ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
333
received: 2022-01-14                 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2022.22
SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE 
SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT
ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: mojca.horvat@zrc-sazu.si
Januška GOSTENČNIK
ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: januska.gostencnik@zrc-sazu.si
ABSTRACT
The article presents the various factors responsible for the current dialectal diversity of the Slovenian 
language ‒ natural geographic features of the Slovenian territory and the political and ecclesiastical division 
of the Slovenian territory. This is followed by a description of the fundamental work of Slovenian dialectology, 
i.e. the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (Slovenski lingvistični atlas; SLA), and a presentation of the treatment of 
entries in SLA and a presentation of two software tools (SlovarRed and ArcGIS) used for the digital manage-
ment of dialect material and the making of language maps.
Keywords: Slovenian dialects, Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (SLA), geolinguistics, information technology in linguistics, 
Geographic(al) information system (GIS)
LA DIVERSITÀ DIALETTALE SLOVENA PRESENTATA 
NELL’ATLANTE LINGUISTICO SLOVENO
SINTESI
Il contributo espone i vari fattori determinanti l’attuale diversità dialettale della lingua slovena ‒ oltre alle 
caratteristiche naturali geografiche anche la divisione politica ed ecclesiastica del territorio sloveno. Seguono la 
presentazione del lavoro fondamentale della dialettologia slovena, ossia dell’Atlante linguistico sloveno (Sloven-
ski lingvistični atlas; SLA), l’illustrazione dell’elaborazione delle voci nello SLA, e la descrizione dei due strumenti 
software (SlovaRed e ArcGIS) usati per la gestione digitale del materiale dialettale e la realizzazione delle cartine 
linguistiche.
Parole chiave: dialetti sloveni, Atlante linguistico sloveno (SLA), geolinguistica, tecnologia dell’informazione e linguistica, 
Sistema informativo geografico (GIS)
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
334
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
INTRODUCTION1
The Slovenian language is highly differentiated in 
terms of dialects, which is the result of various intra- and 
extralinguistic factors. From the synchronic point of view, 
the Slovenian language is categorised into seven dialect 
groups: Lower Carniolan (dolenjska n. s.), Littoral (pri-
morska n. s.), Rovte (rovtarska n. s), Carinthian (koroška 
n. s.), Upper Carniolan (gorenjska n. s.), Pannonian (pa-
nonska n. s.) and Styrian (štajerska n. s.), which are in turn 
divided into 47 dialects with subdialects. Subdialects are 
further differentiated into small areas called local dialects, 
which are the smallest systemic unit in the classification 
of dialects. The dynamic geography of Slovenia has been 
found to be one of the most important factors in the divi-
sion of the Slovenian language. Natural barriers such as 
mountain ranges, valleys, forests and swamps prevented 
contact and thus communication between people, which 
accelerated linguistic differentiation, including the forma-
tion of dialects and subdialects. 
The article (cf. Kumin Horvat & Gostenčnik, 2017)  
first presents the various factors responsible for the cur-
rent dialectal diversity of the Slovenian language. This 
is followed by a description of the fundamental work of 
Slovenian dialectology, i.e. the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas 
(Slovenski lingvistični atlas; SLA), and a presentation of 
the treatment of entries in SLA, i.e. the structure of the 
commentary, the ways of mapping and a presentation of 
two software tools (SlovarRed and ArcGIS) used for the 
digital management of dialect material and the making of 
language maps.
DIALECTAL DIVERSITY OF SLOVENIAN LANGUAGE
The main factor in the dialectal differentiation are 
the natural geographic features of the Slovenian territory, 
i.e. hill ranges, mountain ranges, valleys, impenetrable 
forests, swamps, watercourses. The dialectal division 
was further accelerated by the political and ecclesiastical 
division of the Slovenian territory, which shaped the com-
munication and movement of the population for centuries 
(Logar, 1996, 4). The rich dialectal diversity has also been 
influenced by the proximity of the Slovenian language 
to non-Slavic languages or dialects: German, Friulian, 
Italian and Hungarian, the effects of which are noticeable 
in sentence intonation, lexis, syntax and partly in phone-
tics (Logar, 1996, 3). A relatively small colonisation by 
non-Slovenian settlers, who eventually assimilated, and 
Turkish incursions in the area of Bela Krajina also had a 
minor influence on the formation of dialects.
The first differentiation of the Slovenian language 
dates back to the early years of its formation out of Pro-
to-Slavic, as a result of the arrival of Slavs to the Eastern 
1 The article has been produced based on research results within the i-SLA – Interaktivni atlas slovenskih narečij (i-SLA – Interactive Atlas 
of Slovene Dialects) project (L6-2628, 1. 9. 2020 – 31. 8. 2023), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency under the P6-0038 
programme (1. 1. 2004 – 31. 12. 2021).
Alps in two migratory waves – from the north across 
the Danube to the Klagenfurt Basin, and from the south 
along the Sava, Drava and Mura rivers up to the Alps 
and the Karst plateau. Following the settlement at the 
end of the 6th century, the south-eastern and north-we-
stern Slovenian dialect areas were formed by the end 
of the first millennium. The Pannonian (panonska n. s.), 
Styrian (štajerska n. s.), Lower Carniolan (dolenjska n. 
s.) and Upper Carniolan (gorenjska n. s.) dialect groups 
arose in the first area, while the Carinthian (koroška 
n. s.), Littoral (primorska n. s.) and, as the youngest, 
Rovte (rovtarska n. s.) arose in the (north-)west (Zorko, 
1998, 115). 
Subsequently, the dialectal division of Slovenian was 
influenced by other geographic and historical factors, 
which cannot be examined in isolation as they were often 
intertwined – political and ecclesiastical administrative 
divisions of territory often followed natural boundaries 
and determined migratory and transport flows. For exam-
ple, the extent of štajerska dialects (narečja štajerske n. s.) 
and subdialects was determined by centuries-old political 
and ecclesiastical administrative divisions that were 
mostly based on mountain ranges, hill ranges and rivers, 
so the division between the Upper Carniolan (koroška 
n. s.) and Styrian (štajerska n. s.) dialects still follows the 
former regional border between Carniola (koroška n. s.) 
and Styria (štajerska n. s.), from the Kamnik Alps to the 
Zasavje hills in the south-east (Logar, 1996, 392).
Another dividing line is the mountain chain Sne-
žnik–Javorniki–Hrušica–Nanos, which forms a boundary 
between the Lower Carniolan (dolenjska n. s.) and Inner 
Carniolan dialects (notranjsko n.) in the south-east and 
the group of Rovte dialects (rovtarska n. s.) and the In-
ner Carniolan dialect (notranjsko n.) in the north-west. 
Similarly, the mountain chain Kanin–Stol–Mija–Matajur 
represents a boundary between the Upper Soča (obsoško 
n.) and dialects of Slavia Veneta (beneško-slovensko n.) 
(Logar, 1993, 6).
Some dialects are spoken in smaller areas formed 
due the geographic isolation of their speakers in valleys 
surrounded by tall mountains. The Resia dialect (re-
zijansko n.) is spoken in Resia, a mountainous alpine 
valley in the Italian province of Udine, and is separated 
from the Upper Soča dialect (obsoško n.) in the east by 
the high Kanin mountain range, which is also the state 
border between Slovenia and Italy, and from the Ter 
dialect (tersko n.) in the south by the steep and high 
Muzec chain. In the north, the Resians are separated 
from the people of Zilja in Carinthia by a wide and hilly 
belt now inhabited by Romance-speaking Friulians. The 
Resian valley is thus only open towards the west, i.e. the 
Friuli region, which has no Slovenian population, and 
Friulians have been the closest contact of Resians for 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
335
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
centuries (Logar, 1996, 232). Similarly, the formation of 
the Kropa local dialect (krajevni govor Krope) was de-
termined by the geographic confinement to the narrow 
valley of the Kroparica stream at the foot of the Jelovica 
plateau (Škofic, 2019, 15). The diversity of the Posavje 
local dialects (posavski govori) of the Zasavje region 
(the towns of Trbovlje, Zagorje and Hrastnik) is also the 
result of confinement to individual basins surrounded by 
a hill range reaching up to 1000 metres above sea level 
(Medved & Smole, 2005, 71). 
Extensive swampland and forests also played an 
important role in the dialectal differentiation of Slo-
venian in the past. Thus, the boundary between the 
Upper Carniolan (gorenjska n. s.) and Lower Carniolan 
dialects (dolenjsko n. s.) runs along the once impassable 
Ljubljana Marshes (Logar, 1993, 7); in the Sora Plain, 
communication was prevented by extensive, almost 
impenetrable forests, giving rise to the boundary bet-
ween the Upper Carniolan (gorenjska n. s.) and Rovte 
dialects (rovtarska n. s.). The delimitation is sharp, with 
no transitional local dialects, as forests used to separate 
the areas of Kranj and Medvode from the town of Škofja 
Loka and its vicinity, which then had a mixed Sloveni-
an-German population (Logar, 1993, 7). A similar role 
was played by the forests of Kočevje and the geographic 
remoteness of being on the far side of the Gorjanci range 
in the formation of the dialects of Bela Krajina, a region 
separated from the rest of Slovenia on one side and con-
nected to the neighbouring Croatian lands on the other 
(Logar, 1996, 79).
In addition to the above-mentioned natural factors, 
the dialect landscape of the Slovenian language has been 
shaped by other factors: the ecclesiastical and political 
administrative divisions, colonisation, Turkish incursions, 
economic ties between towns and regions etc.
The territories of individual parishes (if old enough) 
are often the areas in which individual local dialects 
developed as, historically, it was the parish centre 
that became the administrative and political centre 
shaping transport and communication among people 
(Logar, 1993, 6). For example, the Upper Savinja dialect 
(zgornjesavinjsko n.), which is part of the Styrian dialect 
group (štajerska n. s.), was formed in a territory that was 
the property of the Benedictine monastery of Gornji 
Grad in the 12th century; similarly, the delimitation 
between the Upper Savinja (zgornjesavinjsko n.) and 
Central Styrian (srednjsavinjsko n.) local dialects runs 
along the line that used to divide the territories of two 
ancient parishes: Laško and Ponikva (Logar, 1993, 6). 
Parish borders also defined the boundaries of the Do-
linsko variant of the Prekmurje dialect (dolinski govor 
prekmurskega narečja), which covers the area of the 
former ancient parish of Turnišče (Novak & Novak, 
1996, XI); moreover, parish borders correspond with the 
boundaries of the local dialect of Juršinci (krajevni govor 
Juršinci), which is part of the Prlekija dialect (prleško n.) 
(Škofic, 2004, 104).
The former (as well as current) political administrative 
division has left its mark on the Slovenian language area, 
drawing sharp borders between dialects. For example, 
the western boundary of the Savinja dialect (savinjsko n.) 
is also the eastern boundary of the Upper Carniolan dia-
lect (gorenjska n. s.), following the former regional border 
between Carniola and Styria running from the Okrešelj 
cirque via the Ojstrica mountain to the Črnivec pass and 
Menina Planina and Čemšeniška Planina plateaus (Logar, 
1996, 48). Similarly, the boundary between the Inner Car-
niolan (notranjsko n.) and Kras dialects (kraško n.) dates 
back to the time of the so-called Great Carantania, when 
this was the dividing line between the Friulian and Istrian 
marches. In the Vipava Valley, the boundary follows the 
delimitation of feudal dominions, which was placed on 
the Vrtovinšček stream at the end of the first millennium 
(Logar, 1996, 66). The boundary between the eastern 
and western versions of the Slovenske Gorice dialect 
(slovenskogoriško n.), which belongs to the Pannonian 
dialect group (panonska n. s.), follows the historical 
border between Carantania and Lower Pannonia, which 
ran along the line Marija Snežna – Sveta Ana on the 
Kremberg hill–Sveta Trojica–Vurberk at the Drava river 
(Koletnik, 2001, 38).
One of the factors in the dialectal differentiation is also 
more recent colonisations, especially the settlement of 
non-Slavic colonists – which gave rise to, among others, 
the Bača subdialect (baško podnarečje) and Selca dialect 
(selško n.): the hilly and wooded uninhabited area along 
the upper reaches of the Bača river and its tributaries in 
the Littoral region was colonised by German farmers from 
Pustertal in Tyrol around 1250 at the latest. This territory 
then belonged to the Tolmin dominion of the Patriarchate 
of Aquileia. 
A decisive role in the creation of some Slovenian 
dialects was played by Turkish incursions, which heavily 
influenced the linguistic landscape of the Bela Krajina 
region, where the composition of the population started 
to change in the 15th and 16th centuries. It should be 
noted that geographic obstacles separated Bela Krajina 
from the rest of Slovenia, enabling stronger links with the 
neighbouring lands on the other side of the Kolpa river. It 
is thus understandable that Bela Krajina got its first Slavic 
population from the same direction as the neighbouring 
area in Croatia. Until the 13th century, Bela Krajina was 
a Croatian land in terms of politics, culture and transport. 
Only after that, it became part of the area of Slovenian 
political and cultural linguistic influence (Logar, 1996, 
79). The Turkish incursions caused the native, at least 
partly Slovenised population of Bela Krajina to abandon 
their old homes and start to retreat north over the Gorjan-
ci range. This applies especially to the lowlands and areas 
around the Kolpa river, while the inhabitants of higher, 
remote hilly areas most likely stayed, also accepting 
refugees arriving from the south. On the other hand, the 
partly evacuated parts of Bela Krajina were settled by 
refugees from the Croatian regions of Lika, Dalmatia and 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
336
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
Bosnia. Today’s local dialects of Bela Krajina (belokranj-
sko n.) have thus developed based on the mixing of the 
old population with refugees from the south and more 
recent Slovenian immigrants (Logar, 1996, 79).
The above-mentioned examples demonstrate how the 
dialectisation of the Slovenian language area has been 
accelerated by different factors limiting or preventing 
communication between people in one way or another. 
On the contrary, the economic factor had a distinct uni-
fying function: for example, the area around Tolmin and 
along the Idrijca river was a special administrative unit of 
the Patriarchate of Aquileia. In matters of administration 
and trade, it therefore had permanent transport connec-
tions to centres in the west: Udine, Cividale del Friuli, 
Aquileia, the road to which ran through the village of Sre-
dnje and the valley of the Idrija river. On the other hand, 
trade and, even more so, mountaineering connected the 
Tolmin region to the Bohinj and Selca valleys (Ramovš, 
1931, 45). Economy thus had a decisive impact on the 
gravitation of the population in some places – this is how 
the Kropa local dialect (krajevni govor Krope) was formed. 
Kropa, which was at the height of its iron industry from 
the 16th to the mid-19th century (having two foundries 
and several ironworks), attracted significant labour force 
from as far as Carinthia and the Selca valley; both the 
mixing of the population and the diversity of their local 
dialects naturally had a decisive impact on the formation 
of the local dialect (Škofic, 2019, 17).
Dialectisation was often influenced by a combination 
of multiple factors mentioned above. This can be exem-
plified by the local dialects on both sides of the Slove-
nian-Croatian state border in the very south of Slovenia, 
where Slovenian dialectology has only recently started to 
treat this interconnected area as a homogenous unit, re-
gardless of the contemporary state border. In the territory 
of the Čebranka and Kostel dialects (čebranško in kostel-
sko n.) of the Lower Carniola dialect group (dolenjska n. 
s.), the Čebranka and Kolpa rivers, independent of the 
official authorities and state borders, have been a unifying 
factor that has linked the lives and thus the language of the 
inhabitants, while the surrounding high peaks, extensive 
forest areas and, later (17th century), the immigration of 
Shtokavian Orthodox populations have further hindered 
ties with the neighbouring regions, further solidifying 
internal links. (Gostenčnik, 2020a, 371) The Čebranka 
dialect (čebranško n.) is located along the Čebranka river, 
along the upper reaches of the Kolpa river and partly in 
2 The full list of localities in the SLA network is available at: http://www.fran.si/203/sla-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas-2/datoteke/SLA2_Kraji.pdf.
3 The questionnaire of the Linguistic Atlas of Polish Subcarpathia originally comprised 700 questions but was later expanded to 
1000 questions. Only the material that exhibited phonetic, lexical or morphological differentiation was included in the geolin-
guistic examination (Kumin Horvat, 2016, based on Reichan & Woźniak, 2004, 12–13).
the Gorski Kotar region of Croatia. In spite of the (state) 
border as a political dividing line, the area of these local 
dialects represents a continuum in terms of language 
history (Gostenčnik, 2018, 11), which is now reflected 
particularly in the linguistic and dialectal characteristics 
of the local dialects in question. Further south-east, along 
the upper reaches of the Kolpa river and in the Gorski 
Kotar region of Croatia, lies the Kostel dialect (kostelsko 
n.) (Gostenčnik, 2020a, 353). It directly borders the 
Čebranka dialect in the west, the mixed Kočevje local 
dialects (mešani kočevski govori) in the north and the 
Southern Bela Krajina dialect (južnobelokranjsko n.) in 
the north-east. In the south, the Kostel dialect (kostelsko 
n.) extends to the town of Ravna Gora (with the Chakavi-
an language area south of this border); in the south-east, 
it is separated from the East Goran local dialects of the 
Kajkavian dialect group of the Croatian language by the 
village of Blaževci (Gostenčnik, 2020a, 355). 
Today’s diversity of the Slovenian language area is 
illustrated by the very dynamic colours on the map of 
Slovenian dialects.
SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS (SLA)
SLA – the fundamental work of Slovenian dialectolo-
gy – is being made at the Fran Ramovš Institute of the 
Slovenian Language at the SAZU Research Centre (ISJFR 
ZRC SAZU) in Ljubljana. Along with the dictionary, the 
normative guide and the grammar, this is one of the 
fundamental linguistic reference works. It is characteri-
sed by presenting language from the perspective of the 
geographic scope of individual linguistic phenomena. 
The atlas examines systemic organic idioms of the Slo-
venian language as they are spoken within and beyond 
the borders of Slovenia. The SLA covers all areas where 
Slovenian dialects are spoken; the network of localities 
includes 417 local dialects,2 of which 339 are within the 
borders of Slovenia, 41 are in Austria, 28 are in Italy, 7 are 
in Croatia, and 2 are in Hungary (Gostenčnik, 2016, 50). 
SLA was designed in 1934 by Fran Ramovš, a com-
parative linguist and dialectologist, and the first year of 
preparations coincides with the year of the publication of 
the Linguistic Atlas of Polish Subcarpathia (Atlas językowy 
polskiego Podkarpacia) by Mieczysław Małecki and 
Kazimierz Nitsch, which Ramovš used as a model. He 
followed the example of the Polish atlas especially when 
preparing the questionnaire3 even though the Polish atlas 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
337
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
Figure 1: Geolinguistic presentation of the Čebranka and Kostel dialects (Gostenčnik, 2020b, 138).
Figure 2: Map of Slovenian dialects (authors: Tine Logar and Jakob Rigler (1983), amended by members of the 
Dialectology Section of ISJFR ZRC SAZU (2016)) (Source: SLA – Karta narečij (2022)).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
338
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
is regional in type,4 while the Slovenian atlas is national. 
Despite an early start, the SLA fieldwork, i.e. the collecti-
on of dialect material, only started after the Second World 
War. The original SLA network of localities was foreseen 
as comprising 230 local dialects, but the collection 
of material in the field soon showed that the dialectal 
differentiation of the Slovenian language area is much 
greater, so this number of local dialects would not suffice 
to cover all the characteristics of dialects. This is why new 
localities were added to the network over the years. 
The figure below shows the network of data points, 
which appears fairly dense at first glance, but there are 
still areas where the data points are spaced rather far 
apart,5 though most dialects are covered very well.
In all 417 local dialects, the material has been 
obtained with the same questionnaire, which includes 
870 numbered questions and numbers no fewer than 
3000 units when combined with supplementary questi-
ons.6 The questions are given as standard equivalents 
(e.g. V001 las ‘hair’, V025 roka ‘arm, hand’, V129A hiša 
‘house’, V175 šola ‘school’, V197 koruza ‘maize’), ba-
sed on which an explorer in the field uses the so-called 
survey method to formulate a suitable question without 
suggesting the answer to the informant (e.g. What do 
you call what people have on their heads? – las ‘hair’, 
What do you call the part of the body used for eating 
and writing? – roka ‘hand’).
The gathering of material in the field started in the 
mid-20th century, with Tine Logar as the main explorer. It 
was originally planned that a single explorer would col-
lect all the material so that a uniform acoustic filter would 
be employed, but it soon turned out that this would not 
be possible due to the extent of the questionnaire and 
the plethora of local dialects included. This is why the 
gathering of material was taken up by Logar’s graduates at 
the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana, and later 
by other linguists,7 especially dialectologists. Answers are 
written in the so-called Slovenian phonetic transcription, 
which has undergone changes over the years. The current 
dialect transcription is based on the phonetic transcripti-
on for the Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA) with additional 
4 The Linguistic Atlas of Polish Subcarpathia is the first atlas of the Polish language. M. Małecki and K. Nitsch, Polish dialec-
tologists, began preparations for a regional atlas of the Polish language where the examination of a geographically small area 
would demonstrate methodological, technical and content possibilities for mapping, thus enabling researchers to get well 
prepared for a general dictionary of Polish dialects. The area of Subcarpathia, which lies at the contact point between the 
Polish, Czech and Slovak language areas, was chosen for geolinguistic examination for multiple reasons. Due to its location, 
historical factors and migratory waves, it is highly differentiated and thus suitable for linguistic analysis, which is reflected in 
the grammatical and particularly the lexical diversity of the local dialects of the area (Reichan & Woźniak, 2004, 10–11).
5 Such areas are, for example, the westernmost part of the Prlekija dialect (prleško n.), the Mežica dialect (mežiško n.) etc.
6 Supplementary questions can be phonetic (for example, V730 asks about reflexes of the unstressed yat, and its supplementary 
questions are the cues črepinja ‘shard’, lenoba ‘laziness’, lesnika ‘crab apple’, levica ‘left hand’, plenica ‘nappy’, resnica ‘truth’ 
etc.), morphological (for example, V607 hči ‘daughter’ includes supplementary questions for the entire paradigm of this noun) or 
semantic in nature (for example, V618 ujna ‘aunt, mother’s sister’ asks about the different meanings of this lexeme). The full SLA 
questionnaire is available at: http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/c/Dial/Ponovne_SLA/P/03_1_Vprasalnica_STEV.pdf (Ponovne objave).
7 Their respective native local dialects have been explored by, for example, Francka Benedik, Janez Dular, Martina Orožen, Vera 
Smole, Marija Stanonik, Vlado Nartnik, Jože Toporišič, Ada Vidovič Muha and Zinka Zorko. 
8 See: http://www.fran.si/203/sla-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas-2/datoteke/SLA2_Foneticna-transkripcija.pdf.
9 Example: the entry sredinec ‘middle finger’ (SLA 1.2, 2011, 106).
graphemes for Slovenian dialectal phonemes and is 
presented in full in the introductory chapters of the Atlas 
(Kenda-Jež in SLA 1, 27–30, and in SLA 2, 27–31).8
The material is kept at the Dialectology Section of 
ISJFR ZRC SAZU in Ljubljana, in multiple formats. In 
part, the material is written on cards and stored in a 
so-called card index, where cards containing answers 
are ordered by individual questions. The entire card 
material, totalling 884,000 cards, is also scanned. The 
second part of the material is kept in a notebook collec-
tion (also digitally in the form of scans), which is located 
on an internal shared drive of the Dialectology Section 
of ISJFR ZRC SAZU – this material is ordered by locality. 
For some local dialects, the material is available both 
in card and notebook form; for others, only one of the 
formats is available. The notebook collection varies in 
terms of the orderliness of the material – one part of the 
material is completely unproblematic, with numbered 
questions and answers, while the second part comes in 
a rather problematic form for processing. This is because 
the answers are written in the notebooks sporadically, 
just as the explorer acquired them in the field, so they 
are sometimes not even numbered and are hard to find.
Because the SLA dialect material is still being collected 
– data points that are unrecorded so far are mostly those 
outside the state borders of Slovenia – it is now kept in 
the form of so-called electronic notebooks, i.e. Microsoft 
Word documents, which best facilitates further processing 
in terms of readability and management of the material.
TREATMENT OF ENTRIES IN SLA
Every entry included in SLA 1 and SLA 2 has:
• a commentary, where the dialect material is 
analysed and commented upon;
• a symbol- (and isogloss-)based map where the ma-
terial is presented using the geolinguistic method;
• an index, i.e. material accompanying the map for 
the entire network of localities, presented in the 
Slovenian phonetic transcription.9
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
339
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
Example of commentary structure
In this section, the structure of a commentary (see 
also Škofic in SLA 2.2, 16–17) is presented using an 
example of a commentary from the second volume of 
the Atlas (SLA 2), which includes lexis belonging to 
the farming semantic field, for vodnjak ‘well’ (SLA 2.2, 
317–320, authored by Vera Smole and Mojca Horvat). 
The first point presents the semantic features of the 
material and the related issues, which are mostly ba-
sed on the variation of the denotatum at hand across 
Slovenian regions. 
The second point of the commentary, i.e. the morpho-
logical analysis,10 analyses all the lexemes recorded for a 
10 On the morphological analysis methodology, see Škofic in SLA 2.2, 52–58.
11 Example of the morphemic structure of lexemes: studenec ‘spring’ < *stud-e-n-ьc-ь ← *stud-e-n-ъ ‘cold’ (adj.), which is relat-
ed to *stud-ъ ‘cold’ (noun), *stud-i-ti ‘to make cold’; štepIh < *(štepix)-ъ ← MHG stübich, stubich, Austrian Bavarian Stübich 
‘type of back basket’ with Bavarian German pronunciation (-b- > -p-) (I ≥ u in T039, T041, T049, T050, T051 T052, T053, 
T331, T333, T337, T340, T415; I ≥ o in T055) (Smole & Horvat in SLA 2.2, 317).
12 Example of lexemes with unclear origins: lucterna ‘well’, unclear, perhaps related to šterna, plunkovec ‘well’, unclear, perhaps 
*plun-ъk-ov-ьc-ь, related to the verb plunkati ‘to emit short, hollow sounds when liquid is flowing’, which is derived from *plu-ti 
‘to swim’ with an interpolated imitative -n- like in plundra ‘slush’ (the entry for plunkati in Snoj, 2003, 457), or perhaps *plunk-a-
v-ьc-ь derived from the onomatopoeic verb *plunk-a-ti (like plȗnka ‘harp, zither’ (Bezlaj, 1995, 62) or perhaps *plunk-a-v-ьc-ь in 
relation to pljuniti ‘to spit’, plunkati (Smole & Horvat in SLA 2.2, 317−318).
13 For more on the SLA mapping method, see SLA 2.2, 18−19.
particular meaning, presenting their morphemic structu-
re11 as well as their origin. Some lexemes have not been 
analysed morphologically because they are unclear.12
The special features of a map when compared to other 
maps are presented in the third point, which lists each 
lexeme that is recorded in only one local dialect. For each 
local dialect, no more than two lexemes are mapped on 
the map, so this section also shows any so-called third 
and subsequent lexemes in individual points, which are 
not marked with a symbol on the map.13
To clarify many an issue, answers had to be found in 
additional literature relevant only to the commentary in 
question, so the fourth point lists bibliographic informa-
tion about this.
Figure 3: Network of data points in the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (SLA 2.1, 13).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
340
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
The fifth point enables the development of an in-
ternal and external network of connections between 
the volumes of the SLA as it lists cross-references 
to maps dealing with a similar topic (for example, 
the commentary for vodnjak ‘well’ includes a cross-
-reference to the commentary for studenec ‘small 
spring’. This point also mentions other linguistic 
atlases, which cover the Slovenian language area 
in its entirety (e.g. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističkeskij 
atlas – OLA, Atlas Linguistique de l’Europe – ALE) or 
just a part of it (e.g. Slovenski dialektološki leksikalni 
atlas slovenske Istre – SDLA-SI). There are also cross-
-references to the atlases of neighbouring languages 
that may cover a part of the Slovenian language area, 
i.e. Atlante linguistico italiano – ALI, Atlante storico-
-linguistico-etnografico friulano – ASLEF, Új Magyar 
Nyelvjárási Atlasz – UMNyA and HJA (Hrvatski 
jezični atlas).
The sixth point is of particular interest to ethnologi-
sts as it provides an additional clarification of the topic 
from an ethnological point of view, accompanied by a 
sketch of the mapped denotatum with some regional 
variants.
Example of map
On the map, dialectal lexemes for the meaning 
‘enclosed space or container, usually underground, 
for collecting and storing large quantities of drinking 
water’ appear in continuous areas, with the most 
extensive one being studenec, while another frequent 
expression is pod. The expressions štepih ‘well’, štirna 
‘well’, poč ‘well’ and štern ‘well’ also appear in con-
tinuous areas.
14 The ZRCola input system has been developed at the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana (www.
zrc-sazu.si). The input system for linguistic use is free of charge and freely accessible – it is available at http://zrcola.zrc-sazu.si/.
Since 2013, SLA has been freely available online; 
as a PDF book, it is published on the ISJFR website 
(http://sla.zrc-sazu.si/), where non-Slovenian users 
can avail themselves of a table (SLA 2.1,  24–26) with 
all the entries in nine languages (Slovenian, English, 
German, French, Italian, Friulian, Russian, Croatian, 
Hungarian) to help them locate the question or lexeme 
they are interested in. 
SLOVARRED AND GIS
The digital management of the dialect material and 
the making of language maps are conducted using two 
software tools, i.e. SlovarRed and ArcGIS.
The computer software tool was originally inten-
ded for the making of terminological dictionaries 
but now also serves as a database for the Slovenian 
Linguistic Atlas. The database is designed as an 
organised system for all data related to the SLA 
material. It also contains subdatabases, e.g. a subda-
tabase of recorders, a subdatabase of place names, 
a subdatabase of the geographic coordinates of the 
localities included in the network etc. The dialectal 
data entered in the database are verifiable owing to 
a link to the database of scanned card and notebook 
material, which is saved on a separate server (Škofic, 
2008, 98). 
Dialect material has been entered into SlovarRed in 
Slovenian phonetic transcription using the ZRCola input 
system.14 Material that has already been collected and 
is located in the card and notebook index is copied to 
SlovarRed in citation form, i.e. in the phonetic transcrip-
tion that was used at the time of recording, even though 
the transcription has changed over the years. This means 
Figure 4: Example of sketch for SLA V162B.01 vodnjak.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
341
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
Figure 5: Map from SLA 2.1 (2016, 173), vodnjak ‘well’ (authored by Vera Smole, Mojca Horvat).
Figure 6: SlovarRed 2.1 software tool with material for sredinec ‘middle finger’.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
342
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
that phonetic records are not harmonised, so a purely 
lay comparison between individual indices may lead to 
incorrect interpretations.15
The figure below shows a screenshot of SlovarRed, 
with the entry sredinec ‘middle finger’ selected. 
For each lexeme or data point, a double click on the 
far left of the screen displays the scanned original record 
of the entered material either on a card or in a notebook.16 
The chosen entry is oko ‘eye’.
The SlovarRed database is connected with the ArcGIS 
program, which is in turn connected with a geographic 
information system (GIS) that displays the interpreted 
language data on a language map. ArcGIS enables dif-
ferent ways of mapping, i.e. of displaying language data 
on a map. It was developed for SLA in cooperation with 
members of the ZRC SAZU Institute of Anthropological 
and Spatial Studies, based on data provided by GURS 
(Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of 
Slovenia) (Škofic, 2008, 98) ArcGIS enables one to freely 
add different layers. The screenshot below shows a map 
drawn in ArcGIS for sredinec ‘middle finger’ (SLA 1.1, 
107), which has been added a layer with dialects.
The final language map as found in the published 
version of Slovenski lingvistični atlas 1 – človek (telo, 
15 For the non-tonemic Inner Carniola local dialect SLA T155 Trnovo (Ilirska Bistrica), there are multiple records, including one 
from 1974, which is written in the old phonetic transcription − material for V826 oko ‘eye’: okȗ ‘eye’, and another from 1984, 
which is written in the new transcription: oˈkuː ‘eye’. At first glance, it might wrongly be concluded that the local dialect used 
to have tonemic accentuation and no longer has it.
16  While both the card and notebook indices are digitised, only the scanned card material is (partly) linked to SlovarRed for the time being.
bolezni, družina) (Slovenian Linguistic Atlas 1 – Human 
(Body, Illnesses, Family)) looks like this: 
Some maps are based not only on symbols, but 
isoglosses as well. This is made possible by the ArcGIS 
program with the option of manually drawing isoglosses, 
which has been utilised to enrich the expressiveness of a 
map itself or to highlight a certain phonetic or sometimes 
morphological phenomenon. The isogloss on the map for 
oko ‘eye’ (SLA 1.1, 59) presents and demarcates the area 
where the so-called tertiary shift of the circumflex has 
taken place, which is an accent innovation characteristic 
only of the displayed local dialects, not of Slovenian in 
general.
FRAN AND I-SLA
Since 2014, SLA has been available for browsing 
as part of the Fran web portal (www.fran.si), which 
is a portal of the ZRC SAZU Fran Ramovš Institute of 
the Slovenian Language and contains all fundamental 
dictionaries for Slovenian. Currently, it integrates 
32 dictionaries (eleven general, two etymological, 
five historical, fourteen terminological, six dialect 
dictionaries), one linguistic atlas, two language 
Figure 7: View of the scan of an original dialectal record.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
343
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
Figure 8: Map from SLA 1.1 in the ArcGIS program with a dialect layer added.
Figure 9: Map from SLA 1.1, 107, sredinec ‘middle finger’ (authored by Mojca Horvat).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
344
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
counselling services and numerous links to external 
language corpora, so it functions like one huge dicti-
onary. It can be characterised as presenting Slovenian 
from the perspective of its different versions in terms 
of varieties, time and space. The portal enables 
searching through all dictionaries simultaneously or 
limiting the search to only one dictionary or atlas that 
the user is interested in. Search results enable clicking 
between dictionaries, so it is possible, for example, 
to jump from the dictionary of standard language to 
historical dictionaries, terminological dictionaries or 
the linguistic atlas.
Moreover, an interactive version of the Atlas, the so-
-called e-SLA, is in the making at the Institute; it is being 
prepared by Jožica Škofic, a dialectologist, and Jernej 
Vičič, a language technologist. The idea of the interactive 
linguistic atlas has already been presented in public (Ško-
fic, 2013, 95–111), so only its essential characteristics are 
noted here. It involves the preparation of a “truly interac-
tive linguistic atlas by using the XML format and basing 
17 E. g. information on the locality of the local dialect of Horjul (horjulsko n.) (cf. Wikipedia, 2022).
it on the interconnectedness of different databases, while 
undoubtedly upholding the fundamental importance of a 
judicial (in terms of linguistic theory) analysis of the lan-
guage material (in this case, the lexis of Slovenian dialects 
presented in the “traditional” linguistic atlas) upgraded 
with researcher- and user-friendly electronic tools” 
(Škofic, 2013, 95–111). The intention is for the planned 
atlas to present and integrate data from databases so as to 
enable 1. adding or removing views of data on a map – 
e.g. switching different layers on and off; 2. selecting the 
mapped data on a given map; 3. direct browsing through 
data from the SlovarRed database; 4. linking to audio and 
video recordings from selected local dialects; 5. linking 
to online dialect dictionaries; (e. g. Narečna bera, 2013) 
6. linking to online dialectological corpora; (cf. Govorni 
korpus Koprive, 2020) 7. linking to online information on 
the author of the record, the place17 and bibliographic 
information on the research into particular local dialects; 
8. switching between the map, commentary, index and 
morphological analysis etc.
Figure 10: Map from SLA 1.1, 59, oko ‘eye’ (authored by Januška Gostenčnik).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
345
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
SLOVENSKA NAREČNA RAZNOLIKOST V SLOVENSKEM LINGVISTIČNEM ATLASU
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: mojca.horvat@zrc-sazu.si, 
Januška GOSTENČNIK
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: januska.gostencnik@zrc-sazu.si
POVZETEK
Narečna raznolikost slovenskega jezika je metodološko dovršeno predstavljena v temeljnem delu slo-
venske dialektologije, tj. v Slovenskem lingvističnem atlasu (dalje) SLA, katerega prvi zvezek je izšel leta 
2011, drugi pa leta 2016. SLA prinaša v jezikoslovni luči interpretirano predmetnost iz celotnega slovenskega 
jezikovnega prostora. V njem je narečno gradivo prostorsko prikazano na t. i. besednih jezikovnih kartah 
in razloženo v strukturno enotnih komentarjih. Na primeru izbranih jezikovnih kart in komentarjev bodo v 
članku prikazane metode dela pri SLA, v okviru tega pa tudi posamezne fonetične, besedotvorne in leksične 
zanimivosti slovenskih narečij. Od leta 2014 je SLA prosto dostopen na inštitutskem spletnem portalu Fran 
(www.fran.si), ki vključuje tudi vse preostale temeljne jezikovne priročnike slovenskega jezika. V pripravi je 
tudi interaktivni atlas oz. i-SLA.
Ključne besede: slovenska narečja, Slovenski lingvistični atlas (SLA), geolingvistika, informacijske tehnologije v 
jezikoslovju, Geografski informacijski sistemi (GIS)
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 3
346
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT & Januška GOSTENČNIK: SLOVENIAN DIALECTAL DIVERSITY AS PRESENTED IN THE SLOVENIAN LINGUISTIC ATLAS, 333–346
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bezlaj, France (1995): Etimološki slovar sloven-
skega jezika. Tretja knjiga P–S. Ljubljana, SAZU, 
ZRC, Mladinska knjiga.
Fran (2022): https://fran.si/ (last access: 2022-01-
12).
Gostenčnik, Januška (2020a): Kostelsko narečje. 
Slavistična revija, 68, 3, 353−372. 
Gostenčnik, Januška (2020b): Kostelsko narečje 
dolenjske narečne skupine. In: Šekli, Matej & Lidija 
Rezoničnik (eds.): Slovenski jezik in književnost v 
srednjeevropskem prostoru. Ljubljana, Zveza društev 
Slavistično društvo Slovenije, 137–148. 
Gostenčnik, Januška (2018): Krajevni govori ob 
Čabranki in zgornji Kolpi. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC, 
ZRC SAZU. 
Gostenčnik, Januška (2016): Krajevni govori 
izven meja Slovenije. Mohorjev koledar, 49–51.
Govorni korpus Koprive (2020): http://jt.upr.si/
GOKO/ (last access: 2022-01-12).
Koletnik, Mihaela (2001): Slovenskogoriško nare-
čje. Maribor, Slavistično društvo.
Kumin Horvat, Mojca (2016): Zastopanost polj-
skega jezika in njegovih narečij v izbranih jezikov-
nih atlasih. Ljubljana, B. A. Thesis.
Kumin Horvat Mojca & Januška Gostenčnik 
(2017): Narečna raznolikost slovenščine – predsta-
vitvene metode. In: Kołodziej, Agnieszki & Tomasz 
Piasecki (eds): Słowiańszczyzna dawniej i dziś 
– język, literatura, kultura: monografia ze studiów 
slawistycznych III. Červený Kostelec, Pavel Mervart, 
169–183.
Logar, Tine (1993): Slovenska narečja. Ljubljana, 
Mladinska knjiga.
Logar, Tine (1996): Dialektološke in jezikovno-
zgodovinske razprave. Ljubljana, Znanstvenoraz-
iskovalni center SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik 
Frana Ramovša.
Medved Aleksandra & Vera Smole (2005): Trbo-
veljski govor in rudarska kuharska leksika. Knjižno in 
narečno besedoslovje slovenskega jezika. Maribor, 
Slavistično društvo.
Narečna bera (2013): http://www.narecna-bera.
si/ (last access: 2021-12-12).
Novak, Vilko & Franc Novak (1996): Slovar 
beltinskega prekmurskega govora. Murska Sobota, 
Pomurska založba.
Ponovne objave (2008): http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/c/
Dial/Ponovne_SLA/P/ (last access: 2022-01-05).
Ramovš, Fran (1931): Dialektološka karta slo-
venskega jezika. Ljubljana, Rektorat Univerze kralja 
Aleksandra I.
Reichan, Jerzy & Kazimierz Woźniak (2004): Polskie 
atlasy dialektologiczne i etnograficzne. Kraków, Wy-
dawnictwo Lexis.
SLA_1.2 (2011): https://fran.si/Search/File2?dictio
naryId=150&name=atlas_SLA_V032.pdf (last access: 
2022-01-11). 
SLA 1.1 = Škofic, Jožica et al. (2011): Slovenski ling-
vistični atlas 1: človek (telo, bolezni, družina) 1: atlas. 
Ljubljana, Založba ZRC. 
SLA 1.2 = Škofic, Jožica et al. (2011): Slovenski 
lingvistični atlas 1: človek (telo, bolezni, družina) 2: 
komentarji. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 
SLA 2.1 = Škofic, Jožica et al. (2016): Slovenski 
lingvistični atlas 2: kmetija, 1: atlas. Ljubljana, Založba 
ZRC.
SLA 2.2 = Škofic, Jožica et al. (2016): Slovenski 
lingvistični atlas 2: kmetija, 2: komentarji. Ljubljana, 
Založba ZRC. 
SLA (2016): http://sla.zrc-sazu.si (last access: 2022-
01-10).
SLA – Karta narečij (2022): http://fran.si/204/sla-
-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas/datoteke/SLA_Karta-narecij.
pdf (2022-01-12), 
SLA-2 (2022): http://www.fran.si/203/sla-sloven-
ski-lingvisticni-atlas-2/datoteke/SLA2_Kraji.pdf (last 
access: 2022-01-11).
SLA-2 fonetika (2022): http://www.fran.si/203/sla-
-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas-2/datoteke/SLA2_Fonetic-
na-transkripcija.pdf (last access: 2022-01-12).
SLA_P/03 (2022): http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/c/Dial/Po-
novne_SLA/P/03_1_Vprasalnica_STEV.pdf (last access: 
2022-01-12).
Snoj, Marko (2003): Slovenski etimološki slovar. 
Ljubljana, Modrijan.
Škofic, Jožica (2004): Fonološki opis govora Juršin-
cev v Slovenskih goricah (SLA 378). Jezikoslovni zapiski 
– Zbornik Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, 
10, 2, 103–119.
Škofic, Jožica (2008): Med raznolikostjo narečnega 
gradiva in mejami njegovega prikaza na jezikovni karti. 
Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia, 18, 1, 97–104.
Škofic, Jožica (2013): Priprava interaktivnega Slo-
venskega lingvističnega atlasa. In: Weiss, Peter (ed.): 
Dialektološki razgledi, Jezikoslovni zapiski 19, 2. Lju-
bljana, Založba ZRC, 95–111. 
Škofic, Jožica (2019): Krajevni govor Krope. Ljublja-
na, Založba ZRC. 
Zorko, Zinka (1998): Haloško narečje in druge dia-
lektološke študije. Maribor, Slavistično društvo.
ZRCola (2021): http://zrcola.zrc-sazu.si/ (last access: 
2022-01-10).
Wikipedia (2022): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Horjul (last access: 2022-01-05).