effort productive to explain the ambivalence of Krapiva’s attitude towards the speech culture by his high bureaucratic position in the Belarusian linguistic hierarchy. On the other hand, the author brings out some deficiencies in the article: the lack of data use, the incomplete familiarity with the bibliography, stating non-existent oppositions, the disregard of the historic research method, etc.
Research Interests:
The article deals with papers published in the 1960-1980s in Belarus to facilitate a more precise methodology for the historical study of the Belarusian literary language of the interbellum period. The papers are still present scientific... more
The article deals with papers published in the 1960-1980s in Belarus to facilitate a more precise methodology for the historical study of the Belarusian literary language of the interbellum period. The papers are still present scientific interest nowadays. The article focuses on the correlation of syncronic and diachronic analisys in these papers and their applicability for different areas of modern research. The works of I.K. Hiermanovic and L.M. Sakun introduced a de facto taboo period of the 1920-1930s into scientific use. Hiermanovic’s papers were all manysided, deep and thoroughly elaborated. The authour drives to the conclusion that the collection of authours from the BSSR Academy of Sciences on the history of the new Belarusian literary language, as well as A.J. Bachankou’s monograph shaped a certain “methodology canon” for the language research of the interbellum period. Among other, the canon set evaluation for the literary language of the 1920-1930s based on the norms of the 1950-1970s, which resulted in retrospective projecting. The adoption of such a method did not have clear negative meaning in Hiermanovic’s works of the early 1960s which were aimed at synchrony; we can even consider this approach as an achievement taking into account the prevalence of arbitrary politically-bound non-objective statements in scientific works in the 1930-1950s. However, the same approach, which was based on synchrony, looks inadequate for the research of the Belarusian literary language of the 1920-1930s in the above mentioned multi-authoured collection which was a study of the language history. The interbellum period gradually became no more a modern language period, but rather a historic one. The authour states that the greater the distance between the interbellum period and the time of new studies of the 1970-1980s grew, the more the synchronic approach was turning into an insufficient methodology for the research on the literary language of the 1920-1930s.
Research Interests:
The paper deals with the origin and development of the scientific discourse about the Belarusian language in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. The following topics are discussed: 1. The identification of Belarusian after the... more
The paper deals with the origin and development of the scientific discourse about the Belarusian language in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. The following topics are discussed:
1. The identification of Belarusian after the acquaintance of Russian scholars with Belarusian and Ukrainian literary monuments. M. Kachenovsky, V. Sopikov, E. Bolkhovitinov, S. -B. Linde, K. Kalajdovich, N. Grech, N. Bakhtin. The language of some Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments was called Belarusian in the Moscow state even back in the 17th century; employees of the Posolsky prikaz in Moscow widely used the term “Belarusian writing”. The use of the term ‘the Belarusian language’ in the early 19th century as a common name for the language used in medieval Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments had serious consequences. On the one hand, the attention of Russian scholars was drawn to the old nature of Belarusian. On the other hand, the written Belarusian was qualified as based on linguistically varied sources at that time. In the first quarter of the 19th century indications on “mixed” character of Belarusian were a part of philological reflection about layers of borrowings in Belarusian rather than had estimating nature.
2. The oral Belarusian language learning. K. Kalajdovich, Z. Dalenha-Chadakoŭski (Dolega-Chodakowski).
3. Attempts to refuse the term ‘Belarusian’. P. Keppen, J. Lelewel, M. Kachenovsky, E. Bolkhovitinov. Reasons of disapproval of the term ‘Belarusian’. The prevalence of terms like ‘Lithuanian-Ruthenian’, ‘Polish-Ruthenian’.
4. The use of glottonyms: руский, руський (руськой), język ruski, белорусский (белорусской), кривичский, руско-кривицкий, литовско-руский, польско-руский, польско-славянский, литовский, rusko-litewski, rusko-polski etc.
5. The fixing of the term ‘русский язык’ meaning. F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn).
6. Glorification tendencies of Belarusian. K. Kalajdovich, O. Senkovsky, D. Yazykov, P. Špileŭski (Shpilevsky). The qualification of Belarusian as some stage in the development of proto-Slavic language or some previous stage in the development of Russian. The corresponding mythology was based on poor knowledge of that time in the area of comparative and historic linguistics and the written heritage of the Eastern Slavs. It was also due to the awareness that the standard Russian was formed comparatively late.
7. The understanding of the Belarusian language as a “mixed” one. N. Polevoj, F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn), N. Grech, O. Bodyansky. The indications on the “mixed” nature of the Old Belarusian language were shifted gradually from the level of historic and linguistic reflections to the level of sociolinguistic generalizations and later turned into the general scornful evaluation of Belarusian.
1. The identification of Belarusian after the acquaintance of Russian scholars with Belarusian and Ukrainian literary monuments. M. Kachenovsky, V. Sopikov, E. Bolkhovitinov, S. -B. Linde, K. Kalajdovich, N. Grech, N. Bakhtin. The language of some Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments was called Belarusian in the Moscow state even back in the 17th century; employees of the Posolsky prikaz in Moscow widely used the term “Belarusian writing”. The use of the term ‘the Belarusian language’ in the early 19th century as a common name for the language used in medieval Belarusian and Ukrainian monuments had serious consequences. On the one hand, the attention of Russian scholars was drawn to the old nature of Belarusian. On the other hand, the written Belarusian was qualified as based on linguistically varied sources at that time. In the first quarter of the 19th century indications on “mixed” character of Belarusian were a part of philological reflection about layers of borrowings in Belarusian rather than had estimating nature.
2. The oral Belarusian language learning. K. Kalajdovich, Z. Dalenha-Chadakoŭski (Dolega-Chodakowski).
3. Attempts to refuse the term ‘Belarusian’. P. Keppen, J. Lelewel, M. Kachenovsky, E. Bolkhovitinov. Reasons of disapproval of the term ‘Belarusian’. The prevalence of terms like ‘Lithuanian-Ruthenian’, ‘Polish-Ruthenian’.
4. The use of glottonyms: руский, руський (руськой), język ruski, белорусский (белорусской), кривичский, руско-кривицкий, литовско-руский, польско-руский, польско-славянский, литовский, rusko-litewski, rusko-polski etc.
5. The fixing of the term ‘русский язык’ meaning. F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn).
6. Glorification tendencies of Belarusian. K. Kalajdovich, O. Senkovsky, D. Yazykov, P. Špileŭski (Shpilevsky). The qualification of Belarusian as some stage in the development of proto-Slavic language or some previous stage in the development of Russian. The corresponding mythology was based on poor knowledge of that time in the area of comparative and historic linguistics and the written heritage of the Eastern Slavs. It was also due to the awareness that the standard Russian was formed comparatively late.
7. The understanding of the Belarusian language as a “mixed” one. N. Polevoj, F. Bulgarin (Bułharyn), N. Grech, O. Bodyansky. The indications on the “mixed” nature of the Old Belarusian language were shifted gradually from the level of historic and linguistic reflections to the level of sociolinguistic generalizations and later turned into the general scornful evaluation of Belarusian.
Research Interests: History of Linguistics, Russian History, Polish Studies, Slavic Historical Linguistics, East Slavic Historical Linguistics, and 13 moreRussian Language, Historiography of Linguistics, Slavic Studies, Belarusian History, Xix Century, Lithuanian Studies, Russian and Slavonic Studies, History Of Russian Language, Old Church Slavonic, Slavic Philology, Belarusian language, Ukrainian Language, East Slavs, and History of Slavistics
У першай чвэрці ХІХ ст. вывучэнне беларускай мовы знаходзілася яшчэ на эмбрыянальным этапе. У гэты час яшчэ толькі разгортваецца параўнальна-гістарычнае мовазнаўства, адсутнічаюць якія-небудзь больш ці менш доўгія апісанні беларускай... more
У першай чвэрці ХІХ ст. вывучэнне беларускай мовы знаходзілася яшчэ на эмбрыянальным этапе. У гэты час яшчэ толькі разгортваецца параўнальна-гістарычнае мовазнаўства, адсутнічаюць якія-небудзь больш ці менш доўгія апісанні беларускай мовы, справа часцей абмяжоўваецца нешматлікімі кароткімі выказваннямі адносна яе характару. Беларуссю лічылася найперш ці нават толькі Магілёўшчына і Віцебшчына, а сам выраз беларуская мова ўяўляе сабой амаль поўную навіну. Вывучэнне беларускай мовы ў гэты час часта яшчэ інтуітыўнае, “атамарнае”, паміж рознымі публікацыямі і аўтарамі існуе слабая сувязь або яе ўвогуле не назіраецца. Адпаведна ў гэты час яшчэ цяжка чакаць нейкіх рэгулярных падыходаў да аналізу беларускай мовы, якія давалі б магчымасць гаварыць пра нейкія сфарміраваныя навуковыя школы, разуметыя ў сучасных тэрмінах.
Тым не менш і ў гэты пачатковы перыяд у вывучэнні беларускай мовы могуць быць вылучаны пэўныя 'канстанты', якія дазваляюць паглядзець на складаны працэс здабывання навуковых ведаў аб беларускай мове больш дыферэнцыявана, убачыць у ім нейкія больш ці менш акрэсленыя тэндэнцыі. Такой канстантай для першай чвэрці ХІХ ст. з’яўляецца ўдзел у фарміраванні навуковага дыскурсу аб беларускай мове людзей, якія нарадзіліся на Харкаўшчыне і/або былі звязаны з харкаўскімі навучальнымі ўстановамі.
Так, у 1810 г. аб існаванні беларускай гаворкі «славяна-рускай» мовы згадваецца ў выдадзенай у Харкаве працы Івана Арнатоўскага «Найноўшы нарыс правілаў расійскай граматыкі».
У 1810-я гг. былы гадаванец Харкаўскага калегіума, тагачасны прафесар Маскоўскага універсітэта Міхаіл Качаноўскі апублікаваў свой прынцыповы для ініцыявання зацікаўлення беларускай мовай артыкул, а таксама ўвёў новы тэрмін для яе абазначэння.
У сваіх надрукаваных у Харкаве ў 1816 г. “Лістах з Маларасіі” студэнт Харкаўскага універсітэта Аляксей Лёўшын зрабіў заўвагі наконт уплыву на гараднянскую гаворку тамтэйшых беларусаў. У першай палове 1820-х гадоў пытанне адпаведнага лінгвоніма для беларускай мовы абмяркоўваў колішні выпускнік Харкаўскага ўніверсітэта Пётр Кёпен.
У пачатку 1820-х гадоў у зборы старажытных беларускіх пісьмовых помнікаў, арганізацыйных захадах для ўстанаўлення паўночна-заходняй мяжы беларускай мовы ўдзельнічаў выпускнік Харкаўскага ўніверсітэта 1810 года, прафесар Віленскага ўніверсітэта Іван Лабойка.
Мэтай гэтага артыкула з’яўляецца ахарактарызаваць уклад кожнай з пералічаных асоб у вывучэнне беларускай мовы, ацаніць сукупныя дасягненні прадстаўнікоў так званай “харкаўскай школы” ў гэтай галіне.
Тым не менш і ў гэты пачатковы перыяд у вывучэнні беларускай мовы могуць быць вылучаны пэўныя 'канстанты', якія дазваляюць паглядзець на складаны працэс здабывання навуковых ведаў аб беларускай мове больш дыферэнцыявана, убачыць у ім нейкія больш ці менш акрэсленыя тэндэнцыі. Такой канстантай для першай чвэрці ХІХ ст. з’яўляецца ўдзел у фарміраванні навуковага дыскурсу аб беларускай мове людзей, якія нарадзіліся на Харкаўшчыне і/або былі звязаны з харкаўскімі навучальнымі ўстановамі.
Так, у 1810 г. аб існаванні беларускай гаворкі «славяна-рускай» мовы згадваецца ў выдадзенай у Харкаве працы Івана Арнатоўскага «Найноўшы нарыс правілаў расійскай граматыкі».
У 1810-я гг. былы гадаванец Харкаўскага калегіума, тагачасны прафесар Маскоўскага універсітэта Міхаіл Качаноўскі апублікаваў свой прынцыповы для ініцыявання зацікаўлення беларускай мовай артыкул, а таксама ўвёў новы тэрмін для яе абазначэння.
У сваіх надрукаваных у Харкаве ў 1816 г. “Лістах з Маларасіі” студэнт Харкаўскага універсітэта Аляксей Лёўшын зрабіў заўвагі наконт уплыву на гараднянскую гаворку тамтэйшых беларусаў. У першай палове 1820-х гадоў пытанне адпаведнага лінгвоніма для беларускай мовы абмяркоўваў колішні выпускнік Харкаўскага ўніверсітэта Пётр Кёпен.
У пачатку 1820-х гадоў у зборы старажытных беларускіх пісьмовых помнікаў, арганізацыйных захадах для ўстанаўлення паўночна-заходняй мяжы беларускай мовы ўдзельнічаў выпускнік Харкаўскага ўніверсітэта 1810 года, прафесар Віленскага ўніверсітэта Іван Лабойка.
Мэтай гэтага артыкула з’яўляецца ахарактарызаваць уклад кожнай з пералічаных асоб у вывучэнне беларускай мовы, ацаніць сукупныя дасягненні прадстаўнікоў так званай “харкаўскай школы” ў гэтай галіне.
Research Interests:
The article deals with “Belarusian” passages of Pavel Josef Šafarik’s book "The History of the Slavic Language and Literature by All Vernaculars" (Buda, 1826) and tries to include them in the context of Belarusian studies in the first... more
The article deals with “Belarusian” passages of Pavel Josef Šafarik’s book "The History of the Slavic Language and Literature by All Vernaculars" (Buda, 1826) and tries to include them in the context of Belarusian studies in the first third of the 19th cent. The set of used and unused sources is assessed, the ways of adoption of information about Belarusian are discussed (Šafarik explicitly refers to the works of Adelung, Bandtkie, Rakowiecki, Grech, Kalaidovich). It is ironic that Šafarik cites Kalaidovich’s article (in which the term “Belarusian language” was used for the first time as a publication title) in Ukrainian bibliography.
It is stated that Šafarik owes Rakowiecki, Kalaidovich and Grech his statements about the history of the Belarusian language. However, when defining the area of Belarusian, he first of all relied on the broad understanding of "Belarus" by geographer Georg Hassel, outlined in his Weimar book «Vollständige und neueste Erdbeschreibung des Russischen Reichs in Europa nebst Polen» (1821). On the basis of works written by Rakowiecki, Kalaidovich, Grech and Hassel, Šafarik defines a wide area of Belarusian (Litva, White Rus’, Black Rus’, Volhynia and Podolia).
It is likely that Šafarik estimated the size of the population on the territory of Belarus according to Hassel’s work too.
It is stated that Šafarik owes Rakowiecki, Kalaidovich and Grech his statements about the history of the Belarusian language. However, when defining the area of Belarusian, he first of all relied on the broad understanding of "Belarus" by geographer Georg Hassel, outlined in his Weimar book «Vollständige und neueste Erdbeschreibung des Russischen Reichs in Europa nebst Polen» (1821). On the basis of works written by Rakowiecki, Kalaidovich, Grech and Hassel, Šafarik defines a wide area of Belarusian (Litva, White Rus’, Black Rus’, Volhynia and Podolia).
It is likely that Šafarik estimated the size of the population on the territory of Belarus according to Hassel’s work too.
Research Interests: Slavic Languages, Belarusian Studies, History of Science, Slavonic Languages, Czech & Slovak Studies, and 8 moreSlavic Historical Linguistics, East Slavic Historical Linguistics, Cultural History of Central Europe, Historiography of Linguistics, Slavic Studies, Xix Century, Belarusian language, and History of Slavistics
Выданне ўключае 12 раздзелаў. Чатыры напісаны згодна з тэматычна-храналагічным падыходам. У іх асвятляецца беларуская лінгвістыка 1800–10-х і 1820-х гг., даследаванне беларускай мовы ў Расіі ў першай палове ХІХ ст. і «харкаўскі след» у... more
Выданне ўключае 12 раздзелаў. Чатыры напісаны згодна з тэматычна-храналагічным падыходам. У іх асвятляецца беларуская лінгвістыка 1800–10-х і 1820-х гг., даследаванне беларускай мовы ў Расіі ў першай палове ХІХ ст. і «харкаўскі след» у вывучэнні беларускай мовы. Астатнія восем раздзелаў дапаможніка прысвечаны ўкладу ў беларускую лінгвістыку канкрэтных асоб: С. Б. Ліндэ, К. Калайдовіча, Д. Языкава, І. Грыгаровіча, П. Шафарыка, Я. Чачота, І. Насовіча, А. Старчэўскага
Research Interests:
Выкладзена гісторыя беларускай літаратурнай мовы 1918–1941 гг. Кніга складаецца з шасці раздзелаў. Пададзена перыядызацыя гісторыі беларускай літаратурнай мовы міжваенных гадоў. Асэнсавана спецыфіка вывучэння беларускай нарматыўнай мовы... more
Выкладзена гісторыя беларускай літаратурнай мовы 1918–1941 гг. Кніга складаецца з шасці раздзелаў. Пададзена перыядызацыя гісторыі беларускай літаратурнай мовы міжваенных гадоў. Асэнсавана спецыфіка вывучэння беларускай нарматыўнай мовы 1920–30-х гг. у савецкі час. Прааналізавана пераемнасць мовы разгляданага перыяду з мовай часу існавання газеты «Наша ніва», разгледжана развіццё лексікі. Многа ўвагі ўдзелена моўнаму рэдагаванню 1920–30-х гг. як сацыяльнай практыцы і лінгвістычнай рэфлексіі. У апошнім раздзеле разгледжаны зрухі ў сінанімічных радах, якія адбыліся ў беларускай літаратурнай мове на працягу двух міжваенных дзесяцігоддзяў.
Research Interests:
У дапаможніку выкладзена гісторыя беларускага мовазнаўства 1918–1941 гг. Кніга складаецца з 12 раздзелаў. Пададзена перыядызацыя гісторыі беларускай лінгвістыкі міжваенных гадоў, асэнсаваны яе прэскрыптыўна-нармалізацыйны характар і... more
У дапаможніку выкладзена гісторыя беларускага мовазнаўства 1918–1941 гг. Кніга складаецца з 12 раздзелаў. Пададзена перыядызацыя гісторыі беларускай лінгвістыкі міжваенных гадоў, асэнсаваны яе прэскрыптыўна-нармалізацыйны характар і дачыненні з тагачаснай уладай. Многа ўвагі ўдзелена тэме правапіснага рэгулявання беларускай мовы. Прадстаўлены акалічнасці выпрацоўкі навуковай тэрміналогіі і канцэпцыі фарміравання беларускай літаратурнай мовы ў 1920-я гг. Разгледжаны сітуацыйныя, асяроддзевыя і іншыя фактары выспявання і рэалізацыі рэформы беларускай мовы ў пачатку 1930-х гг., пастанова СНК БССР “Аб зменах і спрашчэнні беларускага правапісу” 1933 г. як палітычны акт і навуковы твор, кампанія за “культуру мовы” і лексікаграфічныя працы 1930-х гг.
Research Interests: Belarusian Studies, Slavonic Languages, Historiography of Linguistics, Slavic Linguistics, Slavic Studies, and 8 moreBelarusian History, Normative Linguistics, Linguistic Prescriptivism, Language Standardisation, Language Standardization, Belarusian language, History of Slavistics, and Sociolinguistics of orthography
Даследуецца развіццё беларускай літаратурнай мовы 1920–1930-х гг. у яго сувязях з развіццём прэскрыптыўнага адгалінавання беларускай лінгвістыкі. З выкарыстаннем матэрыялаў перыядычнага друку і архіваў аналізуюцца акалічнасці фарміравання... more
Даследуецца развіццё беларускай літаратурнай мовы 1920–1930-х гг. у яго сувязях з развіццём прэскрыптыўнага адгалінавання беларускай лінгвістыкі. З выкарыстаннем матэрыялаў перыядычнага друку і архіваў аналізуюцца акалічнасці фарміравання беларускага мовазнаўства, асэнсоўваюцца літаратурная мова як «рукатворная» з’ява і асаблівасці вывучэння яе гісторыі. Аглядаецца літаратура па гісторыі беларускай лінгвістыкі і літаратурнай мовы міжваеннага перыяду. Даследуецца моўнае ўжыванне 1920–1930-х гг. з асаблівай увагай да зменаў у моўным развіцці. Асэнсоўваецца рэформа беларускай мовы 1933 г. як паваротны пункт у беларускім мовазнаўстве і беларускай літаратурнай мове. Вывучаецца гісторыя шэрагу слоў з мэтай выяўлення зрухаў у рамках сінанімічных радоў і ўзнікнення новых, сучасных стылістычных іерархій.
Research Interests: Slavic Languages, Belarusian Studies, Linguistic stylistics, Language Ideology, Lexicography, and 19 moreHistoriography of Linguistics, Language Ideologies, Standard Language Ideology, Linguistic purism, Linguistic Nationalism, Slavic Studies, Language reform, Belarusian History, Normative Linguistics, Xx Century, Linguistic Prescriptivism, Lexical change, Language Standardisation, Language Cultivation, Language Standardization, Belarusian language, History of Orthography, History of Slavistics, and Sociolinguistics of orthography
Zusammenfassung: Weißrussland und die Ukraine gelten als zweisprachig. Millionen von Menschen in beiden Ländern sprechen aber oft weder Weißrussisch bzw. Ukrainisch noch Russisch in Reinform. Vielmehr praktizieren sie eine gemischte... more
Zusammenfassung: Weißrussland und die Ukraine gelten als zweisprachig. Millionen von Menschen in beiden Ländern sprechen aber oft weder Weißrussisch bzw. Ukrainisch noch Russisch in Reinform. Vielmehr praktizieren sie eine gemischte weißrussisch-russische bzw. ukrainisch-russische Rede. Diese Mischungen aus genetisch eng verwandten Sprachen werden in Weißrussland Trasjanka und in der Ukraine Suržyk genannt. Der bekannte ukrainische Schriftsteller Jurij Andruchovyč hat das Phänomen in seiner Heimat als Blutschandekind des Bilingualismus angesprochen, also eine Metapher des Inzests kreiert. Darin klingt die verbreitete negative Bewertung der Sprachmischung an. Ihr ist der Band gewidmet. Er umfasst Beiträge von Autoren aus Weißrussland und der Ukraine sowie aus sieben anderen Ländern.
Inhalt: Gerd Hentschel: «Trasjanka» und «Suržyk» - zum Mischen von Sprachen in Weißrussland und der Ukraine: Einführung in die Thematik und Ausblick auf den Band – Laada Bilaniuk: Conflicting epistemologies in the study of mixed languages – Mira Nábĕlková/Marián Sloboda: «Trasjanka» and «Českoslovenčina» (Czechoslovak) as discursive emic categories: history and current usage – Nina B. Mečkovskaja: Die weißrussische Trasjanka und der ukrainische Suržyk: Quasi-ethnische, russifizierte Substandards in der Geschichte der sprachlichen Situation – Hermann Bieder: Die weißrussisch-russische Mischsprache (Trasjanka) als Forschungsproblem – Siarhej Zaprudski: Zur öffentlichen Diskussion der weißrussischen Sprachkultur, zum Aufkommen des Terminus «Trasjanka» und zur modernen Trasjankaforschung – Curt Woolhiser: Social and structural factors in the emergence of mixed Belarusian-Russian varieties in rural Western Belarus – Henadz‘ Cychun: Soziolinguistische, soziokulturelle und psychologische Grundlagen gemischten Sprechens – Ihar Klimaŭ: Trasjanka und Halbdialekt: Zur Abgrenzung von Phänomenen der parole und der langue – Gerd Hentschel: On the systemicity of Belarusian-Russian Mixed Speech: the redistribution of Belarusian and Russian variants of functional words – Sviatlana Tesch: Morphological hybrids: Belarusian-Russian word forms in Belarusian Trasjanka – Alena Liankevič: Die Einstellung zu den gemischten sprachlichen Kodes in Weißrussland (am Material eines matched guise-Tests) – Irina Liskovec: Trasjanka-Elemente als Marker für soziale Stratifikation in der Stadt Minsk – Oleksandr Taranenko: Ukrainisch-russischer Suržyk: Status, Bewertungen, Tendenzen, Prognosen.. – Salvatore del Gaudio: An alternative interpretation of Suržyk: Dialectal and diachronic aspects – Natal’ja Šumarova: Der Suržyk im System nah verwandter Zweisprachigkeit: soziolinguistischer und linguistischer Aspekt – Larysa Masenko: Suržyk im System umgangssprachlicher Formen des Ukrainischen – Bohdana Tarasenko: Suržyk: Besonderheiten des Mischens der ukrainischen und der russischen Sprache im Bezirk Kiev – Lesja Stavyc’ka †: Ein Blutschandekind der Postmoderne.
Inhalt: Gerd Hentschel: «Trasjanka» und «Suržyk» - zum Mischen von Sprachen in Weißrussland und der Ukraine: Einführung in die Thematik und Ausblick auf den Band – Laada Bilaniuk: Conflicting epistemologies in the study of mixed languages – Mira Nábĕlková/Marián Sloboda: «Trasjanka» and «Českoslovenčina» (Czechoslovak) as discursive emic categories: history and current usage – Nina B. Mečkovskaja: Die weißrussische Trasjanka und der ukrainische Suržyk: Quasi-ethnische, russifizierte Substandards in der Geschichte der sprachlichen Situation – Hermann Bieder: Die weißrussisch-russische Mischsprache (Trasjanka) als Forschungsproblem – Siarhej Zaprudski: Zur öffentlichen Diskussion der weißrussischen Sprachkultur, zum Aufkommen des Terminus «Trasjanka» und zur modernen Trasjankaforschung – Curt Woolhiser: Social and structural factors in the emergence of mixed Belarusian-Russian varieties in rural Western Belarus – Henadz‘ Cychun: Soziolinguistische, soziokulturelle und psychologische Grundlagen gemischten Sprechens – Ihar Klimaŭ: Trasjanka und Halbdialekt: Zur Abgrenzung von Phänomenen der parole und der langue – Gerd Hentschel: On the systemicity of Belarusian-Russian Mixed Speech: the redistribution of Belarusian and Russian variants of functional words – Sviatlana Tesch: Morphological hybrids: Belarusian-Russian word forms in Belarusian Trasjanka – Alena Liankevič: Die Einstellung zu den gemischten sprachlichen Kodes in Weißrussland (am Material eines matched guise-Tests) – Irina Liskovec: Trasjanka-Elemente als Marker für soziale Stratifikation in der Stadt Minsk – Oleksandr Taranenko: Ukrainisch-russischer Suržyk: Status, Bewertungen, Tendenzen, Prognosen.. – Salvatore del Gaudio: An alternative interpretation of Suržyk: Dialectal and diachronic aspects – Natal’ja Šumarova: Der Suržyk im System nah verwandter Zweisprachigkeit: soziolinguistischer und linguistischer Aspekt – Larysa Masenko: Suržyk im System umgangssprachlicher Formen des Ukrainischen – Bohdana Tarasenko: Suržyk: Besonderheiten des Mischens der ukrainischen und der russischen Sprache im Bezirk Kiev – Lesja Stavyc’ka †: Ein Blutschandekind der Postmoderne.
Research Interests: Eastern European Studies, Contact Linguistics, Dialectology, Sociolinguistics, Language Variation and Change, and 17 moreSlavic Languages, Russian, Belarusian Studies, Ukrainian Studies, Ukrainian Nationalism, Russian Language, Slavic Linguistics, Diglossia, Russian linguistics, Ukraine, Bilingualism, Language contact, Ukrainian Lingustics, Belarus, Mixed Languages, Belarusian language, and Ukrainian Language
Introduction This volume contains four papers that will be presented at the XIVth International Congress of Slavists as part of the thematic block Belarusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk: Structural and social aspects of their... more
Introduction
This volume contains four papers that will be presented at the XIVth International Congress of Slavists as part of the thematic block Belarusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk: Structural and social aspects of their description and categorization at Ohrid, Macedonia, September 10th-16th, 2008, organized by the Commission for the Study of Language Contacts of the International Committee of Slavists. Belarusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk are two very widespread forms of mixed speech used in Belarus and the Ukraine, made up of Belarusian and Russian and Ukrainian and Russian respectively. Within this thematic block, the authors and participants on suržyk come from the Ukraine (L. Masenko) and the USA (M. Flier), and on trasjanka from Belarus (S. Zaprudski) and Germany (G. Hentschel).
Although these forms of mixed Belarusian-Russian or Ukrainian-Russian speech can be found among millions of people in each of the respective countries, and although this by no means represents a new phenomenon, it can be said that research on these forms of mixed speech has been so far unsatisfactory, both from a theoretical and an empirical point of view. One reason for this deficit is certainly a general delay in the development of sociolinguistics in those countries that were formerly within the sphere of influence of Soviet communist power. Another reason, however, is a stigma-tisation of these forms of mixed speech in each of the respective countries (and in Russia). They were widely judged to be symptomatic of a lack of edu¬cation and culture. Their stigmatization can partly be seen as related to the deficits in the evolution of general sociolinguistics. However, in recent years there has been a sharp growth of interest in mixed East Slavic speech (not just in Belarus, the Ukraine and Russland, but also in other countries), which is also outlined briefly in the four contributions presented here. The volume is of course no introduction to the issue at hand. Rather, the authors discuss different pertinent linguistic-structural, social and political aspects as well as an array of theoretical questions that must be considered in the con-text of mixed Belarusian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russian speech. A substan-tially larger general survey on trasjanka and suržyk is provided in: HENTSCHEL, G., TARANENKO, O., WOOLHISER, C. & ZAPRUDSKI, S. (eds.), Studies on Bela¬rusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk as results of Belarusian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russian language contacts. Papers from a conference, Olden¬burg, June 15th - 18th 2007. Franfurt, Verlag Peter Lang, to appear in 2009.
L. Masenko provides an overview of the research on mixed Ukrainian-Russian speech (suržyk), thereby also identifying deficits in the investigation of suržyk, which she partly attributes to the long cultivated dogma of the harmony of Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism. The chapter not only examines the linguistic situation in the late soviet era and the present day, but also much earlier forms of mixed Ukrainian-Russian speech, going back as far as the 17th century. The political and social circumstances are discussed in detail. On the question of the categorisation and linguistic status of suržyk, the problem arises how to ascertain a threshold value for distinguishing interference of the one language in the speech in another from a (con-ventionalised) mixed speech. On the one hand, the author suggests that suržyk can be seen less as a form of speech than a special langue (despite all instability or variation), indicating that it could constitute a threat to Ukrainian. On the other hand she regards suržyk as the sum of Ukrainian-Russian idiolects in which elements of the two languages mix un¬sys-tematically and disproportionately.
M. Flier critically discusses more recent endeavours in suržyk research to identify not one suržyk, but different, discrete versions of suržyk. To this end, the respective studies refer especially to different social constellations, but also, to some extent, to different temporal circumstances. Initially, Flier emphasizes that such differences are negligible as long as they do not precipitate linguistic differences. But, as several examples demonstrate, where qualitative and quantitative differences are identified then it is more apposite to speak of variation in one (and maybe temporal or social varieties of one) suržyk, in other words, of different realisations of one structural spectrum. One should only speak of suržyk in the plural when a different constellation in terms of matrix (basic) language and embedded language arises, i.e. a mixed variation on the basis of either Ukrainian or Russian (or, as is the case in western Ukraine for example, with a significant Polish contribution).
S. Zaprudski discusses different codes which according to previous studies characterise the “communicative situation” in Belarus, taking these categorisations as the starting point for his own reflections on the applicability of the dichotomy of coordinate vs. compound bilingualism. He points out the traditional overemphasis of coordinate bilingualism and emphasizes the significance of the compound type for Belarusian and Russian in Belarus as well as the possibility that both types can vary in one individual depending on the situation at hand. More research is clearly needed here. Against this background, in the second section of his study Zaprudski expands on the issues of accommodation and code switching in Belarusian-Russian language contact in Belarus. He thereby points out that the use of speech of the trasjanka type is by no means necessarily attributable to a lack of linguistic culture of the speakers, but rather that it is often consciously used where appropriate as an alternative to Standard Belarusian or Standard Russian.
G. Hentschel first discusses the metatheoretical question of what is meant when individual researchers emphasize the “unsystematic”, “in¬di-vidual” or “chaotic” aspects of trasjanka (and suržyk) as forms of speech. In the light of the intense variability of these mixed forms of speech he points to analogies to the emergence of new urban dialects, for instance in Britain. On the basis of a corpus of spoken language from ten informants (members of a family and their friends), taken over a period of more than one year in the Belarusian town of Baranavičy, the author uses the example of demonstrative pronouns to show that – despite all variations in this speech – “new” inflectional paradigms are taking shape that, taken as a whole, neither coincide with the Belarusian ones (standard language and dialects) nor with the Russian ones, although they partly overlap with both. In other words, preferences for different forms and endings that partly resemble the Bela¬rusian ones and partly the Russian ones, but are also partly new, specific trasjanka forms, can be ascertained and quantified.
All the contributions conclude with comprehensive summaries in English (L. Masenko, S. Zaprudski) or Russian (M. Flier, G. Hentschel). The contri-butions by M. Flier und G. Hentschel are in English, the chapter by L. Masenko is in Ukrainian and the one by S. Zaprudski is in Belarusian.
This volume contains four papers that will be presented at the XIVth International Congress of Slavists as part of the thematic block Belarusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk: Structural and social aspects of their description and categorization at Ohrid, Macedonia, September 10th-16th, 2008, organized by the Commission for the Study of Language Contacts of the International Committee of Slavists. Belarusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk are two very widespread forms of mixed speech used in Belarus and the Ukraine, made up of Belarusian and Russian and Ukrainian and Russian respectively. Within this thematic block, the authors and participants on suržyk come from the Ukraine (L. Masenko) and the USA (M. Flier), and on trasjanka from Belarus (S. Zaprudski) and Germany (G. Hentschel).
Although these forms of mixed Belarusian-Russian or Ukrainian-Russian speech can be found among millions of people in each of the respective countries, and although this by no means represents a new phenomenon, it can be said that research on these forms of mixed speech has been so far unsatisfactory, both from a theoretical and an empirical point of view. One reason for this deficit is certainly a general delay in the development of sociolinguistics in those countries that were formerly within the sphere of influence of Soviet communist power. Another reason, however, is a stigma-tisation of these forms of mixed speech in each of the respective countries (and in Russia). They were widely judged to be symptomatic of a lack of edu¬cation and culture. Their stigmatization can partly be seen as related to the deficits in the evolution of general sociolinguistics. However, in recent years there has been a sharp growth of interest in mixed East Slavic speech (not just in Belarus, the Ukraine and Russland, but also in other countries), which is also outlined briefly in the four contributions presented here. The volume is of course no introduction to the issue at hand. Rather, the authors discuss different pertinent linguistic-structural, social and political aspects as well as an array of theoretical questions that must be considered in the con-text of mixed Belarusian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russian speech. A substan-tially larger general survey on trasjanka and suržyk is provided in: HENTSCHEL, G., TARANENKO, O., WOOLHISER, C. & ZAPRUDSKI, S. (eds.), Studies on Bela¬rusian trasjanka and Ukrainian suržyk as results of Belarusian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russian language contacts. Papers from a conference, Olden¬burg, June 15th - 18th 2007. Franfurt, Verlag Peter Lang, to appear in 2009.
L. Masenko provides an overview of the research on mixed Ukrainian-Russian speech (suržyk), thereby also identifying deficits in the investigation of suržyk, which she partly attributes to the long cultivated dogma of the harmony of Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism. The chapter not only examines the linguistic situation in the late soviet era and the present day, but also much earlier forms of mixed Ukrainian-Russian speech, going back as far as the 17th century. The political and social circumstances are discussed in detail. On the question of the categorisation and linguistic status of suržyk, the problem arises how to ascertain a threshold value for distinguishing interference of the one language in the speech in another from a (con-ventionalised) mixed speech. On the one hand, the author suggests that suržyk can be seen less as a form of speech than a special langue (despite all instability or variation), indicating that it could constitute a threat to Ukrainian. On the other hand she regards suržyk as the sum of Ukrainian-Russian idiolects in which elements of the two languages mix un¬sys-tematically and disproportionately.
M. Flier critically discusses more recent endeavours in suržyk research to identify not one suržyk, but different, discrete versions of suržyk. To this end, the respective studies refer especially to different social constellations, but also, to some extent, to different temporal circumstances. Initially, Flier emphasizes that such differences are negligible as long as they do not precipitate linguistic differences. But, as several examples demonstrate, where qualitative and quantitative differences are identified then it is more apposite to speak of variation in one (and maybe temporal or social varieties of one) suržyk, in other words, of different realisations of one structural spectrum. One should only speak of suržyk in the plural when a different constellation in terms of matrix (basic) language and embedded language arises, i.e. a mixed variation on the basis of either Ukrainian or Russian (or, as is the case in western Ukraine for example, with a significant Polish contribution).
S. Zaprudski discusses different codes which according to previous studies characterise the “communicative situation” in Belarus, taking these categorisations as the starting point for his own reflections on the applicability of the dichotomy of coordinate vs. compound bilingualism. He points out the traditional overemphasis of coordinate bilingualism and emphasizes the significance of the compound type for Belarusian and Russian in Belarus as well as the possibility that both types can vary in one individual depending on the situation at hand. More research is clearly needed here. Against this background, in the second section of his study Zaprudski expands on the issues of accommodation and code switching in Belarusian-Russian language contact in Belarus. He thereby points out that the use of speech of the trasjanka type is by no means necessarily attributable to a lack of linguistic culture of the speakers, but rather that it is often consciously used where appropriate as an alternative to Standard Belarusian or Standard Russian.
G. Hentschel first discusses the metatheoretical question of what is meant when individual researchers emphasize the “unsystematic”, “in¬di-vidual” or “chaotic” aspects of trasjanka (and suržyk) as forms of speech. In the light of the intense variability of these mixed forms of speech he points to analogies to the emergence of new urban dialects, for instance in Britain. On the basis of a corpus of spoken language from ten informants (members of a family and their friends), taken over a period of more than one year in the Belarusian town of Baranavičy, the author uses the example of demonstrative pronouns to show that – despite all variations in this speech – “new” inflectional paradigms are taking shape that, taken as a whole, neither coincide with the Belarusian ones (standard language and dialects) nor with the Russian ones, although they partly overlap with both. In other words, preferences for different forms and endings that partly resemble the Bela¬rusian ones and partly the Russian ones, but are also partly new, specific trasjanka forms, can be ascertained and quantified.
All the contributions conclude with comprehensive summaries in English (L. Masenko, S. Zaprudski) or Russian (M. Flier, G. Hentschel). The contri-butions by M. Flier und G. Hentschel are in English, the chapter by L. Masenko is in Ukrainian and the one by S. Zaprudski is in Belarusian.
Research Interests:
У другую частку хрэстаматыі ўключаны публікацыі і матэрыялы, якія мелі вялікае значэнне для фарміравання лінгвістычнай думкі ў Беларусі ў 1918–1941 гг. Дапаможнік складаюць раздзелы, прысвечаныя вывучэнню мовы мастацкай літаратуры,... more
У другую частку хрэстаматыі ўключаны публікацыі і матэрыялы, якія мелі вялікае значэнне для фарміравання лінгвістычнай думкі ў Беларусі ў 1918–1941 гг. Дапаможнік складаюць раздзелы, прысвечаныя вывучэнню мовы мастацкай літаратуры, «пісьменніцкай» лінгвістыцы, дыялекталагічным даследаванням, палітычнай лінгвістыцы, рэформе беларускай мовы 1933 года, распрацоўцы культуры мовы і мовазнаўству Заходняй Беларусі. Усім раздзелам папярэднічаюць ўводныя артыкулы. Змешчаны кароткія біябібліяграфічныя даведкі пра аўтараў. Уключаныя ў хрэстаматыю тэксты сведчаць аб супярэчлівым развіцці беларускай лінгвістыкі ў міжваенны перыяд.
Для студэнтаў філалагічнага факультэта і ўсіх, хто цікавіцца гісторыяй развіцця беларускага мовазнаўства.
Для студэнтаў філалагічнага факультэта і ўсіх, хто цікавіцца гісторыяй развіцця беларускага мовазнаўства.
Research Interests:
У хрэстаматыю ўключаны публікацыі і матэрыялы, якія мелі вялікае значэнне для фарміравання лінгвістычнай думкі ў Беларусі ў 1918–1941 гадах. У першай частцы разглядаюцца пытанні тэрміналогіі, лексікаграфічнай дзейнасці, распрацоўкі... more
У хрэстаматыю ўключаны публікацыі і матэрыялы, якія мелі вялікае значэнне для фарміравання лінгвістычнай думкі ў Беларусі ў 1918–1941 гадах. У першай частцы разглядаюцца пытанні тэрміналогіі, лексікаграфічнай дзейнасці, распрацоўкі правапісу ў 1920-я гады, граматычных нормаў і канцэпцыі фарміравання літаратурнай мовы. Усім раздзелам папярэднічаюць ўводныя артыкулы. Змешчаны кароткія біябібліяграфічныя даведкі пра аўтараў. Уключаныя ў хрэстаматыю тэксты сведчаць аб дынамічным развіцці беларускай лінгвістыкі ў міжваенны перыяд.