studia universitatis hereditati Abstract The article approaches Slavic languages from the viewpoint of areal linguistic typology. The main question addressed is how these languages developed within the individual convergence areas, using the theory and methodology of historical linguistics. As far as the Sprachbunds in relation to Slavic are concerned, some scholars define the so-called Central European convergence area. The theoretical and methodological approach in defining this linguistic league is critically assessed, offering a methodolog - ically more solid framework and the main objectives in the investigation of this phenomenon. Keywords: Slavic languages, European linguistic area, Central European convergence area Izvleček V prispevku so slovanski jeziki – pojem jezik je tu razumljen kot zemljepisna jezikovna pojavnosti (ge - olekt) in ne zgolj kot knjižni/standardni jezik (sociolekt) – obravnavani v kontekstu arealne jezikovne ti - pologije. Z vidika teorije in metodologije zgodovinskega jezikoslovja se odgovarja na vprašanje njiho - vega oblikovanja znotraj jezikovnih zvez. V zvezi s slovanskimi jeziki se v jezikoslovni literaturi namreč omenja tudi srednjeevropska jezikovna zveza. V kritični pretres je vzet teoretično-metodološki pristop pri določanju te jezikovne zveze. Predlagana so nekatera teoretično-metodološka izhodišča za dopolnitev raziskovanja na tem področju. Ključne besede: slovanski jeziki, evropski jezikovni prostor, srednjeevropska jezikovna zveza Sintesi Il presente contributo si pone lo scopo di esaminare le lingue slave – in questo caso il termine lingua è da intendersi come entità linguistica geografica (ovvero geoletto) e non come lingua letteraria/standard (ov - vero socioletto) – nel contesto della tipologia areale delle lingue. In particolare verrà esaminata la loro for - mazione all’interno di possibili aree linguistiche dal punto di vista dell’apparato della linguistica stori - ca. In relazione alle lingue slave viene infatti definito anche il cosiddetto mitteleuropäischer Sprachbund ovvero la lega linguistica mitteleuropea. Nell’articolo verranno illustrate alcune modificazioni del concet - to di quest’ultima. Parole chiave: lingue slave, area linguistica europea, lega linguistica mitteleuropea Central European Convergence Area: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations Srednjeevropska jezikovna zveza: teoretično-metodološki premisleki Lega linguistica mitteleuropea: alcune riflessioni teorico-metodologiche Matej Šekli Univerza v Ljubljani, ZRC SAZU, Slovenija matej.sekli@guest.arnes.si 61 https:/ /doi.org/10.26493/2350-5443.11(1)61-72 © author/authors studia universitatis hereditati Introduction 1 I n genealogical linguistic research within Slavic comparative linguistics, the geneses of the individual Slavic languages and their di - alect macro-areas have been relatively well re - searched. 2 However, many questions remain un - answered concerning the formation of the Slavic languages within the different hypothesized lin- guistic or convergence areas (German Sprach- bund, Italian lega linguistica, Russian jazykovoj sojuz). Apart from the evolution within the Slav - ic dialect continuum, the Slavic languages alleg - edly form a part of different convergence areas. As far as the ‘major’ linguistic areas are concerned, Slavic is supposed to belong to the so-called Euro- pean linguistic area or Standard Average Europe- an (SAE), with West Germanic, Gallo-Romance and northern Italo-Romance playing the role of ‘core languages’ and sharing most of the defining features, while other European languages seem to take on a ‘peripheral’ position (Haspelmath 2001, 1493). As far as ‘minor’ European linguis - tic areas involving Slavic are concerned, at least two have found their way into scholarly discus - sion, namely the Balkan Sprachbund and the Central European convergence area. The former has actually been present in Slavic studies since the beginning (cf. Kopitar 1829; Miklosich 1861), while the latter has been receiving heightened at - tention since the 1990s (cf. Kurzová 1996, 2019). In addition, attempts have been made recently to also include in the list the so-called Alpine con- vergence area (German Alpensprachbund). 3 1 The present contribution builds on some of the considerations on this topic that were partly presented in Šekli (2020, 2021 and 2022). 2 For a more accurate presentation of the formation of Slavic languages and their dialect macro-areas as well as for the criteria of their genealogical linguistic classification see Šekli (2018). 3 The Alpine convergence area would comprise some Ro - mance, German and Slovenian varieties in the Alps (cf. Gaeta and Seiler 2021). One of the more conspicuous char - acteristics of this convergence area is allegedly the venitive passive, present in Romance as well as Bavarian and Ale - mannic varieties of German, and some Slovenian dialects in contact with Friulian and Italian, e.g. dial. German Då kummt de nei(e) Schul gebaut = Italian Qui viene costrui- ta la nuova scuola, ‘A new school is being built’, dial. Slo - This article aims to provide a critical anal - ysis of the theoretical and methodological ap - proach in defining the Central European con - vergence area. First, the structural linguistic features of the languages of this hypothesized linguistic league are presented in an overview. In addition to that, the definition of the Central European Sprachbund is critically assessed from the viewpoint of historical linguistics. In direct relation to this, the theory and methodology of genealogical linguistics and areal language ty - pology are confronted. Last, some theoretical - ly and methodologically justifiable objectives in the investigation of the convergence phenomena in Central Europe are delineated. Defining the Central European convergence area In the context of areal typology of European lan - guages, the languages in Central Europe are sup - posed to belong to the so-called Central Europe- an convergence area (Kurzová 1996, 2019; Skála 1998, 1999). 4 In the following paragraphs a brief summary of the definition of the latter will be given, as formulated in Kurzová (1996) (with some additions published in Kurzová (2019)). According to Kurzová, the Central Europe- an convergence area would include German and Hungarian as well as the so-called Central Euro- pean Slavic languages. Amongst the latter, Czech and Slovak would represent ‘core’ languages of the purported linguistic league, while Polish and Slovenian would take a ‘peripheral’ position, with ‘Serbo-Croatian’ representing a transition - al language zone between the Central Europe - venian (precisely, the Slovenian dialect of Rezija/Resia in the locality of Osojane/Oseacco) Injän tve dugave ni par - haaö zapïsane od avokatä = Italian Adesso I tuoi debiti ven- gono annotati dall’avvocato , ‘Now your debts are being put down by a solicitor’ (Pila 2021). However, from the cited examples it is evident that what we are dealing with here is simply the unilateral influence of Romance varieties on German and Slovenian dialects! 4 In the original papers on the topic the following terminology is used: Sprachareal, ‘linguistic area’ (Kurzová 1996), Sprachbund, ‘linguistic league’ (Skála 1998, 1999), and convergence area (Kurzová 2019). studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 62 studia universitatis hereditati central european convergence area: theoretical and methodological considerations 63 an and the Balkan Slavic languages. 5 The deci - sive criterion here would be the placement of the accent, namely on the first syllable in the ‘core’ languages (i.e. German, Hungarian, Czech, Slo - vak) and not on the first syllable in the ‘peripher - al’ ones (i.e. Polish, Slovenian). The Central European linguistic area is to be delimited in relation to the Western Eu - ropean, North-Eastern European (among the North-Eastern European languages Polish, Rus - sian, Belarusian and Ukrainian as well as Lithu - anian and Finnish are mentioned), and Balkan linguistic areas. First, in relation to the so-called Western European languages, which have an an - alytic nominal ‘declension’, the Central Europe - an languages can be distinguished by their reten - tion of a synthetic nominal morphology. This is the case of word inflection (German Wortflex- ion) in German, stem inflection (German Stam- mflexion) in Slavic, and agglutination in Hun - garian. It is assumed that German retained the synthetic declension due to contact with Slav - ic languages and Hungarian. Second, from the so-called North-Eastern European languages, which display various types of sentences other than those with finite verb form and the agent and the patient in the nominative and accusa - tive case, respectively (Polish Gotowano obiady I wieczerze, ‘Lunches and dinners are being pre - 5 In the framework of genealogical linguistics, ‘Serbo-Cro - atian’ has been replaced by the more appropriate term, namely Central South Slavic, cf. Croatian srednjojužno- slavenski jezik ‘Central South Slavic language’ (Lončarić 1996, 29), Russian srednejužnoslovjanskie govory ‘Central South Slavic varieties’ (Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas 2006, 158), etc. This geolect (i.e. a geographical lin - guistic phenomenon) emcompasses the following dialect macro-areas: Kajkavian, Čakavian, Western Štokavian, and Eastern Štokavian. On the basis of the Eastern Her - cegovinian dialect ( istočnohercegovački dijalekt), a literara - ry language was formed in the mid-19th century – cf. the Vienna Literary Agreement ( bečki književni dogovor ) from 1850 – called srpskohrvatski ‘Serbo-Croatian’ or hrvatskos- rpski ‘Croato-Serbian’. After 1991, the standard language in question split into four independent standard languag - es, i.e. sociolects (note here that sociolects are social lin - guistic phenomena and have little or nothing to do with geneolinguistic classification), Croatian, Serbian, Bos - nian, and Montenegrin. Thus, the term ‘Serbo-Croatian’ has the value of a historical denomination, i.e. it refers to the historical literary/standard language (c. 1850–1991) that took shape and was in use in the entire Central South Slavic linguistic area. pared’, literally ‘(It is) prepared lunches and din - ners’, Tak mu się to powiedzialo, ‘He told so (in - voluntarily)’, literally ‘So was this said to him’, Russian Mne zevaetsja, ‘I am yawning’, literally ‘It is yawning to me’), the Central European lan - guages are to be distinguished by the predomi - nant absence of such sentence structures. Sen - tence structures with a finite verb form and an unmarked subject-verb-object word order are predominant in the Western European languag - es, which is thought to be a consequence of the emergence of analyticism within the nominal and pronominal systems. 6 According to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the individual features of the languages of the Cen - tral European linguistic area are supposed to be as follows: A) on the phonetic level: 1) the placement of the accent on the first syllable; 2) a phonologically relevant quantitative opposi - tion; and B) on the morphosyntactic level: 1) synthetic nominal inflexion; 2) synthetic com - parison of adjectives and adverbs; 3) a simple three-tense verb system (consisting of past, pres - ent and future) without any formal and seman - tic (functional) distinction between the differ - ent past tense forms; 4) periphrastic future with an auxiliary verb with an ingressive meaning (i.e. German werden ‘to become’, Slavic *b ǫd- ‘to become’, Hungarian fog ‘to grab, grasp’); 5) per - iphrastic passive; 6) bicentric sentence structure with an unmarked subject-verb-object word or - der; 7) limited use of participles; 8) relative claus - es with relative pronouns, originating from interrogative pronouns; 9) productivity of pre - fixation and, consequently, high frequency of prefixed verbs. Linguistic genealogy vs. areal linguistic typology From the above survey of the structural linguis - tic features of the languages of the hypothesized Central European convergence area, the over - all theoretical-methodological approach in de - 6 However, the Central European convergence area seems to be open mainly to the Western European and North- Eastern European linguistic areas, but not to the Balkan one. studia universitatis hereditati studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 64 fining this linguistic area in Kurzová (1996 and 2019) can easily be deduced. The methodology of the areal linguistic typology, at least in this case, resembles that of linguistic genealogy, which, however, is not justified on all counts. The defi - nition of the Central European linguistic area within European languages is based on the geo - graphical distribution of linguistic phenomena, which is a well-known principle in linguistic ge - nealogy, cf. the wave theory (German Wellenthe- orie), explaining the spatial spread of linguistic innovation within a dialect continuum (Schmidt 1872, 27). However, unlike linguistic genealogy, the areal linguistic typology presented by Kur - zová does not take into account the (relative and absolute) chronology of the emergence/forma - tion of the linguistic phenomena under consid - eration. In addition to that, the linguistic crite - ria for the delimitation of the Central European linguistic area in relation to the neighbouring ar - eas, as well as the criteria for the internal diversi - fication of the analysed area itself, are rather het - erogeneous and without a clear hierarchy. The criteria seem to span the domain of morphology (the type of nominal and pronominal inflexion, comparison of adjectives and adverbs, system of verbal tenses), syntax (the type of sentence struc - ture), and phonetics (placement of the accent). Finally, the defining Central European morpho - syntactic features seem to have been inspired by the model of, and in contrast to, the features of the Balkan languages (cf. Table 1: Morphosyn - tactic features of the ‘Balkan’ and ‘Central Euro - pean’ Slavic languages). 7 The problems that such methodology creates are perhaps best addressed by contrasting the approach of linguistic geneal - ogy with that of linguistic typology. Linguistic genealogy Linguistic genealogy groups idioms, i.e. linguis - tic systems and diasystems, within a linguistic continuum (originally geographical, secondari - ly social as well) of genetically related idioms ac - cording to the degree of their genetic affiliation, i.e. genetic identity in diachronic perspective. The theory and methodology of genealogical linguistic classification have been most precise - ly elaborated in the comparative linguistic stud - ies of the Indo-European languages, as well as in the comparative linguistics of the individual In - do-European branches, including Slavic. Linguistic genealogy takes into account di - vergent linguistic change in a linguistic contin - uum – usually referred to as dialect continuum – whereby from an ‘ancestor’ idiom several ‘de - scendant’ idioms arise. A common linguistic ‘ancestor’ gradually transforms into smaller ‘de - scendant’ idioms due to geographically limited linguistic innovations. Consequently, because of language change, linguistic diversity of genet - ically related idioms arises. In order to designate the genetic relationship between idioms, lin - guistic genealogy uses terms such as proto-lan- guage (German Ursprache, Italian protolingua, Russian prajazyk) and language family (German Sprachfamilie, Italian famiglia linguistica, Rus - sian jazykovoe semejstvo ), language branch or lan- guage group, language, dialect base (macro-area) or dialect group, dialect, local dialect. 8 Genealog - 7 For linguistic Balkanisms cf. Banfi (1985); Asenova (2002); Mišeska Tomić (2006); Fiedler (2009). For Balkanisms in Macedonian and Bulgarian cf. Šekli (2018, 51–72). 8 The pairs proto-language – language family, language branch – language group, and dialect base – dialect group denote linguistic entities, the genetic relationship of which Table 1: The morphosyntactic features of ‘Balkan’ and ‘Central European’ Slavic languages ‘Balkan’ Slavic languages ‘Central European’ Slavic languages analytic nominal and pro - nominal inflexion synthetic nominal and pro - nominal inflexion analytic comparison of adjec - tives and adverbs synthetic comparison of ad - jectives and adverbs complex system of verbal tenses three-dimension - al system of verbal tenses (past-present-future) presence of formal and se - mantic (functional) distinc - tion between different past tenses absence of formal and seman - tic (functional) distinction between different past tenses peripheral future with a vol - untative auxiliary meaning *‘to want’ peripheral future with an in - gressive auxiliary meaning *‘to become’, *‘to grab’ studia universitatis hereditati central european convergence area: theoretical and methodological considerations 65 ical linguistics comprises comparative linguis - tics, which traces language change from the pro - to-language to the nascence of a language, and dialectology, studying linguistic fragmenta - tion of a language to its dialect bases, dialects, and local varieties. Thus, linguistic genealogy re - constructs divergent language change and the consequent emergence of linguistic diversity of genetically related idioms, and is therefore a part of historical linguistics. 9 In the field of linguistic genealogy, the most important criterion in determining linguistic relatedness is historical phonetics (cf. Šekli 2018, 40–42). In the 1870s, the Leipzig Neogrammar - ian school of linguistics (German Junggramma- tiker) came to the correct conclusion that sound change is by far the most systematic process among the changes that can affect a given lan - guage. Sound changes can be accurately captured by mathematically precise rules (rather appropri - ately, the Neogrammarians called them Lautge- setze, i.e. sound laws) (cf. Osthoff and Brugmann 1878, 13). In comparison to the (historical) pho - netic criterion, the morphological and the syn - tactic criteria are less important, while the lexi - cal criterion is practically irrelevant. In sum, the very basis of the genealogical linguistic classifi - cation of idioms are therefore the phonetic fea - tures (i.e. innovations and archaisms) of the id - ioms under consideration which have the value of genetic criteria. The morphological features can be added to phonetic ones, but only if the areas of innovation in the domain of morphol - ogy overlap with those involving sound change. In determining the genetic criteria, geograph - ical distribution of linguistic innovations and their (relative and absolute) chronology are very important. can be described as ‘ancestor – descendant’. Namely, a proto-language splits into a language family, a language branch gives origin to a language group, and a dialect base splits into a dialect group. 9 For the origins of (historical-)comparative linguistics and the development of its theory and methodology in the 19th century cf. Pedersen (1931); for the theory and methodolo - gy of historical linguistics cf. Hock (2021). Areal linguistic typology Areal linguistic typology groups idioms, i.e. lin - guistic systems and diasystems, within a linguis - tic area of genetically related and unrelated id - ioms according to the degree of their structural similarity, irrespective of their genetic related - ness (i.e. it clusters genetically related as well as genetically unrelated idioms into linguistic types). The theory and the methodology of ar - eal linguistic typology (of European languages) were quite appropriately elaborated in the study of Balkan languages. 10 What is relevant for areal linguistic typol - ogy is convergent linguistic change (linguistic innovation), which results in a greater degree of structural similarity. In parallel to divergent lin - guistic change in a dialect continuum of related idioms over a given period of time, convergent linguistic change can also occur in different id - ioms that are not closely genetically related, or even unrelated, due to geographical and social linguistic contact, which can result in linguis - tic influence and linguistic borrowing and imi - tation. These processes can usually happen in a given period of time within long-lasting multi - lingual political and consequently cultural re - gions, the result of which can be the formation of a convergence area (cf. Тrubeckoj 1923, 116). Thus, areal linguistic typology uses the term convergence area (German Sprachbund, Italian lega linguistica, Russian jazykovoj sojuz) to de - scribe the result of convergent linguistic change in a given linguistic area. Accounting for the rise and the formation of a convergence area – i.e. linguistic influence and linguistic change with - in language contact as well as convergent lin - guistic innovation and common structural lin - guistic features – lies in the domain of historical linguistics (cf. Hock 2021, 659–724). In the fol - lowing paragraphs some theoretical and meth - 10 The pioneer in the study of the Balkan languages was Jernej Kopitar / Bartholomäus Kopitar (1780–1844), who syn - thesized the structural similarity of Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian as follows: ‘nur eine Sprachform herrscht, aber mit dreyerley Schprachmaterie’ (Kopitar 1829). The scientific foundations of Balkan linguistics were laid down by Franc Miklošič / Franz Miklosich (1813–1891) (cf. Mik - losich 1861). studia universitatis hereditati studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 66 odological considerations aiming to explain the rise of convergence areas are given from the van - tage point of historical linguistics. A convergence area is not limited just in terms of place, but in terms of time as well. In linguistic terminology, the linguistic term con- vergence area thus denotes a historical linguistic phenomenon that has a beginning and an end. The term has a historical linguistic value and as such cannot have a panchronic meaning. Name - ly, convergence processes in a given linguistic area involve different geolects (as well as their so - ciolects), irrespective of their genetic affiliation, and are characteristic of a limited period of time. They may last for different periods of time and depend on the interaction of a given language with other languages of the area. 11 Linguistic influence can be unidirection- al (i.e. subversion) or multidirectional (i.e. con - vergence), whereby a convergence area is usually characterized by a multidirectional linguistic in - fluence (cf. Hock 2021, 648–656). This results in a high degree of linguistic interaction between the members of a convergence area. The extent and the degree of foreign lan - guage influence and of the consequent linguis - tic borrowing and imitation depend on the du - ration and/or the intensity of language contact as well as on the structural similarity of the in - fluencing and the influenced idioms. Specifical - ly, longer and/or more intense language contact means stronger linguistic influence, while great - er structural similarity results in a lower degree of linguistic borrowing and imitation. As a rule, borrowing and imitation of vocabulary precedes the imitation of grammatical structures, follow - ing the principle ‘words first, grammar later’ (cf. Weinreich 1953; Thomason 2001; Trovesi 2004; Bayer 2006; Reindl 2008). 11 The Balkan convergence area is a historical linguistic en - tity, which started to dwindle with the ‘national revivals’ from the end of the 18th century onwards and the attempts to create ‘national states’ in the Balkans; the consequences of all of this are the homogeneity of the official languguag - es in the newly established states as well as the transition from a collective multilingualism to predominant mono - lingualism achieved in the 20th century (Steinke 2012). Cf. also the term ‘Carolingian Sprachbund’ (Hock 2021, 659, 719–724). Thus, commonly borrowed vocabulary usu - ally means a lower degree of linguistic influence and convergence, while common innovations in the domain of grammar mean a higher degree of linguistic influence and convergence. A conver - gence area is therefore defined primarily on the basis of convergent grammatical innovations. Using mathematical terminology, it could be said that the linguistic influence on the vocabu - lary presents a necessary condition, while the in - fluence on the grammar is a sufficient condition for the definition of a convergence area. Like in linguistic genealogy, it is the shared innovations and not the archaisms that are relevant in de - termining the putative convergent grammatical features of a convergence area. In defining a convergence area, the relevant hierarchy of linguistic criteria must be estab - lished, i.e. which criteria are decisive and which are not. In contrast to linguistic genealogy, areal linguistic typology must ‘reverse’ linguistic cri - teria. In detail, within linguistic genealogy, lin - guistic criteria in defining a dialect continuum of genetically related idioms are prioritized fol - lowing a ‘bottom-up’ principle, i.e. phonetics, morphology, and syntax. Differently, when de - fining a convergence area of genetically non-re - lated idioms, it is more appropriate to proceed following a ‘top-down’ principle, as the linguis - tic influence and the consequent linguistic bor - rowing and imitation follow the principle ‘words first, grammar later’. It turns out that the syntac - tic and morphological level are more relevant in determining common structural linguistic char - acteristics of the languages involved in a conver - gence area, while the phonetic, more precisely its segmental level, is less relevant (cf. Birnbaum 1965, 43). However, common vocabulary, bor - rowed and/or calqued on a foreign model is an indicator of intense language contact, which is a prerequisite for the formation of a convergence area. In addition to the synchronic aspect, the di - achronic perspective, i.e. the chronology of the putative convergent linguistic innovations, is in - dispensable in understanding the formation of a studia universitatis hereditati central european convergence area: theoretical and methodological considerations 67 convergence area. Indeed, only the absolute and relative chronology of the emergence of single linguistic phenomena in the idioms involved re - veals whether shared structural ‘surface’ linguis - tic features are really a result of language contact or are merely accidental. While the mere enu - meration of common linguistic features of lan - guages within a hypothesized convergence area is rather banal, explaining their origin is a signif - icantly harder nut to crack in the historical lin - guistic interpretation (cf. Hock 2021, 724). In linguistics, there is no uniform defini - tion of the term convergence area. The following definition seems be in accordance with the the - ory and methodology of historical linguistics: a convergence area can be defined as a group of languages in contact, belonging to at least three genetic stocks which display common innova - tions in grammar (as well in vocabulary) due to a long-lasting appurtenance to a political and cul - tural entity (in the past), which resulted in in - tensive linguistic contact and mutual linguistic influence and linguistic convergence. A conver - gence area is therefore defined primarily on the basis of those grammatical changes which have arisen secondarily as a result of linguistic conver - gence (convergent linguistic change and the re - sulting shared structural linguistic features). To conclude, a convergence area is defined, first of all, on the basis of those grammatical changes which arose secondarily due to convergent lin - guistic change. Depending on the number of these secondarily common structural linguis - tic features, the languages within a convergence area may be divided into ‘core’ and ‘peripher - al’ languages, i.e. ones with a bigger or a small - er number of shared grammatical features of sec - ondary origin. Central European linguistic area: a convergence area? The Central European linguistic area encom - passes German, the so-called Central Europe - an Slavic languages and Hungarian. 12 The fact 12 The term Central European must be understood in terms of linguistics and not perhaps in terms of geography, polit - ical or cultural history, or otherwise. is that in the past there have been some conver - gent linguistic changes in this area which com - prise languages and their dialects from at least three different genetic stocks. The question aris - es whether these dialect continua have really converged into the hypothesized Central Euro - pean convergence area, at least to some extent comparable to the Balkan linguistic league. In the following paragraphs, the theoretical and methodological approach in defining the Cen - tral European Sprachbund, as presented in Kur - zová (1996 and 2019), is critically assessed, offer - ing a methodologically more solid framework and the main objectives in the investigation of this phenomenon. Geographical and chronological delimita- tion. The languages of the Central European lin - guistic area were, in the past, part of multilin - gual political and cultural entities that were in the political-administrative sense part of Cen - tral European political formations with centres of power linked to the German linguistic area, i.e. first and foremost of the Holy Roman Em - pire and its continuations. The connection to the German-speaking territory lasted in the dif - ferent Central European languages or parts of them for different periods of time, and, in some areas, it still does. 13 The decline of this common cultural space for most Central European lan - guages is most probably to be traced in time after the First World War when radical political and cultural changes took place. Influencing and influenced languages. In the process of linguistic convergence in the Cen - tral European area, the German language played a unifying role. In the German Empire and its 13 For instance, the greater part of the Slovenian linguistic area was linked to the political entities of German cul - ture in the period from the second half of the 8th centu - ry, when, at that time, the future Slovenian-speaking lands were integrated into the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne (reigned 768–814) (cf. the annexation of the Alpine Slav - ic principality of Carantania to the Duchy of Bavaria in 743–745 and the subsequent annexation of Bavaria to the Frankish Kingdom in 788, as well as the annexation of the Alpine Slavic principality of Carniola to the Frankish state during the Frankish-Avar wars in 791 and 795–796) until 1918, when the last major political formation in the area, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy under the Habsburgs, collapsed (cf. Štih, Simoniti, and Vodopivec 2016). studia universitatis hereditati studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 68 ‘successor states’, German was a lingua franca for centuries, above all in the urban centres. Al - though it is possible that the linguistic influence was multidirectional, it is more probable that a unidirectional linguistic influence prevailed, viz. German was the influencing language while all the other languages were the influenced ones. 14 The influence of German within the area, both on the level of vernaculars and the literary lan - guages, can be perceived mainly in the vocab - ulary (cf. German loanwords as well as struc - tural and semantic calques), 15 and to a lesser extent in the domain of grammar (i.e. syntax and morphology). Central European Slavic languages. Accord - ing to Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the Central European Slavic languages include Czech and Slovak as the ‘core’ languages, Polish and Slove - nian as the ‘peripheral’ group, and ‘Serbo-Cro - atian’ as a transitional zone between the Cen - tral European and the Balkan Slavic languages. Considering the historical facts and linguistic features of the examined languages, such a geo - graphical demarcation appears to be oversimpli - fied. As already pointed out, the Central Euro - pean Slavic languages were all those languages which were for a certain period of time linked to the political centres in the German speaking area and were consequently influenced by Ger - man. These languages were Slovenian and Cen - tral South Slavic (at least its western part) in the south, 16 as well as Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Pol - ish and Pomeranian (its easternmost periphery is represented by Kashubian and its northern - 14 In determining the mutual influences in the Central Euro - pean linguistic area up to at least the end of the First World War, one must take into account other situations of lan - guage contact, namely, the influence on the level of liter - erary languages, e.g. the influence of Literary Czech on Literary Slovak (as well as that of Literary Hungarian on Literary Slovak), the influence of Literary Croatian on Lit - erary Slovenian, etc. 15 For German loanwords in Slovenian, the Slavic language that is/was in contact with German the longest, cf. Stried - ter-Temps (1963). 16 The Central South Slavic linguistic area in fact forms a transition between Central European and Balkan lan - guages, which is confirmed by older German borrowings and later loans from Turkish in the domain of vocabulary. most dialect, Slovincian) in the west. Most prob - ably, Polabian, a West Slavic language, fragmen - tarily documented in the first half of the 18th century and extinct by the middle of that cen - tury, was part of this convergence area, too. Ac - cordingly, the view ‘I do not pay systematic at - tention to Slavic languages (Sorbian, †Polabian) directly influenced by German as the dominat - ing language, as this represents another type of language contact’ (Kurzová 2019, 262) is simply untenable if the Central European convergence area is to be understood as a chronologically de - limited phenomenon. Indeed, until the end of the First World War, there was no difference be - tween the influence of German on Slovenian (es - pecially in the Central Slovenian area within the Inner Austria) or Sorbian, for example. 17 The hierarchy of linguistic criteria. The hier - archy of linguistic criteria for determining the Central European convergence area and the in - ternal division of Central European Slavic lan - guages into ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ languages in Kurzová (1996 and 2019) lacks cogency. Name - ly, the placement of the accent on the first sylla - ble, i.e. phonological level, is applied as the high - est criterion. As it has already been mentioned, unlike in detecting linguistic relatedness, where the highest criterion is represented by historical phonology, the syntactic and the morphological criterion are more relevant in determining struc - tural linguistic similarity. A different hierarchy of linguistic criteria would drastically change the subdivision of the influenced languages within the hypothesized convergence area into ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ ones. Syntax and morphology. The common syn - tactic and morphological features of Central European languages should not be defined in relation and in contrast to the neighbouring lin - guistic areas, especially the Balkan languages, but should describe the specific linguistic fea - tures of the Central European languages. Such 17 Unlike other Central European Slavic languages, the en - tire Sorbian speaking area (like Slovenian in the Austrian part of Carinthia and Styria as well as Croatian in the Aus - trian part of Burgenland) (cf. Bayer 2006) remained in in - tensive contact with German even after the First and Sec - ond World Wars. studia universitatis hereditati central european convergence area: theoretical and methodological considerations 69 features could be, for instance, the formation of the preposed definite and indefinite articles (cf. the title of one of the first Slovenian books Ena molitov tih kerszhenikou (Vergerij and Trubar 1555), literally ‘one prayer of the Christians’, where the cardinal numeral ena is used as an in - definite article, while the demonstrative tih func - tions as a definite article (Orožen 1972; Trove - si 2004; Bayer 2006; Bažec 2012)), peculiarities of word order (infinitive clauses in literary Slove - nian of the second half of the 19th century, fol - lowing the model of the German zu-infinitive), the occurrence of preverbs with spatial mean - ing (cf. the Klagenfurt/Celovec or Rateče Man - uscript from the 2nd half of the 14th century: 3sg aor. gori wstaa (III 6–7) = gori vsta, i.e. gori vsta- ti, ‘to rise’, a calque following the German model auferstehen), typologically similar word-forma - tion patterns (Slavic *-ar- → *-ar-ьstvo, German -er → -er-ei, and Hungarian -ász/-ész → -ász-at/ -ész-et: sl. *ryba → *rybaŕь → *rybarьstvo > Slove - nian riba, ‘fish’ → ribar, ‘fisher’ → ribarstvo, ‘fish - ing’ = German Fisch → Fischer → Fischerei = Hun - garian hal → halász → halászat) (Šekli 2021). The diachronic perspective. In Kurzová (1996 and 2019), the historical-linguistic aspect is al - most completely neglected. For example, one of the salient features of the Central European convergence area is allegedly a simple three-tense verb system (i.e. past–present–future) without any formal and semantic (functional) distinc - tion between the different past tense forms. A question arises whether there is a connection be - tween the loss of the preterite and its replace - ment by the perfect in Upper/South German di - alects (German Oberdeutsch or Süddeutsch) on the one hand and the loss of the aorist and the imperfect and their replacement by the perfect in the Slavic languages in contact with Upper High German on the other (Hammel 2020, 28). This question can only be answered by a careful linguistic analysis of the linguistic material in a diachronic perspective. The geolectal and sociolectal perspectives. When describing and explaining the origins of common linguistic features in the vocabulary and grammar of the languages in a given conver - gence area, it must be taken into account wheth - er a given linguistic feature occurs in all the di - alects of a given linguistic area or just in the literary/standard language (Hammel 2020, 23). In Slovenian, for example, ancient German loan - words occur across the entire linguistic area, in - cluding those dialects that are/were in contact with other neighbouring languages and their di - alects (Slovenian borders on the Romance lan - guages, i.e. Friulian and Italian (specifically its Colonial Venetian dialects), in the west, and on the Hungarian in the east); cf. the older loan - words from German in the dialect of Rezija/Re - sia in the west, and in the Prekmurje dialect in the Porabje/Rábavidék region in the east: Mid - dle High German vlasche → dial. Slovenian fláša, ‘bottle’, Rezija flaša, ‘bottle’, Porabje flájša, ‘flask’ (Šekli 2022). However, in the Central European languages the already mentioned word-forma - tional pattern of the type Slovenian riba → ribar → ribarstvo is characteristic of literary languag - es rather than the dialects, since such derivatives are typical literary formations (with abstract meaning) pertaining to a learned culture. Conclusion Seen from the vantage point of the theory and methodology of historical linguistics, the defi - nition of the Central European convergence area as presented by Helena Kurzová in her 1996 and 2019 works is problematic and should be sani - tized. Methodologically justifiable objectives in the investigation of the convergence phenome - na in the Central European linguistic area are, in fact, as follows: 1) A convergence area is not only a geographically but also a chronologically clearly delimited phenomenon; 2) The languag - es of the Central European linguistic area were shaped in the context of multilingual political and cultural/historical regions whose centres were under the sway of German, first and fore - most within the German Empire and its con - tinuations till the end of the First World War; 3) German exerted linguistic influence on the neighbouring languages, i.e. the so-called Cen- studia universitatis hereditati studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 70 tral European Slavic languages comprising all West Slavic languages and Slovenian (note here that Central South Slavic forms a transition - al area between the Central European and the Balkan area), and Hungarian, be it on the lev - el of vernaculars or the literary standards; 4) In the individual languages such monolateral lin - guistic influence surfaces in the form of German loanwords and is thus also clearly recognizable as such; 5) Only innovations can serve as a de - cisive criterion in establishing convergence phe - nomena in a Sprachbund, while all potential ar - chaisms/retentions are in fact irrelevant; 6) Higher-ranking in the detection of grammatical phenomena that may be due to secondary lin - guistic convergence are syntax and morphology, while phonology plays a very marginal role; 7) T o account for potential grammatical features a di - achronic insight is equally important since only the relative and/or absolute chronological order - ing of such linguistic changes will show whether these go back to language contact or rather rep - resent chance similarities. Povzetek Z vidika teorije in metodologije zgodovinskega jezi - koslovja je teoretično-metodološki pristop pri dolo - čanju srednjeevropske jezikovne zveze, kakršen je predsta - vljen v Kurzová (1996 in 2019), pomanjkljiv in ga je treba v nekaterih točkah dopolniti. Predlagana teoretično - -metodološka izhodišča za dopolnitev raziskovanja na tem področju so npr.: (1) jezikovna zveza ni zamejena le zemljepisno, temveč tudi časovno; (2) jeziki srednje - evropskega jezikovnega prostora so se oblikovali znot - raj večjezičnih politično- in kulturnozgodovinskih regij s središči, vezanimi na nemški jezikovni prostor, v prvi vrsti znotraj nemškega cesarstva in njegovih »nasledni - kov« v času do konca prve svetovne vojne; (3) v tem pro - storu je prevladovalo enosmerno jezikovno vplivanje: nemški jezik je bil vplivajoči jezik, vplivani jeziki pa so bili t. i. srednjeevropski slovanski jeziki (to so vsi zahodnoslo - vanski jeziki in slovenščina, medtem ko osrednjejužno - slovanski jezikovni prostor predstavlja prehod med sre - dnjeevropskim in balkanskim jezikovnim prostorom) ter madžarski jezik, in sicer tako na ravni ljudskih kot knjižnih jezikov; (4) prevladujoči enostranski jezikov - ni stik z nemščino v vplivanih jezikih potrjujejo nem - cizmi na besedijski ravni; (5) za določanje morebitnih konvergentnih jezikovnih lastnosti na slovnični ravni so relevantne skupne inovacije, ne pa skupni arhaizmi; (6) za določanje morebitnih konvergentnih lastnosti znot - raj slovnice sta pomembni skladenjska in oblikovna rav - nina, medtem ko je glasovna ravnina manj pomembna; (7) za pojasnjevanje morebitnih konvergentnih slovnič - nih inovacij je poleg sinhronega treba upoštevati tudi di - ahroni vidik, saj samo relativna in absolutna kronologija konvergentnih slovničnih sprememb razkrijeta, ali so te posledica jezikovnega stika ali so samo naključne. Riassunto Dal punto di vista teorico-metodologico della lingui - stica storica il concetto della lega linguistica mitteleuro- pea come concepito da Helena Kurzová nelle sue opere del 1996 e 2019 risulta avere delle carenze e andrebbe mi - gliorato in alcuni punti. A nostro avviso, le indagini lin - guistiche di processi di convergenza nell’ area linguistica mitteleuropea dovrebbero tenere conto delle seguenti riflessioni teorico-metodologiche: 1) una lega linguistica non è delimitata soltanto in termini spaziali, bensì anche in quelli temporali; 2) le lingue dell’ area mitteleuropea si sono formate nell’ambito delle entità politico-ammini - strative e culturali multi- e plurilingui, legate ai centri di potere presenti nell’ area di lingua tedesca, in primo luo - go nel Sacro romano impero della nazione germanica e del suoi ‘successori’ in un periodo di tempo antecedente alla prima guerra mondiale; 3) nella suddetta area la na - tura dell’influsso linguistico era prevalentemente unila - terale, in cui il tedesco era la lingua influenzante, mentre le altre lingue dell’area – vale a dire le cosiddette lingue slave mitteleuropee (che comprendono le lingue slave occi - dentali e lo sloveno, mentre il cosiddetto srenjojužnoslav- enski ‘slavo meridionale centrale’ rappresenta un idioma di transizione tra l’area mitteleuropea e quella balcani - ca) e l’ungherese – erano lingue influenzate, sia a livello di dialetti che a quello della lingua letteraria/standard; 4) questo influsso linguistico prevalentemente unilate - rale è confermato dai numerosi tedeschismi sul piano lessicale presenti nelle lingue influenzate; 5) nella defini - zione dei processi di convergenza sul piano grammati - cale sono rilevanti soprattutto le innovazioni comuni e non gli arcaismi sebbene comuni; 6) per la definizione degli elementi costitutivi di una lega linguistica nell’ am - studia universitatis hereditati central european convergence area: theoretical and methodological considerations 71 bito grammaticale sono importanti soprattutto il piano sintattico e quello morfologico, mentre è più o meno ir - rilevante quello fonetico-fonologico; 7) per una appro - priata spiegazione delle innovazioni comuni occorre considerare non solo l’aspetto sincronico, bensì anche quello diacronico. Solo in base alla cronologia assoluta e relativa è infatti possibile stabilire se i tratti linguistici di natura tipologica in questione, osservati superficialmen - te, sono il risultato di contatto linguistico o sono sola - mente coincidenze occasionali. References Asenova, P. 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie: osnovni problemi na balkanskija ezikov săjuz. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber. Bayer, M. 2006. Sprachkontakt deutsch-slavisch: eine kontrastive Interferenzstudie am Beispiel des Ober- und Niedersorbischen, Kärntnerslovenischen und Burgenlandkroatischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Bažec, H. 2012. ‘Gramatikalizacija nedoločnega člena v slovenščini.’ Annales: anali za istrske in mediteranske študije 22 (1): 461– 470. Birnbaum, H. 1965: ‘Balkanslavisch und Südslavisch: zur Reichweite der Balkanismen im südslavischen Sprachraum.’ Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 3:12–63. Fiedler, W. 2009. ‘Einführung in die Balkanphilologie.’ In Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen: mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie, edited by P. Rehder, 347–364. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gaeta, L., and G. Seiler. 2021. ‘A Specter is Haunting Europe: The Alps as a Linguistic Area?’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 74 (1): 1–16. https:// doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2021-1021. Hammel, R. 2020. ‘Slovenski jezik in srednjeevropska jezikovna zveza.’ In Slovenski jezik in književnost v srednjeevropskem prostoru, edited by M. Šekli and L. Rezoničnik, 21–32. Ljubljana: Slavistično društvo Slovenije. Haspelmath, M. 2001. ‘The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European.’ In Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalienforschung: ein internationales Handbuch, edited by M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible, 1492–1510. Berlin: Gruyter. Hock, H. H. 2021. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Gruyter. Kopitar, J. 1829. ‘Albanische, walachisce u. bulgarische Sprache.’ Jahrbücher der Literatur 46:59–106. Kurzová, H. 1996. ‘Mitteleuropa als Sprachareal.’ Acta Universitatis Carolinae 13:57–73. Kurzová, H. 2019. ‘Defining the Central European Convergence Area.’ In Slavic on the Language Map of Europe: Historical and Areal-Typological Dimensions, edited by A. Danylenko and M. Nomachi, 261–289. Berlin: Gruyter. Lončarić, M. 1996. Kajkavsko narječje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga. Miklosich, F. 1861. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänichen. Vienna: Gerold. Mišeska Tomić, O. 2006. Balkan Sprachbund: Morpho-syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas. 2006. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas: Serija fonetiko-grammatičeskaja: Vypusk 4a: Refleksy *ъ, *ь. Vtoričnye glasnye. Zagreb: Meždunarodnyj komitet slavistov / Komisija Obščeslavjanskogo lingvističeskogo atlasa. Orožen, M. 1972. ‘K določnemu členu v slovenščini.’ Slavistična revija 20 (1): 105– 114. Osthoff, H., and K. Brugmann. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 1. Leipzig: Hirzel. studia universitatis hereditati studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 11 (2023), številka 1 / volume 11 (2023), number 1 72 Pedersen, H. 1931. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century: Methods and Results. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pila, M. 2021. ‘Slavic Alpine Micro-Varieties as Part of an “Alpensprachbund”? The Case of the Venitive (come) Passive.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 74 (1): 163–184. Reindl, D. F. 2008. Language Contact: German and Slovenian. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Schmidt, J. 1872. Die Verwantschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau. Skála, E. 1998. ‘Versuch einer Definition des mitteleuropäischen Sprachbundes.’ In Deutsche Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Festschrift für Peter Wiesinger zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by P. Ernst and F. Patocka, 675–684. Vienna: Praesens. Skála, E. 1999: ‘Der mitteleuropäische Sprachbund.’ In Sprachkultur und Sprachgeschichte. Herausbildung und Förderung von Sprachbewußtsein und wissenschaftlicher Sprachpflege in Europa, edited by J. Scharnhorst, 125–133. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Steinke, K. 2012. ‘Welche Zukunft hat der Balkansprachbund?’ In Balkanismen heute – Balkanisms Today – Balkanizmy segodnja, edited by T. Kahl, M. Metzeltin, and H. Schaller, 75–80. Vienna: LIT. Striedter-Temps, H. 1963. Deutsche Lehnwörter im Slovenischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Šekli, M. 2018. Tipologija lingvogenez slovanskih jezikov. Ljubljana: ZRC. Šekli, M. 2020. ‘ Danuvius–Alpes–Hadria, kjer je (bila) doma tudi slovenščina.’ In Slovenski jezik in književnost v srednjeevropskem prostoru, edited by M. Šekli and L. Rezoničnik, 11–19. Ljubljana: Slavistično društvo Slovenije. Šekli, M. 2021. ‘Besedotvorni vzorec tipa vinar – vinarstvo oz. strojar – strojarstvo v slovenščini v kontekstu srednjeevropskega jezikovnega areala.’ Slavistična revija 69 (1): 141–155. Šekli, M. 2022. ‘Južnoslovanski jeziki v kontekstu balkanske in srednjeevropske jezikovne zveze: teoretično-metodološki premisleki.’ In Slavistična prepletanja 3, edited by G. Nikolovski and N. Ulčnik, 35–56. Maribor: Univerzitetna založba Univerze v Mariboru. Štih, P., V. Simoniti, and P. Vodopivec. 2016. Slovenska zgodovina. 2 vol. Ljubljana: Modrijan. Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Trovesi, A. 2004. La genesi di articoli determinativi: modalità di espressione della definitezza in ceco, serbo-lusaziano e sloveno. Milano: Angeli. Trubeckoj, N. S. 1923. ‘Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov.’ Evrazijskij vremennik 3: 107–124. Vergerij, P. P., and P. Trubar. 1555. Ena molitov tih kerszhenikou. Tübingen. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. London: Mouton.