Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Okuto Gunji
December 2016
1 Introductory Remarks
• Primary focus is put on German influences in Czech, not Czech influences in German.
• Structure
– Research History
– Theory of Contact-Induced Language Change
– History of German Czech Language Contact
– Analysis and Discussion
2 Research History
• Two general tendencies:
1. Long tradition of popular reflection, closely connected with Anti-Germanism and Language Purism
(cf. language compendiums from 19th century such as Javrek, 1873)
2. German Czech language contact remains as a secondary issue in Czech linguistics. Some pioneering
works in 19th century (cf. Nagl, 1894); brief discussions in many historical grammars (cf. Gebauer,
1894; Lamprecht, Šlosar, & Bauer, 1986) and monographic studies (cf. Hausenblas, 1958; Nekula,
1996); since 1990s a growing interest in the field (e. g. Berger, 2008; Šlosar, 2001; Žaža, 2015);
but still no monograph-size research conducted.
• An example of ”Intuitive/Speculative” arguments: (Štı́cha, 1997).
• Main Claims
– The dominant factor of language change is not language-internal, but language-external (i. e.
primarily language contact). Language-internal factors can play an important role, but whether
a certain change can take place at a certain period of time is determined ultimately by external
factors.
– There is no structural/typological limitation on possible changes. Theoretically, anything can
happen if a preferable external condition is given.
– Change does not occur in isolation. If language contact a↵ects a subsystem (e. g. syntax), then
it most likely influences other subsystems (e. g. phonology lexicon) as well.
– It is possible that language contact only prompts a change without causing to the emergence of
an exactly identical construction.
– Ultimately, it is impossible to predict exactly when and how what kind of change will happen.
But it is possible to distinguish certain types of contact situations under which certain kinds of
changes are more likely to occur than the others.
1
• Two Basic Types of Contact-Induced Change
– (Bilingual) Borrowing: There is a group of Czech native speaker who are fluent in German
as well. When speaking Czech, they use certain vocabularies or constructions which are easier to
use or fill certain structural lacunas in their native Czech language.
– Language Shift / Imperfect Learning: There is a groupe of German native speakers who
do not speak Czech fluently. However, from whatever the reason, they give up German and start
using Czech as their primary language. However, during the process of language acquisition, they
either fail or refuse to master Czech perfectly. As a result they develop a new variation of Czech
which is influenced by their native German language.
• Di↵erent Consequences under Di↵erent Contact Situation Types
2
4 History of German Czech Language Contact
4.1 Research History
• No monograph-size publication on the history of German Czech language contact yet, which would
make it possible to apply Thomason and Kaufman’s theory.
• Except for proper names and text fragments, the oldest Czech written documents are attested
from the end of 13th century onwards. For the earlier periods, it is practically impossible to
reconstruct the level of bilingualism, the relative sizes of German and Czech speakers etc.
4.2 Overview
Period Type Degree External Factors
Before Borrowing Casual Part of Slavic population in Bohemia christianized by German mission-
900 Contact aries. Czech nobles oriented towards Frankish culture. Slavic apostles.
900 - Borrowing Slightly Great Moravia lost its power, Přemislyd dynasty gained influence ap-
1100 + Shift? More proaching Holy Roman Empire. Many German speakers migrated to
Intense Bohemia, but Czech seems to have soon regained its dominant status.
Contact
1100 - Borrowing More Heyday of Přemyslid dynasty. Since 1240s Bohemian kings recruited
1300 Intense many German speakers to compensate losses incurred by Mongol inva-
Contact sions. Oldest Czech texts from the end of this period.
1300 - Borrowing Intense End of Přemyslid dynasty, beginning of rule by German speaking
1500 + Lan- Contact House of Luxembourg. Alarming e↵ect on Czech intellectuals, sud-
guage den emergence of religious and historiographical texts in Czech (Oldest
Shift? Chronicle in 1314). Development further promoted by Holy Roman
Empire Charles IV (Czech as first European vernacular into which the
Bible was translated completely) and Hussite Movement from 1415 on-
wards. Many German towns became Czech partly by assimilation of
German population.
1500 - Borrowing Slightly Era of confessionalization, co-existence of di↵erent religious communi-
1620 More ties partly developing di↵erent varieties of modern Czech. Autonomous
Intense development of religious practise by utraquists (mainstream protestant
Contact community) guaranteed by Religious Peace of Kutná Hora in 1485.
1620 - Borrowing Heavy Defeat of Protestants at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, Czech
1780 Cultural Protestant nobles and intellectuals expelled from Bohemia, replaced
Pressure with German speaking Catholics. Renewed Territorial Constitution
of 1627 established German as a second official language in Bohemia,
Czech gradually driven out from official spheres.
1780- Borrowing Heavy Era of so called National Renaissance, with influential language purism
1918 Cultural counteracting against cultural pressure of German. Made possible
Pressure by the so called Enlighted Absolutism of Kaiser Josef II. and Maria
Theresia, culminated into the German revolution of 1848/49. In 1850,
Czech language introduced as a school subject in Bohemia, in 1882
Prague university divided into a German and a Czech university.
1918 - Borrowing Slightly Czechoslovakia became independent in 1918, Czech national language
1945 More (more or less) codified. After the German occupation of 1937, Ger-
Intense man acquired the dominant status once again, but with the end of the
Contact World War II German influence mitigated.
3
5 Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Phonology
5.1.1 Four Peculiarities of Czech
• Fixed Stress on the First Syllable: Czech has lost the Common Slavic free and movable stress
system and developed instead a fixed stress on the first syllable. In German, the stress falls on the
first syllable as well except for some cases such as certain verbal prefixes.
• Decline of Palatalization Opposition: All Czech consonants except for t, d, n have lost their soft
counterparts. German does not have the palatalization opposition.
• Development of Vowel Quantitative Opposition: Common Slavic had a certain degree of the
vowel quantitative opposition which was, however, not yet highly developed. In Czech, the opposition
was further developed and now constitutes an important phonologically distinctive feature. German
always had the vowel quantitative opposition.
• Development of Diphthongs: Modern Czech has three diphthongs: /au/, /Eu/, /ou/. Besides, in
colloquial Czech the long vowel ý is often replaced by another diphthong ej. Modern German has three
diphthongs: /aI/, /aU/, /OI/, and had more in older periods.
5.2 Lexicon
5.2.1 Newerkla’s Loanword Dictionary
Recently, painstakingly researched and documented by Newerkla (2011).
• Before 600 A.D.: ca. 20-30 Loanwords
• From Old High German (600-1050): more than 70 Loanwords
• From Middle High German (1050-1500): more than 400 Loanwords
4
5.3 Grammar
5.3.1 Decline of Certain Word Classes
In Modern Czech the usage of short adjectives and transgressives (equivalence of Russian деепричастие) is
very limited. Besides, it has lost the equivalence of perfective причастие.
• These "new"modal verbs later acquired epistemic usage just like their German counterparts. However,
in the preterit tense, the Czech and German modal verbs show certain syntactic and semantic differences
(cf. Porák, 1968; Weiss, 1987).
• These constructions, which show striking similarities to German, are attested from the New Czech
period (1500-1800) in which Czech was under heavy cultural pressure by German.
5
5.3.7 Frequent and Article-like Usage of Demonstrative Pronouns
• Czech has developed a rich inventory of demonstrative pronouns, of which ten, ta, to etc. are used
very frequently, often in contexts in which they seem to be redundant (from Slavic perspective) and to
fulfil the function(s) of the definite article, e.g.) To je ten nejstaršı́ syn; Mám tě z té duše rád.
• Unlike the German definite article, however, the anaphoric use of ten is not obligatory. The pronoun
ten rather fulfils a ”reminding” function or an ”emotive, expressive” function, which partly overlap
with functions of the German definite article (cf. Berger, 1993; Mathesius, 1926).
References
Berger, T. (1993). Das system der tschechischen demonstrativpronomina.
Berger, T. (2003). Gibt es alternativen zur traditionellen beschreibung der tschechischen lautgeschichte.
Selecta Bohemico-Germanica. Tschechisch-deutsche Beziehungen im Bereich der Sprache und Kultur ,
9–37.
Berger, T. (2008). Deutsche einflüsse auf das grammatische system des tschechischen. Studien zur his-
torischen Grammatik des Tschechischen. Bohemistische Beiträge zur Kontaktlinguistik , 57–69.
Berger, T. (2009a). Einige bemerkungen zum tschechischen absentiv. Sagner.
Berger, T. (2009b). Tschechisch-deutsche sprachbeziehungen zwischen intensivem kontakt und puristischer
gegenwehr. Unsere sprachlichen Nachbarn in Europa: Die Kontaktbeziehungen zwischen Deutsch und
seinen Grenznachbarn. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer , 133–56.
Berger, T. (2014). The convergence of czech and german between the years 900 and 1500. Congruence
in Contact-Induced Language Change: Language Families, Typological Resemblance, and Perceived
Similarity, 27 , 184-198.
Dickey, S. M. (2011). The varying role of po- in the grammaticalization of slavic aspectual systems. sequences
of events, delimitatives, and german language contact. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19 (2), 175-230.
Gebauer, J. (1894). Historická mluvnice jazkya českého. Praha.
Giger, M. (2003). Resultativa im modernen tschechischen: unter berücksichtung der sprachgeschichte und
der übrigen slavischen sprachen (Vol. 69). Peter Lang.
Hausenblas, K. (1958). Vỳvoj předmětového genitivu v češtině. Praha: ČSAV.
Jakobson, R. (1929). Remarques sur l’evolution phonologique du russe comparée acelle des autres langues
slaves (= travaux du cercle linguistique de prague, 2).
Javrek, J. J. (1873). Brus jazyka českého. Nakladatel Theodor Mourek.
Kaufman, T., & Thomason, S. G. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley
CA: University of California.
Lamprecht, A., Šlosar, D., & Bauer, J. (1986). Historická mluvnice češtiny. Praha.
Lehmann, C. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. Typological Studies in
Language, 49 , 1–18.
Mathesius, V. (1926). Přı́vlastkové ten, ta, to v hovorové češtině. Naše řeč, 10 (2), 39–41.
Nagl, J. W. (1894). Deutsche lehnwörter im czechischen. Wien.
Nekula, M. (1996). System der partikeln im deutschen und tschechischen: unter besonderer berücksichtigung
der abtönungspartikeln (Vol. 355). Walter de Gruyter.
Newerkla, S. M. (2011). Sprachkontakte deutsch-tschechisch-slowakisch. Wien.
Porák, J. (1968). Modalverben im tschechischen und deutschen. Deutsch-tschechische Beziehungen im
Bereich der Sprache und Kultur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 97–101.
Šlosar, D. (2001). Česko-německé jazykové kontakty.
Štı́cha, F. (1997). Ke dvěma méně běžnỳm spojovacı́m prostředkm v současné češtině (poté, co a bez toho,
aby/že): korpusová analỳza. NŘ 80, 1997, č, 2 , 73–80.
Weiss, D. (1987). Polsko-niemieckie paralele w zakresie czasowników modalnych (na tle innych jezyków
zachodnioslowiańskich). Sprach-und Kulturkontakte im Polnischen. Munich: Otto Sagner , 131–56.
Žaža, S. (2015). Istoričeskoe vliyanie nemeckogo jazyka na različiya meždu češskim i russkim jazykami.
Crossroads of cultures: Central Europe.