Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije
Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei
Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Series Historia et Sociologia, 35, 2025, 2
UDK 009                     Annales, Ser. hist. sociol., 35, 2025, 2, pp. 139-236, Koper 2025  ISSN 1408-5348
KOPER 2025
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije
Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei
Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Series Historia et Sociologia, 35, 2025, 2
UDK 009                               ISSN 1408-5348
e-ISSN 2591-1775
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
ISSN 1408-5348 UDK 009  Letnik 35, leto 2025, številka 2
e-ISSN 2591-1775
UREDNIŠKI ODBOR/
COMITATO DI REDAZIONE/
BOARD OF EDITORS: 
Roderick Bailey (UK), Gorazd Bajc, Simona Bergoč, Furio Bianco (IT), 
Aleksandr Cherkasov (RUS), Lucija Čok, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko 
Darovec, Devan Jagodic (IT), Aleksej Kalc, Urška Lampe, Avgust Lešnik, 
John Jeffries Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Darja Mihelič, Vesna 
Mikolič, Luciano Monzali (IT), Edward Muir (USA), Vojislav Pavlović 
(SRB), Peter Pirker (AUT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (MNE), 
Andrej Rahten, Žiga Oman, Vida Rožac Darovec, Mateja Sedmak, 
Lenart Škof, Polona Tratnik, Boštjan Udovič, Marta Verginella, Špela 
Verovšek, Tomislav Vignjević, Paolo Wulzer (IT), Salvator Žitko
Glavni urednik/Redattore capo/
Editor in chief: Darko Darovec
Odgovorni urednik/Redattore 
responsabile/Responsible Editor: Salvator Žitko
Uredniki/Redattori/Editors: Urška Lampe, Boštjan Udovič, Žiga Oman, Veronika Kos 
Prevajalka/Traduttrice/Translator: Cecilia Furioso Cenci (it.)
Oblikovalec/Progetto grafico/
Graphic design: Dušan Podgornik , Darko Darovec
Tisk/Stampa/Print: Založništvo PADRE d.o.o.
Založnika/Editori/Published by: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Società storica del 
Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije 
družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development 
and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di 
ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della società, cultura e ambiente©
Sedež uredništva/Sede della redazione/
Address of Editorial Board: 
SI-6000 Koper/Capodistria, Garibaldijeva/Via Garibaldi 18 
e-mail: annaleszdjp@gmail.com, internet: https://zdjp.si
Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 30. 06. 2025.
Sofinancirajo/Supporto finanziario/
Financially supported by: 
Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko 
dejavnost Republike Slovenije (ARIS)
Annales - Series Historia et Sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno.
Maloprodajna cena tega zvezka je 11 EUR.
Naklada/Tiratura/Circulation: 300 izvodov/copie/copies
Revija Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / La rivista Annales, Series 
Historia et Sociologia è inserita nei seguenti data base / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: 
Clarivate Analytics (USA): Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in/and Current Contents / Arts & Humanities; 
IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); Sociological Abstracts (USA); Referativnyi Zhurnal 
Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS 
(NL); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
To delo je objavljeno pod licenco / Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza / This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons BY 4.0.
Navodila avtorjem in vsi članki v barvni verziji so prosto dostopni na spletni strani: https://zdjp.si.
Le norme redazionali e tutti gli articoli nella versione a colori sono disponibili gratuitamente sul sito: https://zdjp.si/it/.
The submission guidelines and all articles are freely available in color via website https://zdjp.si/en/.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Otto Gerdina & Vesna Leskošek: 
Old Age Poverty: The Gender Differences 
in Lifelong Deprivations ........................................ 139
Povertà in età avanzata: le differenze di genere 
nelle privazioni nel corso della vita
Revščina v starosti: razlike med spoloma v 
vseživljenjski prikrajšanosti
Nina Perger, Tanja Kamin & Jana Mali: 
Navigating Hardship: Practical Strategies 
for Coping with Poverty in Old Age ...................... 151
Affrontare le avversità: strategie pratiche 
per gestire l’indigenza in età avanzata
Spoprijemanje s stiskami vsakdana: 
praktične strategije življenja z revščino v starosti
Andreja Živoder & Alenka Švab: 
Poverty in Slovenia Through the Key Themes 
in a Life Course Approach .................................... 163
La povertà in Slovenia attraverso i temi 
chiave dell’approccio del corso di vita
Revščina v Sloveniji skozi ključne teme 
pristopa življenjskega poteka
Žarko Lazarević: 
Integration of Peasants into the Social Security 
Systems in Socialist Slovenia ................................. 175
L’integrazione dei contadini nei sistemi 
di sicurezza sociale nella Slovenia socialista
Integracija kmetov v sistem socialne 
varnosti v socialistični Sloveniji
Ana Kralj: “This Much You Should Know: 
I was Less Afraid of a Snake Than of my 
Husband”: Older Women’s Life-stories 
on Poverty and Violence ........................................ 185
“Ti basti sapere questo: avevo meno paura 
di un serpente che di mio marito”: Storie di vita 
di donne anziane tra povertà e violenza
»Taku da znaste: kače sem se bala manj od 
svojega moža«: Življenjske zgodbe starejših 
žensk o revščini in nasilju
Andrea Rakanović Radonjić & Draško Gajić: 
Foster Care for Older Persons: A Model for 
Ensuring the Quality of Life and 
Individual Poverty Reduction ................................. 199
Affido familiare per anziani: un modello per 
assicurare un’adeguata qualità di vita e una 
riduzione della povertà individuale
Skrbništvo za starejše: model za zagotavljanje 
kakovosti življenja in zmanjševanje revščine 
posameznikov
Nada Poropat Jeletić & Sonja Lukšić: Applicazione 
dell’approccio basato sull’uso (usage-based approach): 
indagine sulla commutazione di codice degli 
italofoni istriani ..................................................... 209
Application of the Usage-based Approach: 
Investigation of Code-switching among 
the Istrian Italophone Speakers 
Uporaba pristopa temelječega na rabi 
(usage-based approach): raziskava o kodnem 
preklapanju pri istrskih italofonih govorcih
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS
UDK 009                                  Volume 35, Koper 2025, issue 2                                  ISSN 1408-5348
e-ISSN 2591-1775
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies
Januška Gostečnik: To the Methodology of 
Determination Genealinguistic Language 
Borders: The Delimitation of Local Dialects 
in Gorski Kotar − A Case Study ............................. 223
Contributo alla metodologia di determinazione 
dei confini linguistici dal punto di vista della 
linguistica genealogica: caso studio sulla 
delimitazione delle parlate locali nel Gorski Kotar
K metodologiji določanja zemljepisnih 
jezikovnih mej: primer razmejevanja 
govorov v Gorskem Kotarju
Kazalo k slikam na ovitku ..................................... 235
Indice delle foto di copertina ................................. 235
Index to images on the cover ................................. 235
223
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
received: 2024-07-29                   DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2025.16
TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC 
LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS IN 
GORSKI KOTAR − A CASE STUDY
Januška GOSTENČNIK
ZRC SAZU, Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian language, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
University of Nova Gorica, School of Humanities, Vipavska cesta 13, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia
e-mail: januska.gostencnik@zrc-sazu.si
ABSTRACT
The paper critically examines and evaluates two different methodological approaches to the determination of 
genealinguistic language, more specifically dialectal borders, using the case of the study of local dialects in the 
Gorski kotar region. Dialectology is defined as a science within genealogy, which is one of the three branches of 
linguistics (along with typolinguistics and sociolinguistics). It is emphasised that within dialectology, theorems and 
criteria from different branches of linguistics cannot be combined, and in this context a clearer definition of the 
meaning of the adjective Slovenian within the phrase Slovenian dialects is also given. The paper also provides a 
genealogical justification for the revised Map of Slovenian dialects (version 2023).
Keywords: Slovenian dialects, genealogy, dialectology, comparative Slavic linguistics, linguistic border, Slovenian 
Linguistic Atlas
CONTRIBUTO ALLA METODOLOGIA DI DETERMINAZIONE DEI CONFINI LINGUISTICI 
DAL PUNTO DI VISTA DELLA LINGUISTICA GENEALOGICA: CASO STUDIO SULLA 
DELIMITAZIONE DELLE PARLATE LOCALI NEL GORSKI KOTAR
SINTESI
L’articolo esamina e valuta criticamente due diversi approcci metodologici utilizzati nella determinazione 
della lingua in chiave genealogica, più precisamente dei confini dialettali, utilizzando il caso studio sulle parlate 
locali nella regione del Gorski kotar. La dialettologia viene definita come una scienza all’interno della linguistica 
genealogica, che è una delle tre branche principali della linguistica (insieme alla linguistica tipologica e alla 
sociolinguistica). Si sottolinea che all’interno della dialettologia, non è possibile combinare i teoremi e i criteri 
propri dei diversi rami della linguistica. In questo contesto viene anche fornita una definizione più precisa del 
significato dell’aggettivo “sloveno” all’interno dell’espressione “dialetti sloveni”. Il documento offre anche una 
giustificazione genealogica per la revisione della Mappa dei dialetti sloveni (versione 2023).
Parole chiave: Dialetti sloveni, genealogia, dialettologia, linguistica slava comparata, confine linguistico, Atlante 
linguistico sloveno
224
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
INTRODUCTION1
This paper examines and critically evaluates two 
different methodological approaches used to locate 
a particular local dialect within a particular dialect, 
using the example of the study of Slovenian and 
Croatian2 local dialects in the Gorski Kotar region. 
The first methodological approach is based on an 
already established methodology within dialectol-
ogy, while the second combines the dialectological 
method with a methodology from another branch of 
linguistics, i.e. sociolinguistics.
In recent years, several clearly defined field 
studies have been carried out in the area of the Kos-
tel and Čebranka dialects of the Lower Carniolan 
and Rovte dialect groups of the Slovenian language 
in the Gorski Kotar region of Croatia, which have 
traditionally up to now been classified in the West 
goran subdialect of the Kajkavian dialect group of 
the Croatian language.
The treatment and research of (possible) Slove-
nian local dialects in the area of the Republic of 
Croatia is a sensitive topic, especially due to the 
tradition of national dialectologies related to dia-
lect classification. The tradition of national dialec-
tologies links the dialectal borders of two related 
South Slavic languages to the use of the official 
language of each country, and so the dialectal 
borders have so far been drawn along national bor-
ders. Thus, until recently, all local dialects within 
Croatia were classified as dialects of the Croatian 
language, even if linguistic facts contradicted this. 
In the entire area along the Croatian and Slovenian 
border, the dialectal border between them is drawn 
per se at the state border or at the rivers (Sotla, 
Kolpa, Dragonja), but from recent research in the 
Gorski Kotar area and the dialects along the Sotla 
(cf. Gostenčnik et al., 2022), we know that this is 
not the case on the ground, or that the rivers are at 
most a connecting element between the dialects, 
not a separating one.
It is precisely because of the two methodo-
logically different approaches that there is also a 
need to clearly define the meaning of the adjec-
1 This article was written in the framework of the project Research of endangered dialects in the Slovene language area (Radgonski 
kot, Gradiščanska, Hum na Sutli with surroundings, Dubravica with surroundings (V6-2109, 1 October 2021-31 August 2024, 
https://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/en/programi-in-projekti/research-of-endangered-dialects-in-the-slovene-language-area-radgonski-kot), co-
financed by the Slovenian Agency for Scientific Research and Innovation and the Office of the Government of the Republic of Slo-
venia for Slovenians Abroad and Internationally, the project i-SLA - Interactive Atlas of Slovenian Dialects (L6-2628, 1 September 
2020-31 August 2024, ARIS in SAZU, https://isjfr.zrc-sazu.si/en/node/101503) and the programme Slovenski jezik v sinhronem in 
diahronem razvoju (P6-0038).
2 The adjective “Croatian” is used in this article for the sake of simplicity or ease of understanding. In the context of genealin-
guistics, the appropriate genealogical term is Central South Slavic, which includes, among others, the Kajkavian dialect group 
discussed in this article. The term “Croatian language” as a super-denomination exists only within the sociolinguistic division of 
standard languages. The same applies to the term “Slovenian language”, which in relation to Central South Slavic could be called 
North-Western South Slavic, a genealogical term. The mentioned geolects (namely Central and North-Western South Slavic) have 
given rise to different literary languages with national labels (for instance Slovenian language, Croatian language etc.). This article 
does not deal with the literary languages mentioned.
tive Slovenian within the phrase Slovenian dialects 
and, consequently, within the phrase Slovenian 
language, all in the context of dialectology as a 
linguistic scientific discipline, which must be free 
from national or sociolinguistic definitions.
This knowledge was already generally accepted 
within linguistics or dialectology decades ago (cf. 
Ramovš, 1935, 4; Brozović, 1996; Šekli, 2013, 3–4) 
and by that time it had become embedded in the 
collective consciousness of (some) linguists (dialec-
tologists) to the extent that it no longer needed to 
be substantiated. In the last decade, however, espe-
cially due to the study of dialects in the area of the 
state border with Croatia, this approach has once 
again shown itself to be in need of justification or 
reiteration of what was taken for granted some time 
ago.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Linguistic as a scientific discipline
Linguistics as a scientific discipline is not a 
unified science, but is divided into three distinct 
disciplines according to the different aspects of the 
study of the language system.
Linguistics is divided into typolinguistics, 
sociolinguistics and genealogical linguistics. Typo-
linguistics is the descriptive study of the structure, 
grammar, phonetics and basic vocabulary of each 
idiom, comparing it, where appropriate, synchroni-
cally with other idioms. Sociolinguistics, or social 
linguistics, studies how speakers deal with an 
idiom, what it does for them, how they perceive 
and evaluate it in a social context, and how social 
circumstances affect the language system. 
The main classificatory criterion is the com-
municative role that a given idiom has in 
society, whereby the literary or standard 
language typically presents the most promi-
nent and prestigious linguistic variety. Note, 
however, that the sociolinguistic term literary/
standard language, which refers to a sociolect, 
225
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
should not be confused with the genealogical 
linguistic term language, which designates a 
geolect. (Šekli, 2023, 16)
“Genealogical linguistic studies the genetic rela-
tionship between lects and establishes their genea-
logical classification based on (the degree of) genetic 
affinity” (Šekli, 2023, 9). It is based on the wave and 
stem theory, which “although they often compete 
in science, they should be seen as complementary: 
not mutually exclusive, but complementary” (Ivić, 
1960–1961, 99; translated by Gostenčnik).3
The knowledge and arguments (and therefore the 
concepts) of one do not necessarily apply to the other 
or to the third. 
Genetic linguistics studies the relationship be-
tween idioms, that is, between languages and 
dialects, while typological linguistics studies 
internal structural relationships in a given idiom. 
Facts from one of these linguistic disciplines 
have no value as arguments in the other, and 
even less so in sociolinguistics, which studies 
the nature of individual idioms in relation to the 
collectives that support them. Of course, the 
facts from sociolinguistics are not valid in the 
other two linguistics either. (Brozović, 1996, 87; 
translated by Gostenčnik)4
As far as their theoretical modelling and meth-
odological approaches are concerned, the three 
main branches of linguistics are thoroughly 
independent from each other. Consequently, 
any kind of research results should not be au-
tomatically transferred from one to the other, 
which amounts to the fact that there are three 
autonomous types of linguistic classification of 
any given idiom that will typically need to be 
established. (Šekli, 2023, 8)
Dialectology as part of genealogical linguistic
Part of genealogical linguistic is dialectology, 
which deals with organic idioms, from their present 
(phonetical) state to their original (phonetical) state, 
i. e. their common (phonetical) denominator.5 Its 
main methods are the comparative method and the 
3 “[I]ako one u nauci često nastupaju konkurentno, ipak (ih) treba shvatiti komplementarno: one se ne isključuju već se dopunjuju” (Ivić, 
1960–1961, 99).
4 Genetska lingvistika proučava srodničke odnose među idiomima, to jest među jezicima i među dijalektima, a tipološka lingvistika proučava 
unutarnje strukturne odnose u pojedinome idiomu te uspoređuje takve odnose. Činjenice iz jedne od tih lingvistika nemaju vrijednosti 
argumenata u drugoj, a još manje u sociolingvistici, koja proučava prirodu pojedinih idioma u vezi s njihovim nositeljskim kolektivima. 
Naravno, ni činjenice iz sociolingvistike ne vrijede u drugim dvjema lingvistikama. (Brozović, 1996, 87)
5 Although it “is important to understand that dialectology is a part of geneolinguistics and of geneolinguistics alone” (Brozović, 1996, 88; 
translated by Gostenčnik), dialectology and its findings can also act as an auxiliary science to, for example, ethnology or ethnography 
(e.g. the (non-)existence of a particular object and its term) or sociolinguistics (e.g. data on the change of dialectal and liturgical code in 
a particular local dialect due to extra-linguistic circumstances).
method of reconstruction. Its secondary task is to 
place a particular micro-organic idiom (i.e. the local 
dialect of a place) within a group of local dialects 
which may form a dialect at the next stage. In order 
to achieve this, it is necessary first to be familiar first 
with the synchronic state of the individual organic 
idiom, with the synchronic state of the neighbour-
ing idiom, and so on, followed by the establishment 
of parallels, i.e. isoglosses. At this stage, these are 
isophones, i.e. isoglosses of phonetic phenomena, 
which are then grouped together into individual so-
called isoglossic bundles. “Dialect classification is 
based on linguistic criteria, taking into consideration 
only the linguistic features of the individual geolects, 
Historical phonetics/phonology is undeniably the 
most important criterion for accurate genealogical 
linguistic classification” (Šekli, 2023, 43). The next 
level up from a dialect is a dialect group, and the 
whole of them constitutes a single linguistic system; 
in the context of the dialectology of Slovenian 
dialects, this is the Slovenian linguistic system or the 
Slovenian language. This is the highest abstraction of 
dialectology, and this is where its task ends.
The (initial) Common Slovenian phonological system
There is a consensus within Slavic and thus Slo-
venian genealogical linguistic that each individual 
Slavic language system is defined according to its 
starting point. This means that a certain lexeme that 
is part of the inherited Slavic vocabulary can be 
phonetically derived to the so-called common 
linguistic or phonetic denominator within a certain 
language system. In the dialectology of the Slovenian 
language, the common linguistic denominator is rep-
resented by the so-called (initial) Common Slovenian 
phonological system (CSln.), which dates back to the 
late 11th or early 12th century (Logar, 1981, 29–33). 
This is the last stage of the common development of 
the Slovenian language just before its first dialectal 
breakdown, and the system is derived from the last 
common development stage of the Proto-Slavic lan-
guage from the beginning of the 6th century.
The (initial) Common Slovenian phonological sys-
tem contains an inventory of phonological units (i.e. 
an inventory of all phonemes and their representa-
tion in the system), prosody (including the place of 
226
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
stress, the length or number of stressed and unstressed 
vowels, and the intonation or tonemicity), distribu-
tion of phonological units (classification restrictions, 
positional variations of phonemes, classification of 
accents and tonemes are described here) and origin 
of phonological units (in addition to symbols (signs, 
transcriptions) for phonemes and accents, the origin 
of phonemes from Proto-Slavic voices is given here).
Diachronic division of Slovenian dialects
The basis for the chronological reconstruction of 
a local dialect is provided by the reconstruction of 
the basic Slovenian vocalic systems (Rigler, 2001, 
1357), with the help of which the local dialect can 
be genetically identified and assigned to a specific 
vocalic system or dialect macro-area according to the 
so-called older linguistic phenomena. The linguistic 
development of a particular language (vocalic) sys-
tem is thus traced back to around the 14th century.
Slovenian dialect in the context of genealogical 
linguistic
The foundations for the definition and under-
standing of the adjective Slovenian within the phrase 
Slovenian dialects in the context of dialectology 
were laid by Fran Ramovš:
If we speak of language, we have before our 
eyes a group of dialects bound together by 
one of these dialects as a cultural dialect; in 
the same relation, history has also formed 
the same tribes as a society into a “nation”, 
so that both are formed by history, political-
social and cultural. Until and unless there is 
a cultural linguistic union, we speak only of 
dialects, and the name of a language is only 
culturally and historically substantiated and 
justified, while genetically the name of any 
dialect of that group should serve for the same 
designation. (Ramovš, 1935, 4; translated by 
Gostenčnik)6
The same premise was later followed by Dalibor 
Brozović:
6 Če govorimo o jeziku, imamo torej pred očmi skupino dialektov, ki jo veže v enoto eden teh dialektov kot kulturni dialekt; v 
enakšni relaciji je zgodovina formirala tudi istorodna plemena kot družbo v »narod«, tako da sta oba formirana po zgodovini, 
politično-socialni in kulturni. Dokler in če ni kulturne jezikovne zveze, govorimo le o dialektih in ime kakega jezika je le 
kulturno-historično utemeljeno in upravičeno, genetično pa bi smelo služiti za isto označevanje ime katerega koli dialekta te 
skupine. (Ramovš, 1935, 4)
7 Dijalekti se svrstavaju u narječja. Ostali svijet kaže »u skupine dijalekata«. Slaveni imaju riječ narječje, koja nije iskorištena, 
pa se onda umjesto skupina dijalekata upotrebljava jedna riječ. Ali treba znati da su narječje i skupina dijalekata sinonimi. 
Narječja se onda svrstavaju u jezik, i to u genetskolingvističkom smislu shvaćen jezik. U znanosti to nazivamo, prema jed-
nome američkom lingvistu, jezik dijasistem. Termin dijasistem znači sustav zajedničkih osobina za određeni broj idioma. 
Pa onda mjesni govori čine dijasistem skupine govora. Skupine govora čine dijasistem dijalekta. Dijalekti sačinjavaju dija-
sistem koji onda zovemo narječjem ili skupinom dijalekata. Tako se onda skupine dijalekata svrstavaju u jezik dijasistem. 
(Brozović, 2004, 3)
Dialects are then ranked as a language, a 
language in the genetic-linguistic sense. In 
science, according to an American linguist, we 
call it a diasystem language. The term diasys-
tem means a system of common features for a 
certain number of idioms. Well then, the local 
dialects make up the diasystem of the local 
dialect group. Local dialect groups form a di-
asystem of dialects. Dialects form a diasystem, 
which we then call a group of dialects. Groups 
of dialects are thus classified as a language 
diasystem. (Brozović, 2004, 3; translated by 
Gostenčnik)7
Recently also Matej Šekli: “In the framework of 
genealogical linguistic classification, the term lan-
guage is to be defined as a geolect, which encom-
passes groups of dialects and their local varieties 
displaying the same set of linguistic features (i.e., 
archaisms and/or innovations)” (Šekli, 2023, 11). As 
for the adjective Slovenian:
In the present paper, the adjective Slovenian is 
used in the genetic-linguistic sense of “which 
is part of the Slovenian diasystem or Slove-
nian language, i.e., which exhibits Slovenian 
(and possibly non-Slovenian) linguistic inno-
vations”, but perhaps not in the politico-legal 
sense of “which is located on the territory of 
the Republic of Slovenia” or in the sociologi-
cal sense of “which feels part of the Slovenian 
nation or Slovenian nationhood, a Slovenian”. 
Similarly, the adjective “Kajkavian” is under-
stood in the genetic-linguistic sense of “being 
part of the Kajkavian diasystem, i.e. exhibit-
ing Kajkavian (and possibly non-Kajkavian) 
linguistic innovations”, and not perhaps in 
the politico-legal sense of “being located on 
the territory of the Republic of Croatia” or in 
the sociological sense of “feeling part of the 
Croatian nation, a Croat”. The author there-
fore does not directly link genetic linguistic 
categories such as “Slovenian diasystem, Slo-
venian language” with sociological categories 
such as “Slovenian nation, Slovenian nation-
hood”, “being Slovenian”, as he considers that 
227
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
such issues do not fall within the scope of 
genetic linguistics. (Šekli, 2013, 3–4; trans-
lated by Gostenčnik)8
Thus, all of them, on the basis of genealogical 
linguistics, interpret the same thing, namely that the 
collection of dialects constitutes a larger unit, i.e. a 
language, but in a genealogical sense. Consequently, 
within a specific branch of linguistics, i.e. dialectol-
ogy, the phrase Slovenian language should also be 
understood, i.e. only as a collection of Slovenian dia-
lects. We are dealing with a term that denotes several 
different concepts, depending on which branch it is 
used in. Thus, the adjective Slovenian cannot have a 
unique meaning, but can only have a specific meaning 
within a particular sub-branch. The same can be said 
of the phrase Slovenian dialects, which is terminolo-
gised within dialectology.
However, it is also true that some definitions within 
Slovenian linguistics create unwanted confusion. 
Toporišič, in his explanation of the cue dialectal pars-
ing (Sln. narečno razčlenjevanje) wrote that “the divi-
sion of the supposedly unified (vernacular) language 
of all Slovenians into smaller units is due to the recur-
rent linguistic developmental units, which are not the 
same in the whole area of the Slovenian language” 
(Toporišič, 1992, 124; translated by Gostenčnik).9 The 
definition given with the added syntax of “all Slove-
nians” is unnecessary from a dialectological point of 
view and may provoke unnecessary reactions. How-
ever, the above should be placed in the context of the 
time and should serve as a starting point for possible 
corrections.
8 V pričujočem prispevku je pridevnik slovenski uporabljan v genetolingvističnem pomenu »ki je del slovenskega diasistema oz. 
slovenskega jezika, tj. ki izkazuje splošnoslovenske (in morebitne nesplošnoslovenske) jezikovne inovacije«, ne pa morda v 
političnoupravnem pomenu »ki se nahaja na ozemlju Republike Slovenije« ali sociološkem smislu »ki se čuti del slovenskega 
naroda oz. slovenske nacije, Slovenec/Slovenka«. Prav tako je pridevnik kajkavski razumljen v genetolingvističnem pomenu »ki je 
del kajkavskega diasistema, tj. ki izkazuje splošnokajkavske (in morebitne nesplošnokajkavske) jezikovne inovacije«, ne pa morda 
v političnoupravnem pomenu »ki se nahaja na ozemlju Republike Hrvaške« ali sociološkem smislu »ki se čuti del hrvaškega naroda 
oz. hrvaške nacije, Hrvat/Hrvatica«. Avtor torej genetolingvistične kategorije kot na primer »slovenski diasistem, slovenski jezik« ne 
povezuje neposredno s sociološkimi kategorijami, kot so na primer »slovenski narod, slovenska nacija«, »biti Slovenec/Slovenka«, 
saj tovrstna problematika po njegovem mnenju ne sodi na področje genetolingvistike. (Šekli, 2013, 3–4)
9 “[D]elitev domnevno enotnega (ljudskega) jezika vseh Slovencev na manjše enote zaradi ponavljajočih se jezikovnih razvojnih enot, ki 
niso enake na celotnem področju slovenskega jezika” (Toporišič, 1992, 124).
10 These are Banfi (SLA T407), Hum na Sutli (SLA T408), Dubravica (SLA T409), Čabar/Čeber (SLA T410), Ravnice (SLA T411), Ravna Gora 
(SLA T412) and Brest (SLA T413).
11 For a summary of older treatments in the Gorski Kotar area, cf. Gostenčnik (2018, 25, 29–31), and for the Central Styrian and Kozjansko-
Bizeljsko area, Gostenčnik et al. (2022, 80–81).
12 Tine Logar wrote in his manuscript field notes from the Gorski Kotar area that “the same language is also widespread in the hills beyond 
the Kolpa in Croatia” (page 1 of the typescript). For more on this, cf. Gostenčnik (2018, 25).
13 Among others, the following researches: Slovenian local dialects in the Surroundings of Skrad, Croatia (3 June 2020-31 Decem-
ber 2020), Research on Slovenian local dialects in the Gorski Kotar (work) (13 November 2020-31 December 2020), Research 
on Endangered Dialects in the Slovenian Language Space (Radgonski kot, Gradiška, Hum na Sutli and surroundings, Dubravica 
and surroundings) (1 October 2021-31 August 2024). Within the mentioned surveys, a proven research methodology was used 
to collect dialectal material, namely both synchronic and diachronic linguistics methods, viz.: 1) guided interview method, i.e. 
survey method – collecting material in the field directly from local speakers using a pre-prepared questionnaire; 2) the substitu-
tion method –  for the linguistic analysis of forms adopted from language to language; 3) the etymological method – for the de-
termination of the morphemic structure of lexemes; 4) the comparative method – for the linguistic identification of the material; 
5) the structural method – for the determination of the position of a linguistic element within the linguistic plane of the language 
under study (Gostenčnik et al., 2022, 77).
THE ISSUE
In the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (SLA), the first 
volume of which was published in 2011, seven border 
towns were added to the original network of locali-
ties where dialect material is collected (the so-called 
control points), namely in Croatia (Medžimurje, Po-
sotelje, the Kolpe Valley, Gorski Kotar and Istria),10 as 
it was assumed on the basis of previous research11 that 
these local dialects show certain dialectal develop-
ments characteristic of Slovenian dialects (SLA 1.2, 
2011, 22). However, on the basis of the systematically 
collected dialectal material and a detailed analysis, 
it was already possible to confirm, at the time of the 
publication of the second volume of SLA in 2016, 
that genealogically speaking these are in fact local 
dialects of a Slovenian language system, which were 
thus included in the SLA network as regular points 
(SLA 2.2, 2016, 20).
Until recently, on published dialect maps, the 
entire dialectal border between Slovenian and Croa-
tian dialects ran along the state border. This situation 
is shown both in Logar-Rigler’s Map of Slovenian 
dialects12 from 1983 (Logar & Rigler, 1983) and in 
the Map of the Kajkavskog dialect (Lončarić, 1996). 
After a series of dialectological research,13 various 
publications (cf. Šekli, 2013; 2018; Gostenčnik, 
2018; 2020; 2023) and based on the analysis of the 
dialectal material for the individual newly added 
SLA localities in Croatia, the revised Map of Slove-
nian Dialects (version 2023) was published with the 
publication of the third volume of the SLA (SLA 3. 1, 
2023, 11), where a change was made in the Gorski 
228
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
Figure 1: Extract from the Map of Slovenian dialects (version 2023) – the area of the Čebranka 
and Kostel dialects and Ravna Gora (SLA 3.1, 2023, 11).
Figure 2: Extract from the Map of Slovenian dialects (version 2023); Legend (SLA 3.1, 2023, 11).
Legend: 
dolenjska narečna skupina = Lower 
Carniolan dialect group 
čebranško narečje = Čebranka 
dialect 
kostelsko narečje = Kostel dialect 
rovtarska narečna skupina = Rovte 
dialect group
priseljenski govori v Gorskem 
Kotarju = immigrant local dialects in 
Gorski Kotar
229
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Kotar area, namely the newly established Slovenian 
dialect border, which now also extends into Croatia. 
In this process, exclusively genealogical criteria were 
used (with the comparative method and method of 
reconstruction).
Recently, however, some authors (Celinić, 
Menac-Mihelić, Malnar Jurišić, Marinković) have 
begun to use the so-called “combined” methodolog-
ical approach to the geographical determination of 
language and, more specifically, dialectal borders, 
which places (more) emphasis on sociolinguistics 
(and also on the consideration of the national-state 
border), despite the fact that genealogical linguistic 
and sociolinguistics are two different branches of 
linguistics, each with its own theorems and criteria. 
The local dialects of the Gorski Kotar region have 
been studied several times, both with the methodo-
logically appropriate, i.e. genealogical approach, 
and with the so-called “combined” methodological 
approach, which includes sociolinguistic criteria.
The Čebranka and the Kostel dialect in Gorski Kotar
According to genealogical criteria, the local 
dialects in the Gorski Kotar part of the region 
belong to the Lower Carniolan dialect group of 
the Slovenian language (and not to the Kajkavian 
dialect group of the Croatian language, as the 
dialects do not show any typical Kajkavian char-
acteristics). This classification of the local dia-
lects is based on a methodological approach that 
does not include criteria originally used in other 
branches of linguistics. Namely, the dialects on 
the Croatian side of the border are defined as part 
of the Slovenian linguistic diasystem on the basis 
of the common linguistic (sound) innovations that 
delimited Slovenian from the rest of the western 
South Slavic languages (10th-12th centuries) and 
the linguistic development until around the 14th 
century, when the main dialect macro-areas were 
already formed. All of the treated local dialects 
studied show defining characteristics of the 
southern Slovenian dialects or, within them, of 
the Lower Carniolan dialect macro-area. Within 
this, individual defining characteristics (older 
vowel, accent and consonant characteristics and 
younger linguistic phenomena) link them into 
two distinct units, that is to say the Čebranka and 
Kostel dialects (Gostenčnik, 2018; 2020).
14 “Mislim da nećemo pogriješiti povežemo li ipak delničko stanje s dolenjskim, a tako moramo postupati i s čitavim terenom od Delnica 
prema Gerovu, Zamostu i Prezidu uključujući i Babno Polje na slovenskoj strani” (Lisac, 2006, 59).
15 “Goranski je pak dijalekt u Gorskom kotaru stvarno kajkavski samo na svom manjem istočnom području (Lukovdol, Severin na Kupi), 
dok je veći zapadni dio (Delnice, Fužine, Čabar itd.) zapravo genetski gledano slovenski dijalekt (tj. genetski i povijesno pripada skupini 
dijalekata koju danas zovemo “slovenskima”), što se jasno očituje u akcentuaciji” (Kapović, 2015, 45).
16 “Zbog toga isključivim genetskolingvističkim kriterijima nije moguće odrediti koji govor pripada hrvatskom, a koji slovenskom jeziku. Za 
takvo je određenje nužno uvesti dodatni kriterij. Budući da se jezične jedinice u koje se mjesni govori svrstavaju nazivaju nacionalnim 
imenima, taj kriterij treba biti nacionalna pripadnost govornika” (Celinić & Menac-Mihalić, 2017, 102).
In the field of dialectology, this has been supported 
or acknowledged by various linguists in the past, such 
as: “The dialects of Fužine, Skrad, Gerovo and Čabar 
in Gorski kotar show a clearcut southern Slovenian 
(Lower Carniolan-Inner Carniolan) basis” (Ivić, 1961, 
21). “ I think we won’t make a mistake if we connect 
the state of Delnice with the state of Lower Carniolan, 
and in this way we will have to deal with the whole 
area from Delnice to Gerovo, Zamost and Prezid, 
including Babno Polje on the Slovenian side” (Lisac, 
2006, 59; translated by Gostenčnik).14 “The Goran 
dialect in Gorski Kotar is really Kajkavian only in 
its smaller eastern part (Lukovdol, Severin na Kupa), 
while the larger western part (Delnice, Fužine, Čabar, 
etc.) is actually genetically a Slovenian dialect (i.e. 
genetically and historically it belongs to the group 
of dialects that today we call “Slovenian”), which 
is clearly manifested in the accentuation” (Kapović, 
2015, 45; translated by Gostenčnik).15 Pronk (2010, 
129), too, concludes that the Goran local dialects 
need not be considered mixed and that their native 
basis is evident if viewed in the context of nearby 
South Slavic dialects.
On the other hand, some other linguists, while 
acknowledging the obvious phonetic deviations of 
the above-mentioned local dialects from the main 
Kajkavian definitional features, resort to an inap-
propriate “combined” methodological approach, for 
example: 
For this reason, it is not possible to determine 
which local dialect belong to Croatian and 
which to Slovenian solely on the basis of 
genetic-linguistic criteria. For such a determina-
tion it is necessary to introduce an additional 
criterion. Since the linguistic units into which 
local languages are divided are called national 
names, this criterion should be the nationality of 
the speakers. (Celinić & Menac-Mihalić, 2017, 
102; translated by Gostenčnik)16
How to interpret this phenomenon in the Croa-
tian local dialects, the local dialects of the Cro-
ats in the west of Croatia, given the established 
pattern according to which the progressive shift 
of the old PSl. circumflex is characteristic of the 
Slovenian language? How is the absence of this 
phenomenon in the Slovenian local dialects, the 
local dialects of Slovenes in the east of Slovenia, 
230
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
to be interpreted? (Celinić & Menac-Mihalić, 
2017, 92; translated by Gostenčnik)17
The same is also true of Marija Malnar Jurišić in 
her review of the monograph Gostenčnik, 2018, who 
acknowledges that the languages of the area repre-
sent a linguistic continuum, but that “it is equally 
indisputable that the local dialects are spoken by 
Croats and Slovenians, and that they are spoken in 
Croatia as well as in Slovenia” (Malnar Jurišić, 2018, 
164; translated by Gostenčnik).18 It is further pointed 
out that the decision not to burden the monograph 
with data on the national affiliation of the dialect 
speakers is not appropriate, as at least those dialect 
speakers who do not identify themselves nationally 
should be defined differently than only speakers of 
the Slovenian language, and a neutral term should 
be used. For, as she goes on to say, the speakers from 
the Gorski Kotar area are speakers of local dialects 
which we classify as Croatian, that is to say, dialects 
spoken by Croats in the Republic of Croatia, and are 
thus undoubtedly part of the Kajkavian dialect group 
of the Croatian language:
In addition, as mentioned above, the author 
[Januška Gostenčnik, author’s note] notes in 
the introductory part that the research did not 
include sociolinguistic features, such as the na-
tionality of the respondents. This statement in 
particular could be somewhat debatable. In the 
case of the exclusion of national affiliation, i.e. 
the identification of the speaker (which should 
not be neglected in this type of research), it is 
necessary to exclude the naming of linguistic 
features by national names. It seems logical 
that the local dialect of speakers who do not 
identify themselves nationally should be called 
a neutral term and not be included in the 
17 “Kako interpretirati tu pojavu u hrvatskim govorima, govorima Hrvata na zapadu Hrvatske, s obzirom na ustaljeni obrazac prema kojemu 
je progresivni pomak starih psl. cirkumfleksa karakteristika slovenskoga jezika? Kako interpretirati izostanak te pojave u slovenskim go-
vorima, govorima Slovenaca na istoku Slovenije?” (Celinić & Menac-Mihalić, 2017, 92).
18 “[A]li je isto tako nesporno da njima govore i Hrvati i Slovenci i da se njima govori i u Hrvatskoj i u Sloveniji” (Malnar Jurišić, 
2018, 164).
19 Osim toga, u uvodnom dijelu, kao što je i spomenuto, autorica (Januška Gostenčnik, op. avtorice) napominje kako istraživanje nije 
uključivalo sociolingvističke značajke, kao npr. narodnost ispitanika. Upravo bi ta konstatacija mogla biti pomalo diskutabilna. Nai-
me, u slučaju isključivanja nacionalne pripadnosti, tj. identifikacije govornika (a što u ovakvom tipu istraživanja ipak ne bi smjelo 
biti zanemarivo), potrebno je isključiti i imenovanje jezičnih značajka nacionalnim imenom. Čini se tako logičnim da je i govor 
govornika koji nisu nacionalno determinirani potrebno nazvati neutralnim terminom, a ne uvrstiti ga u slovenski jezik. Govornici 
govora s područja Gorskoga kotara govornici su mjesnih govora koje ubrajamo u hrvatski jezik, to su govori kojima govore Hrvati u 
Republici Hrvatskoj i kao takvi nesumnjivo su dijelom kajkavskog narječja i hrvatskog jezika. Nazivanje njihova govora slovenskim, 
tj. njegovo uvrštavanje u dijalekt koji se definira kao slovenski, a što direktno implicira isključivanje hrvatskog (ili kajkavskog), nije 
nikako prihvatljivo. U obradi novoutvrđenog čabranskog dijalekta svakako treba uzeti u obzir činjenicu da njime govore govornici 
različite nacionalne pripadnosti, što otvara problematiku dodira dvaju bliskosrodnih jezika, a samim time i pitanje pristupa takvoj 
problematici u kojoj se jeziku jednog naroda neće nametati nacionalno ime jezika drugog, susjednog naroda. Postavljeni pristup, 
naime, može izazvati (već izaziva) i nepotrebne prijepore i imati (već ima) loše posljedice na međusobne odnose. Potrebno je stoga 
revidirati postojeću terminologiju za dijalektologiju 21. stoljeća, koja će stanje organskih govora interpretirati točno definiranim i ne-
dvosmislenim terminima, bez nacionalnojezičnih presezanja, a što jedino omogućuje da situaciju jezičnoga kontinuuma – u kojem 
smo povezani brojnim izoglosama, a ni jednom, čini se, razdvojeni – iskoristimo za neopterećen razvoj dijalektoloških istraživanja 
na južnoslavenskom zapadu, kao i za razvoj nacionalnih dijalektologija za budućnost. (Malnar Jurišić, 2018, 165–166)
Slovenian language. Speakers of local dialects 
from the area of Gorski Kotar are speakers of 
local dialects that are included in the Croatian 
language, these are local dialects spoken by 
Croats in the Republic of Croatia, and as such 
are undoubtedly part of the Kajkavian dialect 
and the Croatian language. To call their local 
dialect Slovenian, i.e. to include it in a dialect 
defined as Slovenian, which directly implies 
the exclusion of Croatian (or Kajkavian), is not 
acceptable at all. When dealing with the newly 
established Čebranka dialect, it is necessary 
to take into account the fact that it is spoken 
by speakers of different nationalities, which 
raises the question of contact between two 
closely related languages, and thus the ques-
tion of how to approach such a problem, in 
which the national name of the language of 
another, neighbouring nation is not imposed 
on the language of one nation. In fact, the set 
approach can cause (is already causing) un-
necessary disputes and have (is already hav-
ing) bad consequences for mutual relations. 
It is therefore necessary to revise the existing 
terminology for the dialectology of the 21st 
century, which will interpret the state of the 
organic local dialects in precisely defined 
and unambiguous terms, without national-
linguistic overlaps, and which alone will al-
low the situation of the linguistic continuum 
– in which we are connected by numerous 
isoglosses and not, it seems, separated by a 
single one – to be used for the unencumbered 
development of dialectological research 
in the South Slavic West, as well as for the 
development of national dialectologies for 
the future. (Malnar Jurišić, 2018, 165–166; 
translated by Gostenčnik)19
231
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Marina Marinković, in her commentary on 
the same monograph, agrees when she mentions 
that sociolinguistic criteria have been neglected, 
i.e. the dialect speaker’s self-perception of his or 
her language. “In the aforementioned Slovenian 
monograph (i.e. Gostenčnik, 2018, author’s note), 
the classification of the analysed local dialects 
completely ignored sociolinguistic criteria, i.e. 
the attitude of the analysed speakers towards their 
language affiliation, which also leads to incomplete 
conclusions” (Marinković, 2018, 43; translated by 
Gostenčnik).20 However, within dialectology itself, 
the focus cannot be on the so-called linguistic 
belonging or linguistic identity of the individual/
dialect speaker, and the way in which a dialect 
speaker linguistically identifies himself/herself with 
a dialect cannot be decisive in determining geo-
graphical dialect borders.
Ravna Gora
The local dialect of Ravna Gora in the Gorski 
Kotar region of Croatia has been discussed several 
times before.21 The first relevant treatment was writ-
ten by the linguist Nikola Majnarić (1938–1939), 
who classified it as an immigrant Slovenian Rovte 
local dialect. Majnarić, as a native speaker of the 
local dialect of Ravna Gora, cites his own dialectal 
material, and for each characteristic he also pro-
vides information on which Rovte dialect linguistic 
parallels can be found, drawing information from 
Fran Ramovš’s monograph Dialekti (1935), and con-
cludes: “I would just like only that, to determine 
the place of the local dialects of Ravna Gora among 
the Slovenian dialects (which will not be so difficult 
with Ramovš’s beautiful and carefully compiled 
book)” (Majnarić, 1938–1939, 135; translated by 
Gostenčnik).22 
The most recent treatment is in Gostenčnik 
(2023),23 where it is (again) shown that on the basis 
of its vocalic and consonantal characteristics a lo-
cal dialect of Ravna Gora cannot be classified as 
part of a Kajkavian dialect group as it is lacking 
all typical Kajkavian defining characteristics. On 
the basis of the old and newly collected dialect 
20 “U spomenutoj slovenskoj monografiji (tj. Gostenčnik, 2018, op. avtorice) pri klasifikaciji analiziranih govora zanemareni su potpuno 
sociolingvistički kriteriji, odnosno stav ispitanih govornika o njihovoj jezičnoj pripadnosti, što također vodi do nepotpunih zaključaka” 
(Marinković, 2018, 43).
21 For a summary of all previous treatments, cf. Gostenčnik (2023, 43–51).
22 “Htio bih samo to, da odredim ravnogorskom narječju mjesto među slovenačkim narječjima (što uz lijepu i brižno sastavljenu Ramovšemu 
knjigu neće više biti ni tako teško” (Majnarić, 1938–1939, 135).
23 Two linguistic systems coexist in Ravna Gora, and this paper focuses on the local dialect of the western (or upper) part.
24 Nikola Majnarić (1938–1939, 145) pokazao je da su u jednom dijelu mjesta bili u većini doseljeni Slovenci (među kojima je bilo 
i poslovenjenih Nijemaca) … Taj naš istaknuti filolog oba ravnogorska govora (kao i većinu kajkavskih goranskih idioma) drži 
slovenskima što je znanstveni stav vrijedan svakog poštovanja, ali ponajprije ako se uzme u obzir nacionalni sastav stanovništva 
i uporaba hrvatskoga književnog jezika u svem djelovanju – moguć je i drugačiji pogled na problem koji doduše ne omogućuje 
prisnije povezivanje s tzv. središnjim kajkavskim dijalektima, međutim ipak opravdava uvrštavanje i ravnogorskoga govora među 
hrvatskosrpske idiome. (Lisac, 1989, 107) 
material, Majnarić’s classification is confirmed, 
namely the (immigrant) local dialect is interpreted 
as part of the Rovte dialect group of the Slovenian 
language. The local dialect is dialectally classified 
according to long vowel reflexes and younger ac-
centual withdrawals, as well as some other defining 
characteristics which, as a cluster, define the Rovte 
dialects or at least a part of them.
Josip Lisac disagrees with Majnarić’s classifica-
tion, but his argument is sociolinguistic:
Nikola Majnarić (1938–1939, 145) showed 
that in one part of the town there were mainly 
settled Slovenes (among whom there were 
also Slovenised Germans)... Our eminent 
philologist both local dialects of Ravna Gora 
(as well as most of the Kajkavian Goran 
idioms) considers to be Slovenian, which is 
a scientific position worthy of all respect, 
but especially if one takes into account the 
national composition of the population and 
the use of the Croatian literary language in all 
activities, a different view of the problem is 
also possible, which does not allow a closer 
connection with the so-called central Kajka-
vian dialects, but justifies the inclusion of 
the local language of Ravna Gora among the 
Croatian-Serbian idioms. (Lisac, 1989, 107; 
translated by Gostenčnik)24
And so on: 
The Goran dialect is divided into two sub-
dialects, a much smaller eastern one (the area 
around Lukovdol and Severin na Kupa) and a 
larger western one (the entire area from Zau-
mol and Plemenitaš to the west). Ravna Gora 
as a whole therefore belongs to the western 
sub-dialect, but it has a separate, special posi-
tion within it, and this with regard to the char-
acteristics of the majority of the local dialect of 
Ravna Gora, which deviates significantly from 
the average physiognomy of the sub-dialect, 
while the minority of the local dialects - as we 
have already mentioned - fits much better into 
232
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
the sub-dialect, but we will not deal with it in 
detail in these concluding considerations. The 
reasons for the isolation of the majority of the 
local dialect of Ravna Gora are quite clear and 
relate to the majority of the ethnic groups that 
speak this idiom. (Lisac, 1989, 108; translated 
by Gostenčnik)25
To sum up, Lisac’s argument for why the mentioned 
local dialect does not belong to the Rovte dialect 
group of the Slovenian language is that the speakers of 
this local dialect are Croatian by nationality and that 
they use Croatian literary language in public life.
CONCLUSION
The determination of geographical language 
(dialectal) borders is one of the tasks of dialectol-
ogy, and thus the task of the dialectologist. The 
25 Goranski dijalekt dijelimo u dva poddijalekta, mnogo manji istočni (područje oko Lukovdola i Severina na Kupi) i veći zapadni 
(sav teren od Zaumola i Plemenitaša na zapad). Ravna Gora, dakle, u cjelini pripada zapadnom poddijalektu, ali ima u njem izd-
vojen, poseban položaj, i to s obzirom na osobine većinskoga ravnogorskoga govora koji znatno odstupa od prosječne fizionomije 
poddijalekta, dok se manjinski govor u poddijalekt uklapa – kako smo već napomenuli – osjetno bolje, međutim, njime se u ovim 
zaključnim razmatranjima nećemo opširnije baviti. Uzroci izdvojenosti većinskoga ravnogorskog govora posve su jasni i odnose 
se na većinu etnosa što tim idiomom govori. (Lisac, 1989, 108)
knowledge of historical phonetics, the relative 
chronology of various phonetic phenomena, the 
use of comparative method and method of recon-
struction, as well as a good synchronic knowledge 
of a given local dialect, is a prerequisite for the 
relevant placement of a given local dialect within a 
given dialect. Consequently, the phrase Slovenian 
dialects is also a dialectological term that should 
be interpreted in a genealogical sense. In the 
same context, the term Slovenian language should 
also be understood as a set of Slovenian dialects, 
which should be considered independently of the 
speaker’s place of residence in a particular coun-
try, the speaker’s nationality, the literary language 
he or she (primarily) uses, and the speaker’s self-
perception of his or her local dialect. Dialectology, 
like any other science, must have clearly defined 
concepts, clear boundaries between them, and 
consistent criteria.
233
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
K METODOLOGIJI DOLOČANJA ZEMLJEPISNIH JEZIKOVNIH MEJ: PRIMER 
RAZMEJEVANJA GOVOROV V GORSKEM KOTARJU
Januška GOSTENČNIK
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
Univerza v Novi Gorici, Fakulteta za humanistiko, Vipavska cesta 13, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenija
e-mail: januska.gostencnik@zrc-sazu.si
POVZETEK
V prispevku se opredeli dialektologija kot znanost znotraj geneolingvistike, ki predstavlja eno izmed treh 
(poleg tipolingvistike in sociolingvistike) vej jezikoslovja. Poudarjeno je, da se znotraj dialektologije ne more 
kombinirati teoremov in kriterijev iz posameznih različnih vej. Jasno se opredeli pomen pridevnika slovenski 
znotraj besedne zveze (termina) slovenska narečja (slovenski jezik), in sicer vse v kontekstu dialektologije kot 
jezikoslovne znanstvene discipline, ki mora biti razbremenjena nacionalnih ali sociolingvističnih opredelitev. 
Kritično se pretrese in ovrednoti dva različna metodološka pristopa, uporabljena pri določanju zemljepisno 
jezikovnih, natančneje narečnih mej, in sicer na primeru preučevanja slovenskih in hrvaških narečij v Gorskem 
Kotarju. Prvi metodološki pristop izhaja iz že vzpostavljene metodologije (s primerjalno metodo in metodo 
rekonstrukcije) znotraj dialektologije kot dela geneolingvistike. Pri nekaterih avtorjih (podani so konkretni 
primeri) se je namreč v zadnjem času vzpostavil še drugi, t. i. »kombinirani« metodološki pristop, ki združuje 
dialektološko metodo z metodologijo iz druge veje jezikoslovja, tj. sociolingvistike (tudi ob upoštevanju in 
sklicevanju na državno-nacionalne meje), ki je neustrezen. Dialektologija mora, kot vse druge znanosti, imeti 
jasno definirane pojme, postavljene jasne meje med njimi in vzpostavljene dosledne kriterije. V prispevku je 
tako dialektološko/geneolingvistično utemeljena tudi prenovljena Karta slovenskih narečij (različica 2023).
Ključne besede: slovenska narečja, geneolingvistika, dialektologija, primerjalno slovansko jezikoslovje, jezikovna 
meja, Slovenski lingvistični atlas
234
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 2
Januška GOSTENČNIK: TO THE METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINATION GENEALINGUISTIC LANGUAGE BORDERS: THE DELIMITATION OF LOCAL DIALECTS ..., 223–234
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brozović, Dalibor (1996): Sociolingvistika prema 
genetskoj i tipološkoj lingvistici. Suvremena lingvis-
tika, 41−42, 87−94.
Brozović, Dalibor (2004): O dijalektologiji kao 
jezikoslovnoj disciplini. Suvremena lingvistika, 57–58, 
1–12. 
Celinić, Anita & Mira Menac-Mihalić (2017): 
Izoglosa progresivnoga pomaka starih praslavenskih 
cirkumfleksa na području hrvatskoga jezika. Hrvatski 
dijalektološki zbornik, 21, 91–110.
Gostenčnik, Januška (2018): Krajevni govori ob 
Čabranki in zgornji Kolpi. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC.
Gostenčnik, Januška (2020): Kostelsko narečje. 
Slavistična revija, 68, 3, 353–372.
Gostenčnik, Januška (2023): Narečna klasifikacija 
govora Ravne Gore v Gorskem kotarju. Slovenski jezik 
– Slovene linguistic studies, 15, 41–73.
Gostenčnik, Januška, Kenda-Jež, Karmen & Mo-
jca Kumin Horvat (2022): Ogrožena narečja v slov-
enskem jezikovnem prostoru. Jezikoslovni zapiski: 
zbornik Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, 
10, 2, 103–119.
Ivić, Pavle (1960−1961): Osnovni aspekti struk-
turalne dijalekatske diferencijacije. Makedonski jazik, 
1−2, 81–104.
Ivić, Pavle (1961): Prilozi poznavanju dijalekt-
ske slike zapadne Hrvatske. Godišnjak Filozofskog 
fakulteta u Novom Sadu, Knjiga VI., 191–212.
Kapović, Mate (2015): Povijest hrvatske akcen-
tuacije: Fonetika. Zagreb, Matica Hrvatska.
Lisac, Josip (1989): Problem obrađenosti leksika 
goranskih govora. Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik, 8, 
61−68.
Lisac, Josip (2006): Tragom zavičaja: delnički govor 
i govor Gornjih Turni u svjetlosti goranskih kajkavskih 
govora. Split, Književni krug.
Logar, Tine (1981): Izhodiščni splošnoslovenski 
fonološki sistem. Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih/
hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora 
obuhvaćenih opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom. 
Sarajevo, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Her-
cegovine, 29–33.
Logar, Tine & Jakob Rigler (1983): Karta slovenskih 
narečij. Ljubljana, Univerzum.
Lončarić, Mijo (1996): Kajkavsko narječje. Zagreb, 
Školska knjiga.
Majnarić, Nikola (1938–1939): Jedno rovtarsko 
narječje u Gorskom Kotaru. Južnoslovenski filolog, 3, 
135–149.
Malnar Jurišić, Marija (2018): Prikazi i ocjene: 
Govori na granici. Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik, 22, 
161–166.
Marinković, Marina (2018): Kajkavski govori 
istočnoga Gorskoga kotara. Zagreb – Delnice, Hrvat-
ska sveučilišna naklada – Matica hrvatska, Ogranak.
Pronk, Tijmen (2010): Rani razvoj goranskih govo-
ra. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 
36, 1, 97–133.
Ramovš, Fran (1935): Historična gramatika sloven-
skega jezika, 7, Dialekti. Ljubljana, Učiteljska tiskarna.
Rigler, Jakob (2001): Zbrani spisi. Ljubljana, 
Založba ZRC. 
SLA 1.2 (2011) – Škofic, Jožica, Gostenčnik, 
Januška, Horvat, Mojca, Jakop, Tjaša, Kenda-Jež, Kar-
men, Kostelec, Petra, Nartnik, Vladimir, Petek, Urška, 
Smole, Vera, Šekli, Matej & Danila Zuljan Kumar 
(2011): Slovenski lingvistični atlas 1: človek (telo, 
bolezni, družina) 2: komentarji. Ljubljana, Založba 
ZRC. 
SLA 2.2 (2016) – Škofic, Jožica, Gostenčnik, Januška, 
Hazler, Vito, Horvat, Mojca, Jakop, Tjaša, Ježovnik, 
Janoš, Kenda-Jež, Karmen, Nartnik, Vlado, Smole, Vera, 
Šekli, Matej & Danila Zuljan Kumar (2016): Slovenski 
lingvistični atlas 2: kmetija, 2: komentarji. Ljubljana, 
Založba ZRC. 
SLA 3.1 (2023) – Škofic, Jožica, Gostenčnik, Januška, 
Hazler, Vito, Jakop, Tjaša, Kenda-Jež, Karmen, Kumin 
Horvat, Mojca, Ježovnik, Janoš, Nartnik, Vlado, Pahor, 
Nina, Smole, Vera, Šekli, Matej & Danila Zuljan Kumar 
(2023): Slovenski lingvistični atlas 3: kmetovanje, 1: atlas. 
Ljubljana, Založba ZRC.
Šekli, Matej (2013): Zemljepisnojezikoslovna 
členitev kajkavščine ter slovensko-kajkavska jezikovna 
meja. Slovenski jezik – Slovene linguistic studies, 9, 
3–53.
Šekli, Matej (2018): Tipologija lingvogenez slovan-
skih jezikov. Ljubljana, Založba ZRC.
Šekli, Matej (2023): On the Genealogical Linguis-
tic Classification of Slavic Languages and their Dialect 
Macro-areas. Dialectologia, revista electrònica, 11, 
5–49.
Toporišič, Jože (1992): Enciklopedija slovenskega 
jezika. Ljubljana, Cankarjeva založba.