Tina Lengar Verovnik
ORCID: 0000-0002-8454-6160
Helena Dobrovoljc
ORCID: 0000-0002-3568-8453
Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide: Scientific Basis
and Inclusion of the Public
Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 14/2022. 183–205.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/sjsls.14.1.07
ISSN tiskane izdaje: 1408-2616, ISSN spletne izdaje: 1581-127
https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sjsls
Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022): 183–205
@language: sl, en, de, it, fr
@trans-language: sl, en, de, it, fr
@publisher.id: id
@doi: 10.3986/00.0.00
@article-type: 0.00
@article-category: category
@pages: 183–205
@history-received: dd. mm. yyyy
@history-accepted: dd. mm. yyyy
* * * Ž u r n a l m e t a * * *
@issue: xx
@volume: 14
@pub-year: 2022
@pub-date: dd. mm. yyyy
* * * O p r e m a * * *
@avtorji: T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc @running-header: Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide
Tina Lengar Verovnik (ORCID: 0000-0002-8454-6160)
Fakulteta za družbene vede, Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Slovenija
Helena Dobrovoljc (ORCID: 0000-0002-3568-8453)
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Slovenija
Univerza v Novi Gorici, Fakulteta za humanistiko, Slovenija
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/sjsls.14.1.07
Revision of slovenian noRmative Guide:
scientific Basis and inclusion of the PuBlic
Contemporary Slovenian language standardisation includes the revision of
the normative guide, a process taking place since 2013 within the Commission
on Orthography. This article presents an overview of the scientific basis
of this process as well as describes the systematic inclusion of different
segments of the public in the phase of assessing the suitability of current
orthographic rules and formulating new ones. This is due to an awareness
that a normative guide can be accepted by the wider language community
only through a convergence of differing opinions and codification based
on arguments.
Keywords: language standardisation, codification, Slovenian, normative
guide, public discussion
Jezikovna standardizacija sodobne slovenščine, katere del je prenova
pravopisnega priročnika, za slovenščino poteka od leta 2013 dalje pod
okriljem Pravopisne komisije pri SAZU in ZRC SAZU. V prispevku bodo
predstavljena znanstvena izhodišča tega procesa, opisano pa bo tudi
sistematično vključevanje različnih javnosti v fazo preverjanja ustreznosti
trenutno veljavnih pravopisnih pravil in oblikovanja novih. Zavedamo se
namreč, da je lahko pravopisni priročnik sprejet v širši jezikovni skupnosti šele
s približevanjem različnih mnenj in s kodifikacijo, ki temelji na utemeljitvah.
Ključne besede: jezikovna standardizacija, kodifikacija, slovenščina,
pravopisni priročnik, javna razprava
184 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
1 Introduction
The last decade has been one of the most dynamic periods of
synchronic Slovenian linguistics. As a result of an at least tenfold
increase in the numbers of public texts and non-professional writers
and the relaxation of criteria for publishing (Crystal 2012), the norm
of standard language is now a linguistic phenomenon that is realised
not only in small circles of exemplary writers but by a wide range of
people in the context of coincidental communication. In an age that
can certainly be called electronic and that influences the diversity
of language realisations by providing different media and modes of
expression, it is necessary and desirable to reassess normative issues.
At the same time, it is necessary to rethink the frameworks of language
standardisation, which includes the revision of the normative guide,
a process taking place since 2013 for Slovenian. This article presents
the scientific basis of this process as well as describes the systematic
inclusion of different segments of the public in the phase of assessing
the suitability of current orthographic rules and formulating new
ones. We are aware that a normative guide can be accepted by the
wider language community only through a convergence of differing
opinions and codification based on arguments.
2 Language standardisation phases
Linguistics (Haugen 1966; Leith 1983) generally places the beginnings
of standardisation, i.e. selecting a suitable dialectal basis for a written
language, in periods when a language community establishes an
adequate system of writing, i.e. adapts writing to the spoken form of
language, which some theoreticians call “alphabetisation” (Frawley
2003: 410). This is followed by a process of formulating the rules of
writing (in some languages, these are called orthographic rules) and
their codification.1 With both these standardisation milestones, a
language community exhibits social power and the autonomy of a
collective of speakers. When a language becomes an external sign
of an individual’s national identification (Vogl 2012), as was the case
1 In the case of Slovenian both processes started in the 16th century.
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 185
with Slovenian at the end of the 19th century, the language community
faces a challenge of the intellectual discipline needed to maintain
a flexible stability of the language standard. There are roughly two
possible ways of dealing with this, they will be outlined in the following
paragraphs.
Modern linguistics (Garvin 1993; Jaffe 2000; Milroy 2001) has
ascertained that languages with a less extensive standardisation
experience have a greater desire for increased linguistic uniformity.
The reason for this can be found in the fact that through a non-variant
standard, these languages wish to emulate the authoritative power
of dominant languages (Jaffe 2000: 506). Even today, traditionally
oriented environments justify their authoritative codification with
the expectations of language users, claiming that authoritative rules
are more popular with the latter than liberal ones (Sebba 2007: 154).
Despite a conviction that standardised language is best presented
through a black-and-white demonstration of acceptable and incorrect
language possibilities, linguists of the Anglosphere, in particular,
proclaim this methodology of defining correctness to be a remnant
of the linguistic view in which grammatical structures are defined
outside the language itself (Milroy 2001: 535−536), e.g. under the
influence of dominant linguistic ideologies or policies.
On the other hand, languages with a long-standing tradition of
a language standard were in the early 20th century more open
to linguistic heterogeneity as the reflection of different societal,
cultural, cognitive and biological factors. Therefore, they put a greater
emphasis on criteria of language usage. In modern times, a revision
of standards in most languages requires a redefinition of the criteria
of linguistic correctness. The standardisation process must be carried
out in such a way that a language reaches a level of stability that is
sufficient for the performance of basic functions but also enables
adaptability to alterations required by dynamic cultural changes and
by the development of the language community (Garvin 1993: 43).
This consideration for both the features of the natural variability of
language and the static preservation of linguistic habits, rules and
186 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
agreements, termed “flexible stability” by Mathesius (1929), has been
the fundamental principle of standardisation for almost a century.
3 slovenian normative guides – a historical perspective
In general, Slovenian normativistic linguistics mainly discussed
standardisation criteria, the modernisation of the norm and the
standardisation process when developing and publishing normative
guides. In most East and South Slavic languages, the latter are
considered a “symbol” of standard language, setting norms for
writing, orthoepy and punctuation (Mønnesland 1998: 1103), and
their authors try to present linguistic or societal arguments for their
proposals, at least in principle.
The period after the publication of the first Slovenian normative guide,
which was authored by Fran Levec (1899), is already characterised by
a polemical relationship between linguists who wanted to standardise
the language based on the tradition of previous centuries and those,
especially non-linguists, who wanted to converge the language
standard and contemporary usage and objected to historically justified
changes in fields where Slovenian was already stable. In subsequent
decades, Slovenian linguistics “avoided” discussing fundamental
standardisation principles, which had a negative reflection at the level
of applied linguistics, i.e. in the concrete evaluation of lexis (e.g. in
the 1920 normative guide by Anton Breznik). The intuitive evaluation
of lexis was motivated by an idealistic conception of language purity
and by a concern for the preservation of the cultural and national
identity of the language in the context of multilingual states.
The next normative guide (Anton Breznik and Fran Ramovš, 1935) and
its amended version for schools (1937) ushered in an era of academy-
driven standardisation,2 in which pre-war guides indicate the end
of black-and-white evaluation and a shift from prescriptiveness to
2 This period also entails the beginning of the formally recognised normative mandate
of orthographers; writers of the normative guide working within the Scientific Society
(Znanstveno društvo) and subsequently within the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and
Arts (SAZU) were granted the privilege of norm-setting authority first by their fellow
experts and then also by the political authorities (Dobrovoljc, Bizjak Končar 2013).
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 187
descriptiveness as regards linguistic phenomena. This shift from an
idealistic to a realistic model of linguistic thought, where linguistic
correctness is something sought after rather than declaratively
formulated, is less explicit in both post-war normative guides by
the academy (1950, 1962), however. From this perspective, the
conception of linguistic correctness is rather undefined in the post-war
period,3 a fact pointed out by the critical audience as well. In both
normative guides, the standardisation body authoritatively, providing
no argumentation, introduced new rules based on its structural
conception of the language system and on the etymological-historical
principle; in the 1962 guide, it also reformed the already stable way
of writing word-formational suffixes for agent nouns (-vec instead
of -lec), aiming to affect orthoepy. The academy was forced to forget
the latter reform itself after it had been vehemently refused by both
the professional and non-professional public.
On the basis of this “undermined” academy authority, a younger
generation of linguists (Jože Toporišič, Jakob Rigler) was able to
enter the standardisation activity, bringing new views on linguistic
correctness and orthographic issues. Their era based standardisation
on the structural understanding of the language system, which the
linguist dynamically adjusts by following the actual societal practice.
Through the adoption of the Prague conception of the balanced system
of codification principles (tradition, usage, system and economy), the
concepts of the exclusionary prescriptive logic, which exacerbated
the variance between standard language and actual usage, became
restricted to the domain of lay, i.e. amateur linguistics, at least in
principle. Indeed, the orthographic rules of 1990 (or 2001) reflect a
balance of all the essential standardisation principles; however, on
the applied level, i.e. in the dictionary, which was only published ten
years later, the systemic principle is overvalued. This orientation of
the orthographers later became a controversial issue, especially due
to the standardisation of entries that are not attested in usage but
3 The standardisation activity was carried out based on materials for the making of
a monolingual explanatory dictionary without analysing contemporary language
usage or the needs of users.
188 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
are realisable in terms of word formation (or the language system)
and, similarly, due to the non-credibility of the materials.
In the time of the publication of the current standardisation guide,
i.e. the normative guide of 2001 (its technically enhanced e-version
was released in 2003), a high level of stability of the written language
was achieved in Slovenia. Even though the asynchronous codification
itself (i.e. publishing the orthographic dictionary ten years after
the orthographic rules) gave rise to quite a few gaps between the
orthographic rules and their lexicographic application, the standard
Slovenian as presented by the normative guide is mainly in line with
the needs of the language community and in agreement with usage
by the majority. Nonetheless, the rapid dynamics of societal and
technological developments and the evolution of language require
a continuous standardisation process.
4 contemporary practice and perspectives
With the beginning of the new millennium, codification has gained
a new dimension and has drawn closer to reality. Research into the
dynamics of the system of the Slovenian standard language has
been able to rely on empirically verifiable data owing to digitised
written materials collected in corpora and other electronic databases.
The facts who wrote a particular word, what their social status and
linguistic education is have been put aside in research. The linguistic
fact and its role in a given text are thus now at the centre of studying
linguistic habits.
In designing modern linguistic works that are considered references
due to the societal functions of the norm of standard language, it
is therefore necessary to take into account shifts from language
description, which is mostly based on linguistics and is often overly
technical, and focus the attention to the reasons why a language user,
who is supposed to be at the forefront of modern linguistic research
(Tarp 2008), decides to use a particular linguistic element. A language
description, i.e. a normative description, thus cannot focus merely on
those aspects of grammar and lexis that are most suited to a particular
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 189
linguistic model; it should also include linguistic characteristics and
patterns that reflect the diversity of language.
In preparing updates to the normative guide, the materials themselves
call for rethinking, i.e. reassessing existing descriptions and looking
for new, not-yet-established aspects and, most of all, standpoints
that could guide the emerging description of the standard language
to a more universal or a more exclusivist direction. Naturally, such
a dichotomy is present in many European environments; especially
in Slavic languages where standard languages were established as
national identity symbols two centuries ago (Lenček 1996: 18), which
are facing similar problems (Dolník 2010):
a. On the one hand, there is the maintenance of the traditional
belief that the standard language is the (only) instrumental
driving force of a given nation, which means it is also the
greatest national asset and must be constantly preserved in
a regulated conservative form. As noted by Dolník (2010), this
idea is often perpetuated through a linguistic elite that, with a
view to preserve the traditional hierarchy of language values,
maintains a syndrome that the language or its specificities are
constantly under threat, keeping this relevant through various
interventions.
b. Beyond this emotional elitism, there is a more modern and rational
information service that, instead of restrictive intervention,
provides honest and research-based communication on
linguistic phenomena. Guiding standard language according
to criteria described in Daneš (1977)4 and ensuring the
development of tools that empower users to use the language
in any situation, help strengthen their language confidence
and promote the use of language in any situation are at the
forefront of this view.
4 Daneš’s hierarchy consists of the primary (1) language stability (convention, collective
habit), followed by (2) contemporary usage (considering the types of discourse and
the functional needs of the community) and (3) an assessment of compliance with
the existing language system.
190 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
The process of the so-called destandardisation, typical of developed
post-modern societies, should also be taken into consideration
nowadays. According to Nekvapil (2008: 259–60), destandardisation
means, on the one hand, that standard language ceases to be used
in certain conditions or areas where it used to be common, and
on the other hand, that it is becoming more and more diverse as it
increasingly includes elements that were not characteristic of it before.
Linguistics can either criticise deviations from the norm, evaluating
them as errors, or gradually adapt the standard language, increase
its variability and promote a higher tolerance for change in general.
In post-modern societies, the fact that codification is supported by a
prestigious institution (such as an academy) is no longer enough to
ensure a positive public reception (Nekvapil 2008: 255).
5 orthography and language management
Compared to other linguistic rules and descriptions, the rules of
writing are usually highly standardised and regulated. This makes
the symbolic value of deviations (when they are not the result of a
lack of knowledge) even greater, and the written form of language – a
distinctly visual, physical image of language – can also be a convenient
medium for various ideological conflicts and protests (Sebba 2003:
152). Socially significant choices may occur even at the level of the
script (e.g. Latin vs Cyrillic or Arabic script) but more often at the
level of orthography. While the rules of writing are usually designed
to minimise the potential for deviations, users find creative ways
to introduce them. Innovations must be similar enough to what
is considered the norm in order for users to even recognise them
as variants or alternatives (Sebba 2007: 33). The significance of
deviations also depends on the type of texts in which they appear.
According to the author, not all texts are subject to the same level
of strict evaluation, so there is different potential to influence the
(re)design of the rules of writing – for example, there is a difference
in the level of language regulation and oversight between graffiti
and a book publication.
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 191
The genres that are subject to the greatest levels of language oversight
are also the genres that the process of orthographic standardisation is
most interested in. Dobrovoljc and Jakop (2011: 15) define this process
for the contemporary Slovenian situation as a cyclical activity carried
out in four stages: (1) determining language usage, (2) evaluating
the usage according to the described norm, (3) recording the norm
or creating a prescription, (4) checking whether the prescription
is established in usage. Naturally, while verifying existing norms,
linguists come across new linguistic phenomena and problems
requiring assessment or solutions. For this part of the standardisation
process, a model proposed by the language management (LM) theory,
put forward by Jernudd and Neustupný (1987) and developed by
many other authors (for an overview, see Sherman 2016), seems
highly useful. This is because LM places language problems in a
sociolinguistic context, linking them to corresponding phenomena
or problems at the level of communication and at the socio-cultural
or socio-economic level.
In their original formulation of the theory (Jernudd and Neustupný
1987), the authors start out with the questions on whose behalf
(comprehensive) language planning takes place and to what extent
individual social groups may be affected by this. They find that
different language problems call for different solving procedures,
but LM can roughly still be defined as a process comprising the
following steps: (1) comparing language in use with the norms to
detect deviations; (2) evaluating the deviations (those evaluated
negatively are highlighted); (3) identifying the required corrections
or adjustments; (4) the process is completed when the correction
or adjustment is implemented in practice. Subsequently, step (5)
has been added, which concerns feedback or checking whether the
implementation is successful, turning the previously linear process
into a circular one (Fairbrother and Kimura 2020).
LM can cover everything from individual instances of discourse to
systemic corrections; adjustments can be simple, i.e. immediate
192 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
(implemented in discourse right away)5, or organised. Even organised
systemic corrections originate in individual but recurring instances
of discourse, targeting discourse again at the end of the LM process.
However, organised LM is characterised by the participation of diverse
individuals grouped into social networks and by a higher explicitness
and more precise targeting of the procedures. Language problems
are detected and articulated at a metalinguistic level, becoming the
subject of discussions where theories and ideologies serve as the
motivation and means to legitimise the directions the LM process is
taking (Sherman 2016: 194).
In the process of organised LM, individuals or groups highlight
certain elements of language usage and/or of the language system
as language problems. These are linguistically informed demands
that often coincide with the economic, social, political or cultural
interests of the speakers. However, some demands do not originate
in language usage or in the existing process of communication;
instead, the groups expressing such demands refer to the symbolic
role or potential effects of the use of the proposed element (which
means these demands are founded on extralinguistic interests). If
such demands for status succeed, the element is included in the
system; however, the extralinguistic interests must first be reflected
in usage, creating a language problem that is then evaluated in the
LM process. Some demands in the process of organised LM are thus
openly ideological, while others are made with little or no awareness
of their actual origin or implications (Jernudd and Neustupný 1987).
Developing the original theory further, Nekvapil (2006) notes that
in modern times, LM does not take place only at the level of state
institutions, where the activities target the society as a whole, but
also at the level of various social networks (from schools, businesses
to media etc.) and with different scopes. Therefore, in addition
to the macro-social level, LM must take into account the micro-
social dimension and, in particular, the dynamics of the dialectical
5 Nekvapil (2009: 5) also adds the possibility that the speaker does not solve the
problem immediately, but they do detect it, solving it later with the help of a linguistic
reference work or expert, for example.
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 193
relationship between both levels. As mentioned above, organised LM
affects simple LM but is also based on simple LM (though organised
LM is not simply a sum of simple LM procedures). Ideally, the LM
cycle would thus take place in the micro > macro > micro sequence.
6 the process of revising the slovenian normative guide
All the Slovenian normative guides so far6 have consisted of two
parts: the first part comprises orthographic rules complemented
by the rules of morphology and word formation that are relevant
to writing; the second part adds an orthographic dictionary, which
varies in size across different guides, the most recent one (2001)
also replacing the general dictionary of the standard language to a
certain extent. The revised normative guide, too, comes in two parts,
but unlike all the previous guides, both parts are being developed in
parallel and published regularly on the Fran language portal7 (each
year, new chapters and dictionary entries are added).
The revision of the orthographic rules has been going on since 2013
within the Commission on Orthography at SAZU and ZRC SAZU (the
Slovenian academy and its research centre are its co-founders). Under
the decision establishing the Commission, its mandate is to prepare
a proposal for the modernisation of existing orthographic rules in
line with the normative tradition and considering changes in the
contemporary Slovenian language, as well as to ensure its assertion
in language practice. Representatives of different professional
communities, especially of Slovenian studies, are members of
the Commission. Through the participation of representatives of
research and educational institutions, experts for different fields of
language and creators, the Commission is able to take note of the
different views on orthographic and related linguistic issues and thus
revise the language standard in accordance with the expectations
6 Since 1899 there have been seven normative guides, all of them are now available
at .
7 Available at . The orthographic rules are being created as a collection
named Pravopis 8.0, and the orthographic dictionary is being made as a growing
dictionary called ePravopis.
194 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
of the public, i.e. users of the written language. The Commission
has two configurations. The narrower configuration is editorial,
and its mandate is to draft proposals for the articulation of new
chapters of orthographic rules. The broader configuration is a body
of reviewers assessing and commenting on the proposed solutions.
The orthographic dictionary is being created simultaneously at the
Orthographic Section of the ZRC SAZU Fran Ramovš Institute of
the Slovenian Language (some of its members are also members
of the Commission on Orthography). By preparing both works
synchronously, it is ensured that the dictionary builds on and
expands the orthographic rules with materials, and the dictionary
versions or the lessons learned in their drafting often provide
feedback for the articulation of rules.
The revision of the normative guide as a whole is problem-oriented.
Each orthographic topic is dealt with in six phases (Dobrovoljc
and Lengar Verovnik 2015): 1. checking the suitability of the
orthographic rule and its lexicographic presentation in the last
normative guide (2001) and detecting new orthographic problems
that have not been recorded yet; 2. adapting the rule to the identified
actual state or preparing a new rule (when a gap appears in the
normative description); 3. selecting illustrative examples for the rule;
4. preparing an expanded set of examples for each rule to include
in the dictionary entry list; 5. preparing lexicographic solutions for
the web; 6. justifying the orthographic and lexicographic solutions
and ensuring their normative validity.
In the first phase of the process – which is the focus of the
continuation of this article – the orthographic group at the Institute
of the Slovenian Language systematically makes an overview of
professional contributions and any critiques of the currently
applicable orthographic rules. Then, it analyses corpora and other
available materials. Moreover, in revising the normative guide, the
user perspective is particularly important. One of the basic principles
when deciding on the scope and articulation of the orthographic
rules is what the user needs or seeks. This first phase therefore
also includes elements of simple LM (questions in the Language
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 195
Counselling service); in addition, by using certain work methods, the
perception of orthographic problems is examined at different micro
levels (surveys, public discussion accompanying the publication of
revised chapters of the normative guide, cooperation with specialist
linguists).
6.1 language counselling service as a source of normative dilemmas
The Institute of the Slovenian language has performed counselling in
relation to topical language dilemmas for decades; writers, authors
and editors originally asked questions over the phone and by mail,
with answering organised ad hoc among the Institute’s employees.
However, when the 2001 Slovenian Normative Guide was released,
the authors published an email address on the book jacket, intending
to collect all user comments and questions in its inbox. Between the
publication of the normative guide (November 2001) and May 2003,
the inbox received approximately 65 electronic responses both by
linguists and laypeople from every generation. The questions or
responses were answered by the SAZU Commission on Orthography.
An overview of the questions highlighted the lack of an appropriate
institution for the organised monitoring of language usage and
providing competent advice to language users (Majcenovič 2003: 214).
In addition to foreign examples8 and an accelerated language
dynamic, the idea that a counselling service can be an empirically
verifiable source of language dilemmas prompted the authors of
both resolutions on the National Programme for Language Policy for
2007–2011 and 2012–2014 to include plans for the establishment of
an institutional language counselling service. Nonetheless, in 2012 the
promise of state support from the resolution prompted the formation
of the web-based Language Counselling service of the ZRC SAZU Fran
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, which has operated
since 2012 and represents a continuation of the already established
counselling activity with the additional immediate publication of the
8 A similar, long-established language counselling service is provided by the Czech
Language Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (Nekvapil 2008); for some other
language counselling services in Europe, see Ludányi (2020).
196 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
answers on its website and, since 2014, their searchability on the
Fran dictionary portal.
Currently, there are 29989 questions and answers published on the
website, which means that on average, consultants reply to almost
360 questions per year or 30 questions per month (except during the
summer holidays). The counselling service has a moderator and a
scientific editorial board that makes changes to and finally approves
the answers before they are published. A system for tracking visits to
the counselling service, which was introduced in 2019, reports about
1000 users per day, of which most are unregistered users, which
means they have not asked any question yet but have reached the
website of the service through web browsers and targeted queries.
The breakdown of questions is not surprising: orthography, which
is also the most subdivided group, as it includes capitalisation, one-/
two-word spelling, writing marks, punctuation marks and other
symbols, principles for borrowing foreign-language elements etc.,
accounts for the highest number of questions. This is followed by
morphology and syntax as well as word formation and semantics.
Questions relating to stylistics, even the stylistics of punctuation and
other language instruments, not only on the stylistics of lexis, are also
increasing in number. These are problems of functional orthography,
which is related to administrative texts, suitable text patterns, the
stylistics of formal letters etc.
An online survey carried out between December 2016 and July 2017
has shown that at least three quarters of users are persons that have
already finished their education (including the highest levels). In terms
of education, the group of persons with a higher education degree
stood out, constituting half the sample. The shares of persons with
a pre-Bologna research master’s degree or PhD were also relatively
high, totalling much higher than the sum of both lowest levels of
education (primary and secondary school). The age structure and
especially the education structure of the respondents show that
they are mostly highly educated persons in their most active years.
No questions were asked about their careers, though it was possible
9 As of June 2021.
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 197
to infer the professional backgrounds of some respondents from
answers to certain open-ended questions. The most telling figures
were that two thirds of the respondents were able to refer to an
answer of experts in their field and that half indicated professional
needs as the only or one of several motivations for using the Language
Counselling service.
After almost a decade of operation, it is clear that the counselling
service not only provides quick and referentially reliable assistance with
the dilemmas of all users of Slovenian that have difficulties navigating
the current language reference works or do not find the answers
to their questions there, but the answers of the counselling service
also fill the gaps created because of the dynamic and accelerated
development of language or the lack of up-to-date reference works.
At the same time, users’ questions are a valuable resource for the
revision of the normative guide, as they provide numerous current
examples of the contemporary written practice and indicate: (1) which
orthographic topics are covered inadequately in the current guide;
(2) which orthographic problems have newly emerged in the past
20 years; (3) which areas of orthography show clear developmental
tendencies; (4) the articulation of which orthographic rules needs to
be updated; (5) which themes seem to be covered adequately in the
current guide since they do not appear in any questions.
6.2 user surveys
So far, a need to include a survey-based examination of problems
emerging during the analysis of corpus materials has arisen in the
preparation of two chapters of the normative guide. The first such
chapter was Grammatical outline for the normative guide, for which
the Commission on Orthography decided to test some assumptions
it had formed about the adequacy of the orthographic codification
in a situation when an individual must solve a problem without
being offered any solutions. Experts, such as language editors and
proofreaders, translators and linguists of all specialisations, were
particularly invited to take part in this survey, which was conducted
between May and July 2019. The Grammatical outline for the
198 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
normative guide is designed as an overview of problematic aspects of
phonetics, morphology and word formation that cause writing-related
issues for users and for which deviations from the 2001 Slovenian
Normative Guide have already been identified in the preparation
of rules and lexicographic examination. Having established a set
of questions, the Commission decided to apply the survey method
as it found the corpus method inadequate for open questions due
to a lack of materials; moreover, the corpus materials provide too
little information on the creators of texts, it is not clear whether the
texts have been proofread/copy-edited etc. Questions in the survey
questionnaire were not mandatory, so the respondents did not
answer all of them, and the sample size varies to some extent, from
821 to 928.
The second survey was made when, in the context of the revision
of rules on capitalisation, it was proposed that the Commission
on Orthography follows the suggestion of the Commission for the
Standardization of Geographical Names of the Government of
the Republic of Slovenia (KSZI) to change the orthographic rule on
capitalisation in non-initial constituents of geographical names.
KSZI argued that all constituents of geographical names – except
prepositions and conjunctions – should be capitalised regardless
of whether the names in question are settlement names or other
names, which is a radical intervention compared to the current
rules.10 Representatives of both commissions presented their views
on writing geographical proper nouns in June 2019 at the “meeting
of two commissions”.11 Due to opposing views at the discussion and
an awareness that such a comprehensively designed reform would
10 According to the KSZI proposal, non-initial constituents of all multi-word names
would be capitalised – not only in settlement names, but all names arising from
descriptions of natural features. For example, Bohinjsko jezero (lake in Bohinj) or
Soška dolina (valley through which the Soča River flows) would be written as Bohinjsko
Jezero, Soška Dolina, something that speakers of Slovenian have rejected so far.
11 Contributions from this discussion, which also serve as the substantiations of
individual proposals, were presented in a special publication Živim v Bukovem vrhu
pod Bukovim vrhom, which is available online: .
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 199
have a significant impact on public life, signs, documents etc., it has
been decided that the Commission on Orthography would employ
a survey before the public presentation of the proposal in order to
receive opinions or views on the reform from a wide circle of language
users, i.e. the general public, with a specific focus on the opinions of
the general professional public, i.e. everyone dealing with language
professionally (proofreaders and language editors, media workers,
writers of texts etc.). The Commission wished to learn which of the
proposed changes to the orthographic rules seems the most suitable
to the language users taking part in the survey, also offering users the
choice not to change the existing rules or to present their own view. In
the survey, the potential changes were presented in a concrete text,
and respondents selected the solutions they felt were the best, also
commenting on them if they wanted to. The survey was conducted
in May and June 2020; 1844 persons responded.12
6.3 public discussion accompanying the publication of revised chapters of the
normative guide
Four revised chapters have been published so far in the Pravopis 8.0
collection: on writing marks, on capitalisation, on the principles of
borrowing words from foreign languages and on abbreviations. Each
chapter is accompanied by scientific substantiations of changes and
new additions compared to the previous normative guide, and the
publication of a chapter is followed by a one-month public discussion.
For each rule in a proposed chapter, users can submit an online
comment. These comments are examined and evaluated by the
orthographic group at the Institute of the Slovenian Language and
used to prepare a further enhanced version of the chapter to be
discussed once more by the Commission on Orthography.
12 The majority of the respondents voted against any change. However, there were
slight differences between certain subgroups of the respondents: e.g. translators
were more in favour of the capitalization of all constituents of geographical names,
while teachers most strongly opposed all of the potential changes. A detailed
analysis is available online: .
200 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
In the public discussions held so far, the published chapters received
between 216 and 1080 comments; the number partly depends on
the length of a chapter and partly on how neuralgic a given topic
or change is (as perceived by the public). Comments are mostly
anonymous, though some are signed. An examination of their content
shows that the comments are most frequently based on familiarity
with the current normative guide and its shortcomings, so they are
written by experts on the issue at hand. This is corroborated by the
signed comments, which have been authored by proofreaders and
language editors, teachers, researchers or specialists in areas related
to orthography or interest groups (e.g. translators in EU institutions).13
6.4 cooperation with specialist linguists
Slovenia is characterised by a strong integration of language editors
or proofreaders in the text publication process. The language editor
or proofreader profession arose after the Second World War due
to the specific socio-political situation, when editorial departments
in the media employed writers poorly educated in language, who
needed the support of linguists specialising in Slovenian (Verovnik
2005). In the 1980s and 1990s, there was an increasing need for the
regulation and coordination of proofreading and language editing,
also through various forms of the organisation of proofreaders
and language editors (especially in media outlets), culminating in
the establishment of the Slovene Society of Language Editors and
Proofreaders in 1996. Today, language editing and proofreading are
not activities that can be taken up by anyone with any education and
with no special qualifications. They also do not mean that Slovenians
are more illiterate than the average European, entailing the need for
correcting badly written texts; they are a developed and targeted
13 All comments will be available on the Commission‘s homepage as of Autumn
2022: . The analysis of the comments‘
impact on the Commission‘s work and decisions was presented on the conference
“Škrabčevi dnevi 2021” (cf. Lengar Verovnik 2021; this will be followed by a paper
form the same author).
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 201
concern for the publication of quality texts, which is a perfectly normal
European cultural and professional standard (Pučnik 2018).
The Commission on Orthography has cooperated with the Society of
Language Editors and Proofreaders since the start of the revision of the
normative guide. Together, members of both organise regular thematic
meetings to present their research findings and the planned changes
in individual chapters. Since language editors and proofreaders are in
touch with user problems on a daily basis, the meetings enable useful
exchanges of information and opinions. In addition to meetings with
the Society, the Commission on Orthography occasionally collaborates
with specialist linguists at the RTV Slovenija public broadcaster, who
help direct the research of the orthographic group at the Institute of the
Slovenian Language with a range of problems from everyday practice
(the adaptation of borrowed words and names is a particularly topical
issue). Teachers of Slovenian in primary and secondary schools, grouped
in the Association of Slavic Societies of Slovenia, are the third group of
specialist linguists that the Commission on Orthography cooperates with.
So far, members of the Commission have attended several round-table
discussions and a congress organised by the Association, where they
have presented the process of revising the normative guide in dialogue
with educators and acquired valuable feedback.
7 conclusion
Past experience shows that linguists often become aware of
innovations in linguistic processes only when evaluating the works
of previous generations, not being able to hold a dispassionate
enough view of own work. However, regarding the current revision
of the normative guide for Slovenian presented above, it seems
that the electronic age nonetheless provides methods enabling the
immediate verification and evaluation of the conducted scientific and
research work. Although a comprehensive analysis of the revision
will only be possible after the process is over, it can already be noted
that the regular collection of information and feedback from different
interested communities has a positive influence on the integrity of
a linguists as the performer/actor in the processes described above.
202 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
references
Crystal, David. 2012. Internet linguistics: a student guide. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.
Daneš, František. 1988. K dvěma základnim otázkám kodifikace. Naše řeč.
3–13.
Dobrovoljc, Helena, Jakop, Nataša. 2011. Sodobni pravopisni priročnik med
normo in predpisom. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC.
Dobrovoljc, Helena, Bizjak Končar, Aleksandra. 2013. Slovenski pravopisi
in vprašanje normativnih pristojnosti. Slovenski jezik – Slovene linguistic
studies 9. 111–126.
Dolník, Juraj. 2010. Teória spisovného jazyka (so zreteľom na spisovnú
slovenčinu). Bratislava: VEDA, vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.
Fairbrother, Lisa, Kimura, Goro Christoph. 2020. What is a language
management approach to language problems and why do we need it?
Goro Christoph Kimura, Lisa Fairbrother (eds): A Language Management
Approach to Language Problems: Integrating macro and micro dimensions.
John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1–28.
Frawley, William J. (ed.). 2003. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Garvin, Paul L. 1993. A conceptual framework for the study of language
standardization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 100–101.
37–54.
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Language conflict and language planning. The case of
modern Norwegian. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2000. Introduction: Non-standard orthography and non-
standard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4. 497–513.
Jernudd, Björn Holger and Jiří Václav Neustupný. 1987. Language planning:
for whom? Lorne Laforge (ed.): Actes du Colloque international sur
l‘aménagement linguistique / Proceedings of the International Colloquium
on Language Planning. Québec: Les Presses de L‘Université Laval. 69–84.
Lengar Verovnik, Tina. 2021. Pomen javne razprave ob predlogu novih
pravopisnih pravil (povzetek). Škrabčevi dnevi 12. Zbornik povzetkov. 11.
Available at http://skrabcevi-dnevi.zrc-sazu.si/Portals/19/Povzetki/2021-
09-29-Skrabcevi-dnevi-12-povzetki.pdf.
Leith, Dick. 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Ludányi, Zsófia. 2020. Language consulting: a brief European overview.
Eruditio – Educatio 15/3. 25–47.
Majcenovič, Helena. 2003. Odzivnost javnosti ob izidu Slovenskega pravopisa
(Izhodiščne teze I-V). Marko Jesenšek (ed.): Perspektive slovenistike ob
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 203
vključevanju v Evropsko zvezo. Ljubljana: Slavistično društvo Slovenije.
213–217.
Mathesius, Vilem. (1929) 1983: Functional linguistics. J. Vachek (ed.):
Praguiana, Some Basic and Less known Aspects of Prague Linguistics School.
John Benjamins Publisching company. 137–138.
Milroy, James. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of
standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/4: 530–555.
Mønnesland, Svein. 1998. Emerging Literary Standards and Nationalism.
The Disintegration of Serbo-Croatian. Actas do I Simposio Internacional
sobre o Bilingüismo. 1103–1113.
Nekvapil, Jiří. 2008. Language Cultivation in Developed Contexts. Bernard
Spolsky, Francis M. Hult (eds): The Handbook of Educational Linguistics.
Blackwell Publishing. 251– 265.
Nekvapil, Jiři. 2006. From language planning to language management.
Sociolinguistica 20. 92–104.
Pučnik, Kristina M. 2018. Lektorska licenca in drugi poskusi regulacije poklica.
Bela knjiga o prevajanju. Premiki na področju prevajanja, tolmačenja,
podnaslavljanja in lektoriranja v Sloveniji. Available at: https://www.
belaknjigaoprevajanju.si/.
Sebba, Mark. 2003. Spelling rebellion. Jannis K. Androutsopoulos, Alexandra
Georgakopoulou (eds): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 151–173.
Sebba, Mark. 2007: Spelling and Society. The Culture and Politics of Orthography
around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherman, Tamah. 2016. Language management and Language Management
Theory [LMT]. Andrew Linn (ed.): Investigating English in Europe. Boston/
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 192–199.
Tarp, Sven. 2008. Lexicography in the Borderland between Knowledge and Non-
Knowledge: general lexicographical theory with particular focus on learner’s
lexicography. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Verovnik, Tina. 2005. Jezikovni obronki. Ljubljana: GV Založba.
Vogl, Ulrike. 2012. Multilingualism in a standard language culture. Standard
Languages and Multilingualism in European History. 1–40.
Received January 2022, accepted May 2022.
Prispelo januarja 2022, sprejeto maja 2022.
acKnowldegements
The publication of article was made possible by programmes Slo-
venski jezik v sinhronem in diahronem razvoju (P6-0038) and Slovenski
204 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 14 (2022)
jezik – bazične, kontrastivne in aplikativne raziskave (P6-0215), which
are financially supported by the Slovenian Research agency.
summary
revision of slovenian normative guIde: scientific basIs and inclusion of the public
The last decade has been one of the most dynamic periods of synchronic
Slovenian linguistics. In an age that can certainly be called electronic and
that influences the diversity of language realisations by providing different
media and modes of expression, it is necessary and desirable to reassess
normative issues. This article presents the scientific basis of this process
as well as describes the systematic inclusion of different segments of the
public in the phase of assessing the suitability of current orthographic rules
and formulating new ones. With the beginning of the new millennium,
codification has gained a new dimension and has drawn closer to reality.
Research into the dynamics of the system of the Slovenian standard language
has been able to rely on empirically verifiable data owing to digitised written
materials collected in corpora and other electronic databases. In preparing
updates to the normative guide, the materials themselves call for rethinking,
i.e. reassessing existing descriptions and looking for new, not-yet-established
aspects. The revision of the orthographic rules has been going on since 2013
within the Commission on Orthography at SAZU and ZRC SAZU (the Slovenian
academy and its research centre are its co-founders). Representatives of
different professional communities, especially of Slovenian studies, are
members of the Commission. Through the participation of representatives of
research and educational institutions, experts for different fields of language
and creators, the Commission is able to take note of the different views
on orthographic and related linguistic issues and thus revise the language
standard in accordance with the expectations of the public, i.e. users of
the written language. Moreover, in revising the normative guide, the user
perspective is particularly important. One of the basic principles when
deciding on the scope and articulation of the orthographic rules is what the
user needs or seeks. The process of revision of the normative guide therefore
also includes elements of simple language management (e.g. questions in the
Language Counselling service); in addition, by using certain work methods,
the perception of orthographic problems is examined at different micro
levels (surveys, public discussion accompanying the publication of revised
chapters of the normative guide, cooperation with specialist linguists).
T. Lengar Verovnik, H. Dobrovoljc, Revision of Slovenian Normative Guide 205
prenova slovensKega pravopisnega priročniKa: znanstvena izhodišča in vKljučevanje
javnosti
Zadnje desetletje sodi med bolj dinamična obdobja sinhronega slovenističnega
jezikoslovja. V dobi, ki ji z veliko gotovostjo lahko rečemo elektronska in ki
s ponujanjem različnih medijev in izraznih možnosti vpliva na raznolikost
jezikovnih uresničitev, je potrebno in zaželeno tudi ponovno tematiziranje
pravopisnih vprašanj. V prispevku so predstavljena znanstvena izhodišča tega
procesa, opisano pa je tudi sistematično vključevanje različnih javnosti v fazo
preverjanja ustreznosti trenutno veljavnih pravopisnih pravil in oblikovanja
novih. Z vstopom v novo tisočletje je kodifikacija dobila novo razsežnost in
se približala realnosti. Raziskave dinamike sistema slovenskega knjižnega
jezika so se zaradi digitaliziranega pisnega gradiva, zbranega v korpusnih in
drugih elektronskih zbirkah, lahko oprle na empirično preverljive podatke.
Pri pripravi pravopisnih posodobitev nas gradivo samo sili k preizpraševanju,
torej k ponovni presoji že opisanega in iskanju novih, še neuveljavljenih
vidikov. Prenova pravopisnih pravil poteka od leta 2013 pod okriljem
Pravopisne komisije pri SAZU in ZRC SAZU (soustanovitelja sta slovenska
akademija in njen raziskovalni center). V komisiji sodelujejo predstavniki
različnih strokovnih javnosti, zlasti slovenistične. Z udeležbo predstavnikov
raziskovalnih in pedagoških ustanov, strokovnjakov za različna jezikovna
področja in ustvarjalcev je komisiji omogočeno, da se seznani z različnimi
pogledi na pravopisna in s pravopisom povezana jezikovna vprašanja ter
posledično prenovi knjižnojezikovni standard v skladu s pričakovanji pišoče
javnosti. Pri prenavljanju pravopisnega priročnika je uporabniški vidik nadvse
pomemben. Eno od osnovnih vodil pri odločanju o obsegu in ubeseditvi
pravopisnih pravil je, kaj potrebuje oziroma išče uporabnik. Zato v prvo
fazo vključujemo tudi elemente enostavnega jezikovnega menedžmenta
(npr. vprašanja v Jezikovni svetovalnici); prav tako z uporabo nekaterih
metod dela preverjamo dojemanje pravopisnih problemov na različnih
mikro ravneh (ankete, javna razprava ob objavljanju prenovljenih poglavij
pravopisa, sodelovanje z jezikoslovci specialisti).