31 LANGUAGE
Nada Šabec
University of Maribor
Faculty of Arts, Slovenia
Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
Summary
 e paper focuses on Slovene - English language cont act and the potential language change 
resulting from it. Both the immigrant context (the U.S. and Canada) and Slovenia, where direct and 
indirect language contact can be observed respectively, are examined from two perspectives: social 
on the one hand and linguistic on the other. In the case of Slovene Americans and Canadians the 
emphasis is on language maintenance and shift, and on the relationship between mother tongue 
preservation and ethnic awareness.  e linguistic se ction examines di'erent types of bilingual 
discourse (borrowing, code switching), showing how the Slovene in ectional system in particular 
is being increasingly generalized, simpli%ed and reduced, and how Slovene word order is gradually 
beginning to resemble that of English. In the case of Slovenia we are witnessing an unprecedented 
surge in the in uence of English on Slovene, especi ally in the media (both classic and electronic), 
advertising, science, and the language of the young.  is in uence will be discussed on a number 
of levels, such as lexical, syntactic and intercultural, and illustrated by relevant examples.  
Key words: language contact, language change, accommodation, language shift, borrowing, 
code switching, identity
Slovensko-angleški jezikovni stik in jezikovne spremembe
Povzetek
Članek obravnava slovensko-angleški jezikovni stik in jezikovne spremembe, ki izhajajo iz le-tega. 
Pri tem gre za dve okolji, izseljenskega (ZDA, Kanada) in slovenskega. V prvem gre za neposredni 
jezikovni stik, v drugem za posrednega, v obeh pa pojav raziskujem tako z jezikoslovenga kot z 
družbenega vidika.  V primeru ameriških in kanadskih Slovencev je poudarek na jezikovnem 
ohranjanju oz. jezikovnem premiku ter na odnosu med ohranjanjem maternega jezika in 
etnične ozaveščenosti. V jezikovnem delu se osredinjam na različne tipe dvojezičnega diskurza 
(sposojanje, kodno preklapljanje), pri čemer ugotavljam, da prihaja do postopnega posploševanja, 
poenostavljanja in opuščanja slovenskih sklanjatvenih vzorcev, medtem ko postaja slovenski 
besedni vrstni red v nekaterih segmentih vedno bolj podoben angleškemu. V Sloveniji smo po 
drugi strani priča doslej najmočnejšemu vplivu angleščine na slovenščino, predvsem v medijih 
(tako klasičnih in elektronskih) in v jeziku mladih. Ta vpliv analiziram na različnih jezikovnih 
ravninah od leksikalne do sintaktične in medkulturne ter ga ponazorim z ustreznimi primeri. 
Ključne besede: jezikovni stik, jezikovne spremembe, akomodacija, jezikovni premik, 
sposojanje, kodno preklapljanje, identiteta
UDK 81’282.8=163.6=111
DOI: 10.4312/elope.8.1.31-49
32 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
1. Introduction
Language contact is a widespread phenomenon that can be can be examined from di'erent 
perspectives, including the social/functional and linguistic/structural ones. Depending on the 
speci%c circumstances in which it occurs, on the reasons for its occurrence and on the di'erent 
outcomes that it may produce, it can be classi%ed into di'erent types. One criterion that I will 
rely on in my article is whether the contact is direct or indirect. Direct language contact refers 
to situations where “groups of people who speak very similar varieties are in contact with people 
who speak rather di'erent varieties” ( omason 2001, 2) such as immigrant situations. On the 
other hand, language contact may be indirect or distant (Winford 2003), where the in uence of 
one language on the other does not occur directly, but rather through the mediation of written 
texts or, recently, mostly through the Internet and other electronic media, also referred to as 
CMC or computer-mediated-media.
1
 Regardless of the type, however, language contact may 
trigger varying degrees of language change. Language contact and language change are thus 
closely interrelated, as will be illustrated by the case of Slovene and English. I will %rst address 
the direct Slovene-English language contact in the immigrant environment of the United States 
and Canada, and then focus on the situation in Slovenia, where we are currently witnessing the 
ever stronger indirect in uence of English on Slove ne.
2. Slovene-English Language Contact in an Immigrant Environment
For obvious reasons, immigrant environments, where people speaking di'erent languages are in 
contact on a daily basis, are ideally suited to the study of language contact. In my research so far 
I have examined several Slovene speech communities both in the United States and in Canada 
(Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Fontana, T oronto, Vancouver). Due to space limitations I will not 
be able to describe all %ve of them. Instead, I will focus on Cleveland, the largest Slovene American 
community in the U.S., where I carried out the most extensive %eldwork and, for the sake of 
comparison with smaller communities, also brie y pr esent the situation in Washington, D.C. 
 e language contact situation will be %rst addresse d from the social perspective in terms of 
language use and language attitudes and then from the structural perspective, analyzing di'erent 
forms of bilingual discourse and interlingual in ue nces. Language change will be explained both 
on societal and individual levels as a consequence of sociolinguistic accommodation. 
2.1 Sociolinguistic Accommodation on the Societal Level
As a starting point I will take the de%nition of Giles and Coupland (1991), who explore 
“accommodative processes” in relation to identity, whereby speakers may manipulate language 
in order “to maintain integrity, distance or identity” (ibid., 66). I believe that this concept 
of accommodation theory, which focuses on the interactive aspects of communication and 
1
 Computer-Mediated-Media is defined as ‘’communciation that takes place between human beings via the instrumentality of 
computers’’ (Herring 1996, 1).
33 LANGUAGE
emphasizes its negotiative character, is best suited to explain the various shifts in language use 
that occur in the case of Slovene Americans both on individual and societal levels. 
On a broader, societal level, accommodation is manifested through di'erent stages of 
intergenerational language shift from Slovene to English. In order to understand this process, we 
need some background information on Slovene immigration to the USA. 
Slovenes immigrated to the US in general and to Cleveland in particular in two major waves: 
at the turn of the century and after WW II.
2
  e early, economic immigrants had little or 
no education, most were illiterate and spoke only regional dialects. With no professional skills 
they worked in steel mills and other factories and lived in ethnically segregated neighborhoods, 
where they could rely on ethnic organizations and communicate in their mother tongue.  ese 
neighborhoods were so Slovene in character that the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic 
groups states that “In Cleveland, for example, St. Clair Avenue from 30
th
 to East 79
th
 Streets 
became by the 1920s so completely Slovene in character that English was the foreign language” 
( ernston 1980, 973).  e partial in uence of Englis h was seen only in borrowing, where 
lexemes from the donor English language were morphologically and partly phonologically 
adapted to the recipient Slovene language through the attachment of Slovene su<xes to the 
English bases.  e second generation, their children , however, having already learned English, in 
most cases moved out of the inner city and progressed both socially and economically.  is was 
even more true of the third, pre-war, generation, which is mostly college educated, but no longer 
or only exceptionally speaks Slovene.  e post-war g roup of immigrants came to the States 
primarily for political reasons; they were better educated, had a working knowledge of English 
and thus a much better starting position. Residential concentration was no longer essential to 
their survival, and the majority settled in the suburbs. Linguistically, it is interesting that they 
have a good command of both the dialects and Standard Slovene, which is why they only rarely 
resort to borrowing. Instead, they engage in code switching, which involves the alternate use of 
two discrete linguistic systems.  eir children are similar to the third, pre-war, generation in that 
they speak little or no Slovene and also in terms of their social and economic mobility.
Cleveland Slovenes are known for maintaining close contact with Slovenia and supporting 
an impres-sive number of ethnic organizations. After the general ethnic revival in the US in 
the 1970s, and again after Slovenia’s independence in 1991, Slovene Americans experienced a 
renewed interest in searching for their roots and in preserving their heritage. 
Washington Slovenes, on the other hand, represent a relatively small ethnic group (a few 
hundred).  ey moved to the capital city after WW II either from Slovenia or from other US 
federal states.  ey were attracted by occupational and professional opportunities that were quite 
di'erent from those of early immigrants to Cleveland. Being well-educated, the majority of 
Washington Slovenes work in managerial positions, in academia, as federal employees and the 
like. For them, living together was never a matter of survival, but rather a matter of personal 
choice, a way to enrich their social and cultural lives and to express their identity.
Compared to Cleveland Slovenes, they are far less heterogeneous in terms of generations. In 
2
 WW II is used to divide the immigrants into two large groups: the pre-war and the post-war ones. 
34 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
fact, it only makes sense to classify them into two groups: Slovene-born and American-born, as 
any more detailed classi%cations would yield few, if any, meaningful results.  ose who speak 
Slovene are very pro%cient in it (some have even published in the language).  ere is practically 
no borrowing and even code switching is relatively rare compared to Cleveland.  e Slovene-
born participants are understandably better at Slovene than American-born ones, but there are a 
few cases where children speak very good Slovene, too. In all cases, however, the respondents are 
skeptical about Slovene language maintenance in the future and even though the Slovene-born 
respondents cite language as the most important factor in their ethnic identi%cation, already 
their children do not see ethnic identity as depending primarily on the language. 
 e Cleveland data in particular reveal signi%cant i ntergenerational variation both in the participants’ 
bilingual competence and in their attitudes toward the two languages. While the older generations 
and the more recent Slovene-born immigrants still speak Slovene, the younger ones, born in the 
U.S., have to a great extent lost their facility in the language.  e most bilingual of all is the seco nd 
generation of pre-war immigrants, but their use of Slovene is con%ned to ethnic contexts. It is 
precisely because of this general perception that the Slovene language plays an important symbolic 
role, but has in fact very little, if any, pragmatic value, that the situation among American Slovenes is 
that of a very unstable, transitional bilingualism.  is is best illustrated by the fact that the shift from 
Slovene to English among the pre-war immigrants occurred over the course of three generations, but 
took only two generations in the case of post-war immigrants. 
Viewed from the accommodation perspective, the language shift just described could be 
interpreted as a form of adjustment, whereby Slovene communities experienced a kind of 
convergence of their language toward the dominant English and in the process also underwent 
certain language contact-induced changes, seen primarily in borrowing, code switching and 
various types of interlingual in uences on di'erent linguistic levels.
It is interesting that the partial or at times even complete language shift occurred despite the fact 
that, on the declarative level, the great majority of the respondents attribute a very high degree 
of importance to the maintenance of the mother tongue (even though they do not consider it to 
be the most important factor in ethnic identi%cation – this is culture instead), and that the two 
communities share a very strong sense of appreciation of their ethnic heritage and a very positive 
self-image.  e Slovene American communities are thu s likely to survive even though its members 
may in the future no longer identify themselves as being bilingual but rather as bicultural.
A likely explanation for such a development can be found in their ambition to integrate 
into  mainstream society as fully as possible as well as in the objective circumstances, i.e. the 
omnipresent, even though not overt pressure of English.  e non-explicit character of the 
in uence of English seems to be a relevant factor, as the immigrants’ convergence toward English 
in this particular environment is in marked contrast to some other contexts, where Slovene 
under overt pressure has survived despite everything (e.g. during WW II, when in the occupied 
Slovene territories it was forbidden to speak Slovene; in 1989, when the prospect of a court trial 
against Slovene dissidents in Serbo-Croatian
3
 triggered mass demonstrations and the eventual 
3
 Serbo-Croatian was one of the three official languages in the former Yugoslavia. Although Slovene, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian 
were declared to be equal, Serbo-Croatian was in fact the dominant language from the socilinguistic perspective and the only one 
35 LANGUAGE
disintegration of the former Yugoslavia; in present-day Austria, where members of the Slovene 
minority keep %ghting for bilingual signs and schools). 
2.2 Sociolinguistic Accommodation in Face-to-Face Interactions
Even more transparent forms of sociolinguistic accommodation can be observed in the face-to-
face interactions of the participants in the study. While their language choice understandably 
depends on the level of their bilingual pro%ciency, it is also to a large extent determined by their 
social and psychological motivations. In general, the interviews and the participant observation 
show that the subjects spoke more Slovene with those people who, in their opinion, felt more 
comfortable speaking Slovene (e.g. the elderly, visitors from Slovenia), and almost always 
switched to English when a monolingual English speaker joined in the conversation. Bilinguals 
therefore exhibit various degrees of linguistic intravariation in their conversations.  eir choice 
of a particular language in any particular situation depends on the degree of intimacy or social 
distance that they wish to establish between themselves and their addressee.  is phenomenon 
can be explained within the theoretical framework of the audience design (Bell 1984) and of 
the interpersonal accommodation theory (Giles and Johnson 1981, 1987). According to the 
former, speakers design their speech in such a way as to accommodate their addressees.  is is 
done by style shifting, which in a bilingual situation translates into a choice between two codes/
languages.  e accommodation is directed primarily a t the addressee, but also at the so called 
third persons (auditors, who are present, but not directly addressed, and overhearers).  eir 
in uence is of secondary importance compared to the addressee’s, but can be observed in those 
cases mentioned earlier, when the appearance of an English monolingual may cause the switch 
to English. According to the interpersonal accommodation theory, something very similar 
happens.  e interlocutors generally adapt their spe ech style to each other’s when there is an 
a<nity between them and when they want to bridge the social or personal gap between them. As 
they expect some potential bene%t from the interaction (which may be anything from possible 
future cooperation to simply enjoying each other’s company) they attempt to move closer to 
each other by resorting to their shared ethnic language. By converging in this direction they 
reduce their dissimilarities and express a sort of mutual solidarity.  e opposite may, of course, 
also happen when instead of convergence we observe divergence from the use of the language 
shared by all the participants.  e purpose of such behavior is to exclude the participant/s from 
the conversation.  is again may happen for a number of reasons. A very common one, which I 
did not observe, but was told about by a number of participants in this study was for the parents 
to speak Slovene so that the children would not understand what they were saying.
2.3 Structural Aspects of Sociolinguistic Accommodation and Potential 
Language Change
In addition to the social/functional aspects of accommodation described thus far, there are also 
structural dimensions to be considered.  e previous ly mentioned forms of bilingual discourse, 
used in the Army. After the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the formation of new states it split into different varieties such as Croatian, 
Serbian, and Montenegrin. 
36 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
borrowing and code switching, are the most obvious instances of that. In the case of borrowing 
we deal with the contact of English and Slovene on the level of a single word, which results in 
words such as kara, drajvati, zbrokan (from car, to drive and broken).  e most common items that 
undergo this process of phonological and morphological adaptation belong to open sets of word 
classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and serve either to %ll lexical gaps or are used in the case of most 
frequently occurring everyday words. While borrowing is typical of the early immigrants, later 
generations engage primarily in code switching, which involves the alternate use of two languages 
in the same conversation (Šabec 1995) but keeps them separate at all times.  e phenomenon is 
rather complex, it may occur on intra- or intersentential levels, in di'erent directions and may be 
subject to various syntactic constraints. A detailed analysis of these aspects would exceed the scope 
of this article, which is why I will only provide a few typical examples of nouns, verbs, adjectives, 
adverbs, numerals and discourse markers that are usually the subject of switching.
 Ko smo mi šli nazaj, business je vedno bil težek, tough, but we made it, see.
/When we returned, the business was always hard, tough, but we made it, see./
 In moj ata so prišli v Cleveland ninety twenty-one and then met and married my mother
/And my dad came to Cleveleand ninety twenty-one and then met and married my 
mother./
 Vsak večer špilajo kak šport, baseball, soccer, you never know when they’ll be home.
/Every evening they play sports, baseball, soccer, you never know when they’ll be 
home./ 
While language change in the process of borrowing and code switching is fairly salient, 
monolingual stretches of the immigrants’ discourse in Slovene also show traces of English 
in uence.  ese can be observed on various linguisti c levels from phonology (aspirated plosives, 
rhotic r etc.) to morphology and syntax. Morphology in particular, where the Slovene in ectional 
system is being increasingly generalized, simpli%ed and reduced, is an important area conducive 
to language change. In syntax, change involves a gradual change of word order. It is occasionally 
more %xed, thus resembling English, or simply used at random, disregarding the rules of Slovene. 
 e following examples show di'erent degrees of conv ergence of the weaker Slovene toward the 
dominant English.
 Pa smo šli z moja vnuk in poli smo vzeli ena slika od cela žlahta. (wrong gender and 
case of the nouns, a calque to take pictures instead of the verb slikati/fotogra$rati)
/We went with my grandson and took a picture of the entire family./
 Pa se moraš ustavit pri tisti lučem in se potem obrniti na desno, da prideš do tam. 
(wrong case of the noun luči, wrong number of the demonstrative pronoun tisti, luči 
instead of the Slovene equivalent semafor).
/You have to stop at those tra%c lights and then turn right to get there./
37 LANGUAGE
 In ona je pela tud’ ko je b’la ona mlada, samo potem ko je ona poročila, ni b’lo več 
časa za vaje. /redundant use of the pronoun ona, omission of the re exive se with the 
verb poročiti se).
/And she also sang when she was young, but then when she got married, she no longer 
had time for rehearsals./
 Smo šli z moja prijateljica mož. (wrong case of the nouns and the pronoun).
/We went with my friend’s husband./
 In dokler je prišel, ni šel nobeden proč. (analogy with the English word order, where 
in Slovene the negative particle would be used: dokler ni prišel).
/And until he came, nobody left./
 Pa je mislil, da to taku življenje tam delal, pa ni šlo. (calque delati življenje instead of 
the verb preživljati se/delati).
/And he thought that he would make a living there, but it didn’t work out./
Yet another manifestation of language change in the immigrant environment involves a partial 
leveling of dialects in the case of immigrants originating from di'erent parts in Slovenia. While 
it is true that Cleveland Slovenes especially maintain a degree of dialect distinctiveness in their 
speech, this is far less pronounced than it was in the “old country.”
4
  
And %nally, the use of second person pronouns as terms of address may be at least partially 
explained as being in uenced by English. While Slov ene has a binary system of second person 
pronouns, whereby a single interlocutor can be addressed either as ti or vi and where the choice 
implies di'erent degrees of personal and social (in)equality  among speakers or, according to 
Brown and Gilman (1960), power and solidarity, English uses the single form you in all cases. 
While in Slovenia, the distinction between ti and vi in addressing the other is largely observed 
(with the exception of some younger speakers), it is thus quite common for Slovene visitors to 
the States to be addressed as ti by complete strangers upon %rst meeting them. More precisely, 
the pronouns often seem to be used more or less at random, but with a very strong bias in 
favor of ti. Only some older Slovene-born immigrants still observe the distinction with any 
consistency, while all others state their preference for ti.  ere are of course at least two other 
possible explanations for such attitudes and use: the exclusive use of ti brought to the States 
by some early arrivals from the “old country,”
5
 and the uncertainty as to which pronoun to 
choose due to poor linguistic competence in Slovene.  e third one, the in uence of English, 
however, seems very likely and is con%rmed by the responses provided in by the participants in 
the T oronto and Fontana studies. Younger speakers especially believe that the more formal vi is 
4
 The name used by the immigrants to refer to Slovenia and the territories from which they had emigrated.
5
 Ti as the only pronoun used by lower classes such as peasants.
38 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
redundant and that the less formal, casual ti better serves their needs in addressing others on an 
equal footing. Compared to the relatively conservative and stable ti vs. vi distinction in Slovenia, 
Slovenes in the U.S.A. and Canada use predominantly the informal ti, which is in line with the 
dynamics in the relations between people living in a fairly egalitarian and socially mobile society. 
 e tendency to address people by %rst names only un derscores this %nding. 
3. Slovene-English Language Contact in Slovenia
Compared to the immigrant context, the forms of Slovene-English language contact in Slovenia 
are somewhat di'erent, as are the reasons for it.   e contact is indirect: in the past it used to 
happen through written texts and via intermediary languages such as German (e.g. the work 
keks from the English cake), recently it has been occurring mostly via CMC. In the past, such 
instances were rare; in recent decades they represent almost daily occurrences.  e reasons for 
the extent and the speed with which English in uenc es Slovene should no doubt be sought in 
the ongoing globalization processes, increasing mobility and the widespread availability of the 
Internet.  e three are largely based on the use of English as a lingua franca of international 
communication, which means that all other languages, Slovene included, can hardly avoid its 
in uence. It should be noted that the mentioned pro cesses have also impacted upon English 
itself. While in the past English used to belong exclusively to native speakers, and standard 
varieties of, say, British and American English, served as models for non-native speakers to 
emulate, this is no longer always the case. Non-native speakers of English now outnumber native 
ones, which has resulted on the one hand in the split of English into several local varieties 
such as Indian English and Singapore English (so-called World Englishes), and on the other into 
Global English used by the Internet community.  is variety, also referred to as World English, 
International English, Lingua Franca English, Globish, Weblish (e.g. Crystal 2001a), displays a 
high degree of variation depending on the varying degrees of pro%ciency of its users, transfers 
from their mother tongues, deviations from the norm, simpli%cations and the like, thus defying 
easy or even precise codi%cation. Its users can no longer be de%ned in terms of traditional speech 
communities constrained by physical or geographical boundaries (Labov 1966; Milroy 1980), 
but rather as on-line communities of practice based on di'erent professional and other interests 
(Lave and Wengner 1991). English in lingua franca use then has become “deterritorialized or 
post-geographic” variety (James 2008, 79 and passim), which “as the linguistic manifestation of 
a myriad of set of contexts of using, can also be seen as a – globalised and globalising – linguistic 
resource for intercultural communication and transcultural  ows” (James 2009, 86).  is aspect 
of English in as far as it is relevant to Slovene both socially and culturally will be discussed in 
more detail later. First, however, I will turn my attention to the ways in which the in uence of 
English is felt on various linguistic levels of Slovene. 
3.1 Linguistic Influences
 ese occur primarily on lexical and partly on synta ctic and orthographic levels. 
39 LANGUAGE
3.1.1 Vocabulary
Since vocabulary is the part of language which is, as a rule, the most susceptible to in uences 
from other languages it will be addressed %rst and in more detail than the rest. It should be noted 
that lexical items are not only among the most frequently borrowed ones, but also the easiest to 
accept by most speakers, as they generally do not disrupt the structure of the native language, 
but are simply inserted into it and used either in response to the need for naming new objects, 
concepts or inventions or for some other reasons. And it is precisely these reasons that distinguish 
the Slovene situation from that of Slovene Americans and Canadians. While Slovene immigrants 
borrow English words to %ll lexical gaps (e.g. fonati from to phone; gradžuirati from to graduate), 
in Slovenia this is done for other reasons as well. Only some lexical items enter Slovene because 
the language does not possess its own words (e.g. bojkot, parkirati, golf, skenirati, lobirati; recently 
klikniti, guglati, tvitanje), in most other cases there already exist perfectly acceptable or established 
Slovene equivalents.  e reasons for borrowing are t hus of an essentially di'erent nature and 
have to do primarily with prestige, whereby “an element is borrowed from a language which 
is culturally or politically dominant” (Shukla and Connor-Linton 2006, 294).  e speakers 
presumably use them to appear more fashionable, cosmopolitan, and “in”. Examples of such 
loanwords are marketing, consulting, hit, lider, tekst (instead of trženje, svetovanje, uspešnica, vodja, 
besedilo) and many others.
Depending on the age and type of borrowed words, they may develop in di'erent directions. In the 
beginning they tend to be fairly unstable both in spelling and in pronunciation (e.g. leasing/lizing; 
in rare cases this happens also with some loanwords that have been in the language for a long time, 
e.g. cocktail/koktajl/koktejl)), after undergoing various degrees of phonological, morphological and 
orthographic adaptation, however, some may become totally integrated into Slovene and behave 
the same as any other Slovene word (e.g. sendvič, pullover, piknik). It is also possible for some to 
adopt phonologically and morphologically, but not orthographically (e.g. wellness and jacuzzi, 
which with their atypical spelling do indeed stand out). Borrowings or loanwords may continue 
to co-exist with their Slovene equivalents (e.g. resničnostni šov vs. reality show, glamur vs. blišč, 
laptop vs. prenosnik), in some cases they may acquire a specialized meaning, either narrower than 
in the original (e.g. juice, where in English this refers to all juices, in Slovene only to orange juice) 
or broader (e.g. toast in the sense of a ham and cheese toasted sandwich, while in English the 
meaning is limited to a toasted slice of bread), they may largely displace a Slovene word (stres 
instead of pritisk) or turn out to be short-lived and, after a while, fall into oblivion. It is worth 
noting that for some loanwords which had no Slovene equivalents when they were %rst borrowed, 
some very good and widely used Slovene substitutes have been created (e.g. najstnik, računalnik, 
tiskalnik, dlančnik from teenager, computer, printer, palm calculator; in some other cases, however, 
attempts to do the same were less successful, an example of which is the word spletni dnevnik for 
blog, where blog not only prevailed, but even gave rise to other related words such as bloganje, 
bloger, blogerski and the like). On the other hand, many other terms which have spread to Slovene  
(and many other languages) over the Internet more recently have never undergone that process 
precisely because of the speed with which they have “invaded” the languages; they have been 
accepted uncritically without due consideration of looking for suitable equivalents in the native 
language (e.g. stand up komik, mobbing). Yet another example of lexical in uence are calq ues, 
40 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
some already well established ones (e.g. pranje možganov from brainwashing), some of more recent 
origin (e.g. mreženje from networking) and some that may not be widely understood and whose 
status therefore remains uncertain for the time being (e.g. “…se mi zdi na neuspeh obsojeno 
prizadevanje, da bi (mu) dokazali ‘kadečo se pištolo’ v roki” (Flegar 2009, 4) /…I %nd attempts to 
prove that he has a smoking gun in his hand doomed from the outset./ )
Individual English loanwords and calques are used by scientists, business people and also by 
the general public, but nowhere do we %nd as much English in uence as in the language of 
the young and in the media.  e young use English as a basis for their slang, thus expressing 
their in-group solidarity and anti-conformist attitudes toward grown ups (e.g. ful, kul, d’best, 
fajt, džoint, frend, brejkič, fensi, izi, skenslati, densat, biti na badu, bajdvej, enivej, iti v lajf, in to 
je najbolj tekmovalna tekma ever). Slang, of course, is a rather short lived phenomenon that 
keeps changing with each generation, which is why the in uence of English is not likely to have 
a lasting e'ect on the society as a whole.  e same is true of teen magazines that often tend to 
imitate slang. 
With other media, however, we see a real proliferation of English that may leave a more enduring 
mark on the language.  is is true of both tradition al print media and even more so of the 
electronic ones.  e former often publish texts in w hich the authors insert whole phrases and 
sometimes even longer passages in English. Some expressions are thus written in italics, in 
inverted commas or even accompanied by glosses and footnotes. While realizing that such usage 
may strike readers as obscure, idiosyncratic or even incomprehensible, some authors nevertheless 
seem to take their readers’ pro%ciency in English for granted.  is is not typical only of the 
tabloid press, but also of more “serious” newspapers and magazines. By the same token, English 
is frequently used in TV programs, especially on commercial stations that are in some cases 
owned by American corporations. Consequently, programs catering to popular taste, including 
various entertainment shows, soaps operas and the like are typically globalized/Americanized. 
Examples from newspapers and magazines:
 Welfare state je farewell, tisto, kar potrebujemo v 21. stoletju, je enabling state. (Mekina 
2010, 43)
       /Welfare state is farewell, what we need in the 21
st
 century is an enabling state./
 Zato upam, da se bo ta globalni trg nepremičnin čim prej sesul, do tedaj pa bi si 
morali prizadevati za institutionalizacijo in legalizacijo skvotinga – zasedanja takih 
praznih stavb. (Kučić 2010, 6)
       /I thus hope that the global real estate market will collapse as soon as possible. 
Until then we should strive for the institutionalization and legalization of squatting – 
taking over of empty buildings./
 Današnje guglanje, tvitanje in fejsbukanje se bo počasi skrilo v nove oblike druženja in 
postalo njegov sestavni del. (Kučić 2010, 7)
/ e current googling, tweeting and facebooking will gradually be subsumed into  
new forms of networking and become its integral part./
41 LANGUAGE
 TV (ali video) on demand (na zahtevo) sicer že nekaj časa obstaja, vendar stvar ni 
razvita in razširjena do te mere, da bi se otroška logika instantnega zadovoljevanja TV 
želja lahko uveljavila kot splošen “odrasli” način gledanja. (Crnkovič 2009, 54)
/TV (or video) on demand has been around for some time now, but it has not yet 
developed and spread to the point where the children’s logic of instant grati%cation of 
TV desires would be adopted as a universal “grown up” way of watching./  
 e language found on blogs, tweets (as a sort of “m icroblogs” or “facebooks SMS’s’’), forums, 
and other forms of CMC, on the other hand, is usually a mixture of Slovene and English 
with deviations in spelling, punctuation, combinations of %gures and letters, acronyms, word 
plays and other features typical of netspeak (Šabec 2009).  ere are also Slovene bloggers who 
write exclusively in English, which is in most cases a variety of Global English as de%ned at the 
beginning of this article.  e following example ill ustrates nicely the described situation. 
 F .R.I.E.N.D.S. in “zobke umit pa spat” no more
Kdo jih ne pozna. Okej, bom polinkal.
Ampak – počasi gledam vse sezone, starting with numero 1.
Yep, well, I’ve done that one. Zdej sem v drugi, ko Ross in Rachel…umgh!
A ste bli vi tudi slučajno stari cca. 10 let (+/- 2 leti), gotta leave some room for standard 
error) in so bili F .r.i.e.n.d.s.i na TV-ju? Ob RES* poznih urah?? No, well, jaz sem bil. And 
it sucked. Zakaj, pobarate? No, ker pač nisem mogel gledat frendsov. Pa še prestavljali 
so jih. Enkrat so bili ob 23.30. Uuuurgggh! Ampak zdej…zdej lahko gledam anytime I 
want. Ker so a) na netu in b) na prenosnem disku. In c) so izpiti. Damn. No, ampak d) 
sej človk rabi malce odmora, taku, možganskega anede? In se ne more učit čist CEL dan.
Kakorkoli, hotel sem samo napisati ene dve fori iz tega dela, ki je ravno in progress (you 
try to be awake a week in a row till 4 a.m., studying incredibly interesting facts of life, such 
as biology and co. o'ers).
Ross: ‘’Rachel and Julie…that’s the problem.’’
Joey: “HEY! I’ve got two words for you: threesome!”
…
Chandler: “You still got one left, you know.”
//Monica: “OK, this is pumpkin pie,…/…/ Mochocolate chip cookies, Mochocolate 
strawberry cake,…. Taste it!”
Rachel: “OMG!”
Monica: “OMG good?”
R: “OMG I can’t believe you let me put this into my mouth!”
Phoebe: “Sweet LORD! Ugh!  is is what EVIL must tas te like.”
…:)
*Really back then meant 22.30./ (http://aljobaljo.blogspot.com)
/F .R.I.E.N.D.S. and ‘’brush your teeth and o' to bed’’ no more
Who doesn’t know them? Okay, I’ll check the link
42 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
But – I’m slowly going through all the seasons, starting with number 1…
Yep, well, I’ve done that one. Now I’m on the second one, when Ross and Rachel….
umgh!
Were you also about ten years old (+/- 2 years, gotta leave some room for standard error) 
when F .r.i.e.nd.s. was on TV? REALLY* late? Ok, well, I was. And it sucked. Why, you 
may ask? Well, because I was not allowed to watch the friends. And they kept changing 
the time. Once they were on at 23.30. Uuurgggh!
But now…now I can watch anytime I want. Because they are a) on the net and b) on 
portable disk and c) it’s the exam time. Damn. Well, but d) a guy needs some time o', to 
rest one’s brain, right? and e) and cannot study ALL day long.
Anyway, I just wanted to write about one or two little gems from this episode, which is 
now in progress (you try to be awake in a row till 4 a.m., studying incredibly interesting 
facts of life, such as biology and co. o'ers):
Ross: ‘’Rachel and Julie…that’s the problem.’’
Joey: “HEY! I’ve got two words for you: threesome!”
…
Chandler: “You still got one left, you know.”
//Monica: “OK, this is pumpkin pie,…/…/ Mochocolate chip cookies, Mochocolate 
strawberry cake,…. Taste it!”
Rachel: “OMG!”
Monica: “OMG good?”
R: “OMG I can’t believe you let me put this into my mouth!”
Phoebe: “Sweet LORD! Ugh!  is is what EVIL must tas te like.”
…:)
*Really back then meant 22.30./
Finally, I cite some examples in which the media go too far in its eagerness to copy everything 
English, showing their ignorance in both their mother tongue and in English, as well as, in my 
opinion, a lack of respect for their readership.
  Leve vlade so privatizacijo velikih državnih podjetij in prodajo blue chipov bolj ali 
manj zadrževale. (Lorenci 2009, 15)
/Leftist governments are trying to privatize state-owned companies and to stall with 
selling of blue chips./
 Staroselec na področju odnosov z javnostmi, z občasnimi izleti na področje 
advertisinga. (Magdalenc 2010, 26)
/An old hand at PR, with the occasional excursion into the %eld of advertising./
 Se mi zdi kul, da kljub skrajno angažiranemu govorjenju o vseh okoli nas na koncu 
vedno ostanejo na površini kakšne domislice. T udi v obliki gossipov. (Magdalenc 
2010, 24)
/I think it is cool that despite extremely engaged talk about everybody around us in 
43 LANGUAGE
the end some smart ideas always surface. Also in the form of gossip./
 Drugi pa je, da je naša šola na napačnih točkah odprta do pritiska staršev, in to 
tistih, ki se gredo nekaj, čemur pravijo Angleži overparenting, prekomerno starševanje. 
(Snežič 2009, 15)
/Another thing is that our school is too susceptible to pressure from parents who 
practice something referred to as overparenting by the English./
 Samo za orientacijo, kakšna naj bo javna RTV? Ali naj vključuje visoko gledane 
entertaining oddaje, kot je na primer Piramida? (Škrinjar and Kolšek 2009, 5)
/Just to get things straight, what should public radio and TV look like? Should it 
include entertaining programs with high ratings such as Piramida?/
 Sky is the limit! Meja je nebo. Pa še uživati je treba zraven. (Luzar 2008, 20)
/Sky is the limit! And you should enjoy, too./ 
3.1.2 Syntactic Influences
Compared to the huge in ux of English lexical items into Slovene, the impact of English on 
Slovene syntax seems almost negligible. It is certainly less visible and more subtle, at times even 
di<cult to detect. Occasionally, however, we come across strange sounding structures which, on 
closer examination, reveal that their ‘’creators’’ simply took a short cut and transferred them to 
Slovene directly from English.  
 Če vas zanima glasba, vas enkrat več vabimo k poslušanju. (an invitation to listeners 
on Radio City; this one heard on 18.4. 2010 at 11.15)
/If you are interested in music, we invite you to tune in one more time./
Enkrat več, heard several times on Radio City, seems to be used on the analogy of the English once 
more/one more time instead of the Slovene še enkrat/ponovno.
 “…si je privoščil…nekoliko grobo opazko na račun Van Rompuya, češ da ima 
karizmo kot vlažna cunja…” (Škrinjar 2010, 1)
    /….he went as far as  using…a somewhat rude remark at the expense of Van 
Rompuy, saying that he has the charisma of a wet blanket./
T o be a wet blanket is an English idiom, used %guratively and referring to a person who is 
not much fun and cannot be translated literally into Slovene.
 Bil je ime, znano vsem gospodinjstvom v ZDA. (Žigon 2009, 43)
/He was a household name in the U.S.A./
An English %xed phrase to be a household name translated literally into Slovene sounds awkward 
and should have been translated as popularen/slaven, i.e. popular/famous.
 e copy-paste approach clearly speaks of the sloppi ness and linguistic incompetence of their 
authors. 
44 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
Another, more transparent case of English in uence on Slovene word order, however, is the 
increase in the use of the noun+noun combinations typical of English instead of the Slovene 
adjective+noun structures or other types of nominal phrases.
 Anti-stress program v našem wellness centru /anti-stress program in our wellness center/
 Anti-age posegi obraza in telesa (anti-age treatment for face and body)
 Cellfood kartica ugodnosti v izbranih lekarnah /cellfood loyalty/bene%t card in selected 
pharmacies/
 City Center/Magazine
 UVA zaščita /UVA protection/
 Izobraževanje TOP strokovnjakov /education of TOP experts/
 Kako prideš do brezplačne čokolade? 1. Postani oboževalec (fan) Gorenjke. 2. Pridruži 
se Gorenjka čokoman klubu. /How to get a free chocolate bar? Become a Gorenjka fan. 
2. Join the Gorenjka chocoman club./ 
 e pattern has become quite common and many no long er see it as being foreign to the spirit 
of the Slovene language. Yet another aspect involves the excessive use of possessive pronouns, for 
instance with body parts, a feature typical of English, but not of Slovene.
 Potem, ko ste pripravljeni dvignite vaše roke do vašega čela v gassho položaj. (whttp://
www.tomaz egar.si ) 
/After you are ready, please raise your hand up to your forehead and put into the 
gashho position/
As pointed out, syntactic in uences may not seem ve ry obvious and are far less numerous than 
lexical ones, but they a'ect the structure of the language in much more profound ways than mere 
loanwords, which is why they have far more serious implications in terms of language change. 
3.1.3. Orthographic Influences
Orthographic in uences of English on Slovene have a ttracted practically no attention by 
researchers so far. I nevertheless see them as important because of their potentially long-term 
e'ect on the future development of Slovene. I have in mind especially young Slovenes, who 
have not had su<cient exposure to the orthographic norm of Standard Slovene and may %nd 
themselves simply copying what they see on the Internet or on billboards.  ese two (the 
Internet and advertising) are in fact the two areas that represent the richest source of data for 
anybody interested in the in uence of English on Sl ovene orthography. In CMC as well as in 
short messages we %nd anything from the use of English characters that do not exist in Slovene 
(x,y,w,q) to the replacement of Slovene characters by English ones (c,s,z,s instead of č,š,ž; c/ch 
instead of k, x instead of ks),  from the doubling of consonants and vowels (ss, oo) to the lack of 
punctuation or incorrect use of it (O’glasna pošta, Hobby & Art, Odvetniki Šelih & Partnerji,, Rože 
45 LANGUAGE
& vrt), from English acronyms to a variety of combinations of %gures and letters and to other 
forms of creative spelling. 
 Dobro, pis of kejk je bilo rešiti tole. /Good, it was a piece of cake to solve this./
 Zakaj bi komplicirali…če je življenje lahko SIMPL? /Why complicate if life can be 
simple?/ 
 Dogfrisbee 4 fun tekma, sobota, 15.8.2009. /Dogfrisbee for fun contest, Saturday, 
15.8. 2009./   
 Itaq, ex(xtra), exspress, pravi boom na %nančnem trgu /a real boom on the %nancial 
market/
 &drej (Andrej)
Similarly, advertising relies heavily on English-like spelling conventions. Various features from 
word play to simply including English letters are used to attract consumers’ attention and make 
their products more appealing.  e same is true of m any companies, bands and artists who, 
by choosing English (brand) names or at least adapting them to English spelling, apparently 
feel more ‘‘in’’ and, by projecting the impression of being more creative, aim at reaching wider 
audiences. 
Similarly, advertising relies heavily on English-like spelling conventions. Various features from 
word play to simply including English letters are used to attract consumers’ attention and make 
their products more appealing.  e same is true of m any companies, bands and artists who, by 
choosing English (brand) names, apparently feel more ‘‘in’’ and, by projecting the impression of 
being more creative, aim at reaching  wider audiences. 
 /WO-HO! Clio has been entertaining us for twenty years./
6
 (a car advertisement)
 My Way poletne počitnice po vašem okusu (Kompas MY WAY programi) /My Way 
summer holidays according to your taste; Kompas MY WAY programs/ (a tourist 
agency advertisement) 
 Anything you need. Baby, you got it, anything you want, you got it (Merkur 
advertisement)
 Jesenski EGO SLIM & VITAL (a yogurt advertisement)
 RE.ST – reciklirani stoli /recycled chairs/
 FRUC – totalno kul, totalno old school. /FRUC . totally cool, totally old school/ (a 
soft drink advertisement)
6
 Interjections are an intriguing part of language as they express emotions and may thus be indicative of deeper links 
between the users’ language choice and their identification with a certain language and the related culture. In this case 
the interjection is not Slovene. Similar examples include the more and more widely used oops, ouch and wow.
46 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
 MEGA factory Outlet
 THE be the best (T .HE. d.o.o.)  - revija o treningu in športni prehrani. Ob naročilu 
dobite brezplačno darilo THE VITaMIN. /THE be the best (T .H.E. d.o.o. a 
magazine on sports practice training and foods. Upon subscribing you will receive 
our free gift THE VITaMIN./
 Smuthies: energy/relax/antistress (a yogurt/smoothie advertisement by Ljubljanske 
mlekarne)
 Maxximum Shop, Merkur Group, Mercator, Dental Art, d.o.o.
 Alya, Neisha, Slon ‘n’ Sadež (names of pop artists and bands)
4. Social and Cultural Influences
 e already discussed in uence of English on adverti sing is just one part of a wider scene that 
exceeds strictly linguistic boundaries. It is part of broader phenomena that, with the increasing 
adoption of globalized/Americanized discourse patterns, seemingly friendly, but fundamentally 
more aggressive advertising, sensationalist tabloid-style approaches to writing, the popularization 
of various reality shows, infotainment programs and the like, a'ect the social and cultural 
character of Slovenia. Analyzing all of its forms in detail would require an article in its own right. 
For the purpose of this survey, however, I will focus on yet another socio-cultural dimension 
of the in uence of English that has to do with the expression of identity through language. 
Language and culture are very closely interlinked and language choice, when applicable, is very 
telling in as far as personal, social, cultural and any other identity of the speaker is concerned. 
In a recent study of language choice in Slovene blogs, I found that many Slovene bloggers have 
moved away from the exclusive use of Slovene. Instead they use either (Global) English or a 
mixture of Slovene and English (referred to as Sloglish in my previous work; Šabec 2009).  eir 
choice can be interpreted from two perspectives: social and cultural. 
Socially, a choice by an individual is indicative of his or her desire to belong to an on-line 
community that also uses English and is in this sense more ‘’in’’ than those who do not.  ey 
therefore share the code/language that they perceive as more prestigious. At the same time 
the kind of language that they use is su<ciently di'erent from standard forms of English and 
Slovene; this therefore bonds them together in a sort of in-group solidarity, which has parallels 
in the way slang is normally used. 
From a cultural perspective the choice of language is further motivated by psychological reasons. 
We can assume that in a code switching/mixing situation the language of choice is the one that 
the speakers feel most comfortable using in a particular situation. From this perspective it is 
interesting that many Slovene bloggers choose English for their (nick)names, blog titles and blog 
entries.  e fact that the Internet allows its users communication under multiple/fake/deceptive 
and other kinds of identities that they can choose at will, and that in addition most function 
under the impression that they are anonymous, their choices are even more revealing.  ey are 
47 LANGUAGE
free to use their imagination and to express their innermost feelings in any way they like.  e 
fact that some often do it in English may re ect th eir more pragmatic ambitions to reach out to 
a wider network of potential ‘’friends’’ and become part of the global virtual community.  e 
dilemma between the local and the global is clearly visible, which no doubt has important cultural 
and social implications, also in terms of opening up new ways of (inter)cultural communication. 
 Blog titles: so long sweet summer; Just the usual life; JeRNej’s digital life; Fejker.net; 
Jackie4grace; Rat-ON-crack; …pieces of me…; C.C.P .cre@ions; Wild@heart: Wilma 
on green plant; Lance’s corner; Another day in a geek’s life; Way wrong way; It’s a big 
world out there: Almost pure blue sky…almost; I’m good, I’m gone; I’m back (on 
track); life sucks when things don’t go the way you want, sweet sorrow; Simon says
 Nick(names) in blogs and tweets: angryguy; i-love-emo; black ower: just.crazy; 
punchka:bjutiful; Junior; Lance Vance; Majchek, UrSha
It should be noted that blogs and tweets are not the only areas where this phenomenon can be 
observed. As an example I cite the newsletter of the University of Maribor’s medical students’ 
association, whose title is INSAJDER, and last, but not least, a not negligible number of parents 
who choose English or more “internationally sounding” names for their newborns (e.g. Jason, 
Vanessa, Timothy, Amber, Damyan, Nikol, Tifani). 
5. Conclusion 
 is article is an attempt at presenting Slovene-Eng lish language contact in its many forms 
and contexts and from di'erent perspectives. As a result, it inevitably falls somewhat short 
of providing an in-depth analysis of a larger number of relevant examples. Instead it aims at 
providing a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon in the hope of drawing attention 
to its widespread occurrence and the implications that it has for language change. Language 
change is something that happens all the time. It can be studied diachronically or as an ongoing 
process. In both cases it is the one area that o'ers most valuable insights into the dynamics of 
language change and innovation. In the case of Slovene-English language contact, it naturally also 
poses the question of a balance between the imports from English and the (un)critical attitudes 
toward them, the question of the status of Slovene in the Slovene media, and of the bene%t of 
taking from English in order to enrich the Slovene language by augmenting its  exibility and 
expressiveness on the one hand and on the other of the potential detrimental e'ect on it when 
done to excess. Describing the current state of a'airs and predicting possible directions in which 
the two languages in contact might develop in the future makes contact linguistics a highly 
relevant and intriguing %eld of study and represents a challenge for further research. 
Bibliography:
Bell, A. 1984. Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13, no. 2: 145–204.
Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Style in Language, ed. T.A. Sebeok, 253–76. 
Cambridge: MIT Press.
48 Nada Šabec Slovene-English Language Contact and Language Change
Crystal, D. 2001a. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University  Press.
– – –. 2001b. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., and P. Johnson. 1981. The Role of Language in Ethnic Group Relations. In  Intergroup Behaviour, ed. J.C. Turner and H. 
Giles, 199–243. Oxford: Blackwell.
– – –. 1987. Ethnolinguistic  Identity Theory: A Social Psychological Approach to Language Maintenance. International Journal 
of the Sociology of Language  68: 69–99.
Giles, H., and N. Coupland. 1991. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Keynes:  Open University Press.
Herring, S. 1996. Computer–Mediated–Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross–Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: 
Benjamins.
James, A. 2008. New Englishes as Post-geographic Englishes in Lingua Franca Use: Gender, Interdiscursivity and Later 
Modernity. European Journal of English Studies 12, no. 1: 97–112.
– – –. 2009. Theorising English and Globalisation: Semiodiversity and Linguistic Structure in Global English, World Englishes 
and Lingua Franca English. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies 3, no. 1: 79–92.
Kingsley, B., and B.B. Kachru, eds. 2006. World Englishes: Critical Concepts in  Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
Lave. J., and E. Wengner. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
McArthur, T. 2002. The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford  University Press.
Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shukla, S., and J. Connor-Linton. 2006. Language Change. In An Introduction to Language and Lingusitics, ed. R. Fasold and J. 
Connor-Linton, 275–310. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo: Cambridge University Press.
Stramljič Breznik, I. 2007. Slovenska slengovska frazeologija danes. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6: 183–93.
Šabec, N. 1995. Half pa pu: The Language of Slovene Americans. Ljubljana:  ŠKUC, Studia Humanitatis.
– – –. 1997. Slovene–English language contact in the USA. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 124 
(Sociolinguistics of Slovene): 129–83.
– – –. 2002. Second Person Pronouns Used by Slovene and American Sovene Speakers as Linguistic Markers of Personal and 
Social (In)equality. Acta Neophilologica 35, no. 1/2: 115–26.
– – –. 2006. Language, Society and Culture: Slovene in Contact with English. Slavistična revija (Slovensko jezikoslovje danes/
Slovene Linguistics Today. Special issue, ed. A. Vidovič Muha.) 54: 703–18.
– – –. 2009. Sloglish or the Mixing/ Switching  of Slovene and English  in Slovene Blogs. Slavia Centralis II, no.1: 32–43.
Thernstorn, S., ed. 1980. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Thomason, S.G. 2001. Langauge Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Žigon, P. 2009. O.J. Simpson, najbolj kriv med vsemi nedolžnimi. Obrazi 28, 9 July, 43.
Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwells.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. The Hague: Mouton.
49 LANGUAGE
Data Sources
Crnkovič, M. 2009. Velika integracija in konvergenca. www.zurnal24.si (print edition), 19 September, 54.
Flegar, V. 2009. Rekli so: “Kadeča se pištola”. Večer, 25 November, 4.
http://aljobaljo.blogspot.com (accessed 20 June 2010)
http://www.siblogs.com (accessed 9 February 2010)
http://www.tomazflegar.si (accessed 12 March 2010)
Kučić, J.L. 2010. Greet Lovink, raziskovalec spletnih družbenih forumov. Nepremičnine lahko tudi za dvajset let določijo vašo 
poklicno in ustvarjalno pot. Delo, Sobotna priloga, 5 June, 6.
– – –. Greet Lovink, raziskovalec spletnih družbenih forumov. Današnje guglanje, tvitanje in fejsbukanje se bo počasi skrilo v 
nove oblike druženja in postalo njegov sestavni del. Delo, Sobotna priloga, 5 June, 7.
Lorenci, J. 2009. Prepuščati dobra podjetja lastnikom iz tujine prostovoljno brez potrebe je norost brez primere. Mladina 31, 31 
July, 15.
Mekina, B. 2010. Intervju: Gregor Golobič, minister in prenovitelj. Mladina 21, May 28, 15. 
Luzar, M. 2008. Dnevnik: Vse je mogoče, vse dosegljivo. Meja je Nebo. Delo, Sobotna priloga, 28 June, 20.
Magdalenc, L. 2010. Dovolj materiala za roman., Sobotna priloga, 13 Delo, March, 24.
– – –. 2010. Slovenski trenutek časa: totalna vlada neokusa in kiča. Delo, Sobotna priloga, 20 March, 26.
Snežič, J. 2009. Šolsko polje branimo tudi pred plenilci (intervju z Igorjem Lukšičem). Večer, 29 August, 15.
Škrinjar, K., and P. Kolšek. 2009. Nacionalna RTV bo (p)ostala javna (intervju z Majdo Širca). Delo, Sobotna priloga, 29 August, 
20.
Škrinjar, K. 2010. Okrvavljenih nog čez prve ovire. Delo, Sobotna priloga, 6 March, 1.