ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
277
received: 2022-01-07                 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2022.18
REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT
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 
ABSTRACT
Among Slovenian dialects, three dialect groups have been the subject of regional geolinguistic analysis 
so far (Littoral, Carinthian, Pannonian); this paper examines the Prekmurje dialect, which can be divided 
into Dolinsko, Ravensko, Goričko and Porabje variants based on younger linguistic phenomena. The aim 
of this article is to contribute to knowledge on regional geolinguistics of the Slovenian language area. The 
article maps selected linguistic phenomena using the linguistic geography method. 
Keywords: geolinguistics, regional geolinguistics, Prekmurje dialect
GEOLINGUISTICA REGIONALE – ESEMPIO DEL DIALETTO DEL PREKMURJE
SINTESI
Tra i dialetti sloveni, i dialetti di tre gruppi dialettali sono stati finora oggetto di un’analisi geolinguisti-
ca regionale (quello del Litorale, della Carinzia e pannonico). Questo articolo si riferisce al dialetto del 
Prekmurje, pertinente a quest’ultimo gruppo, che può, sulla base di fenomeni linguistici più giovani, essere 
diviso nelle varianti del Dolinsko, Ravensko, del Goričko e del Porabje. I fenomeni linguistici selezionati in 
questo articolo sono mappati utilizzando il metodo della geografia linguistica. 
Parole chiave: geolinguistica, geolinguistica regionale, dialetto del Prekmurje
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
278
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this article has been to contribute to 
knowledge on regional geolinguistics of the Slove-
nian language area. The geographic distribution of 
the lexemes under consideration in the Prekmurje 
dialect clearly shows the connectedness of certain 
areas, both in diachronic and synchronic terms.
Geolinguistics1 is a special branch of dialec-
tology, which has a tradition of over 130 years 
in Europe. Its beginnings date back to the 1880s, 
when Wenker created his atlas of German dialects 
(Škofic, 2020) (first volume – Sprachatlas der Rhein-
provinz, nördlich der Mosel und des Kreises Siegen), 
followed in the early 20th century by Gilliéron’s 
Atlas linguistique de la France, which also served 
as a model for K. Jaberg and J. Jud’s Sprach- und 
Sachatlas des Italiens und der Südschweiz. 
According to Alinei (1983, XIX), all geolinguistic 
works can be categorised by two criteria: 
a) territorial and b) methodological. According 
to the territorial criterion, atlases are classified by 
the scope of the analysed geographic area: national 
atlases are defined as first-generation atlases; re-
gional atlases are second-generation atlases; atlases 
of language groups (such as the Slavic Linguistic 
Atlas, Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas) are 
defined as third-generation atlases, and so-called 
fourth-generation atlases cover the widest geo-
graphic territory (such as the European Linguistic 
Atlas – Atlas linguarum Europae). According to the 
methodological criterion, atlases are divided into 
two groups: the first group comprises so-called 
raw-data-based atlases, in which the materials are 
presented in a raw, non-analysed form, i.e. phoneti-
cally transcribed lexemes, phonemes or morphemes 
placed next to the name or number of the locality 
on the map. The second group comprises interpre-
tative atlases, which provide language materials in 
an abstracted or interpretative form using various 
mapping techniques (symbols, isoglosses or a com-
bination of both).
REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS
A comparison of the order in which each type of 
atlas was created for a particular language brings 
interesting findings. It reveals that for some lan-
guages, regional atlases were made before national 
ones (e.g. Wenker’s Sprachatlas der Rheinprovinz 
and Sprachatlas von Nord- und Mitteldeutschland), 
or vice-versa. Certain research centres decided to 
make regional atlases before national ones due 
to a smaller and thus more manageable research 
1 This paper builds upon the article by Kumin Horvat (2010).
2 More about ASLEF (Zuljan Kumar, 2016).
territory, which would be used to produce a 
“trial volume” before the national atlas (Reichan 
& Woźniak, 2004, 10), while others believed it 
would be sensible to first analyse a wider territory, 
i.e. a particular language area as a whole, and then 
build upon the findings of national atlases to make 
regional atlases of the already-examined territory 
through in-depth research. Linguistic peculiarities 
of individual territories, regions or areas thus be-
came clear only in a contrastive relation to other 
regions (such as the presence/lack of particular 
objects and consequently of their names). 
Regional geolinguistics in Slovenian 
language area
Three dialect groups have been the subject of 
regional geolinguistic analysis in Slovenia so far – 
Littoral, Carinthian and Pannonian. 
Each area under consideration follows its own 
methodological principles, which can vary widely. 
In western and eastern Slovenian dialects, research 
is particularly oriented towards collecting dialec-
tal lexis and presenting it on linguistic maps; in 
northern dialects, typical phonetic phenomena are 
documented in addition to lexis, enabling the iden-
tification of the locations of predominant isophones 
and isolexes.
Littoral dialect group
In the western part of the Slovenian language 
area, geolinguistics has been developed at the 
Institute for Linguistic Studies at the University of 
Primorska Science and Research Centre, where 
lexical regional atlases of Istrian and Kras as well 
as Croatian, Romanian, Istriot and Italian local 
dialects of the area have been created. 
The 1987 Slovenski dialektološki leksikalni 
atlas Tržaške pokrajine (SDLA-Ts) by Rada Cossutta 
examines the area on the Italian side of the border. 
The mapping method makes this a raw-data-
based atlas since dialectal materials are written 
in phonetic transcription next to the number of 
each locality. The materials were collected using 
the ASLEF2 (Atlante Storico-Linguistico-Etnografico 
del Friuli-Venezia Giulia, (Pelegrini, 1972–1986)) 
questionnaire in ten localities in the vicinity of 
Trieste (with the addition of the materials of two 
data points included in the ASLEF network) and are 
displayed on 177 maps (the materials themselves 
are recorded for 740 questions). 
According to Alinei’s atlas classification, this is a 
second-generation raw-data-based atlas.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
279
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
A second atlas by the same author – the 1996 
Slovenski dialektološki atlas koprske pokrajine 
(SDLA-Kp, Cossutta, 1996) – methodologically 
matches the first (i.e. SDLA-Ts).
The Slovenski dialektološki leksikalni atlas 
slovenske Istre (2005), by Rada Cossutta is 
graphically more advanced and uses the same 
mapping method; it presents lexemes collected using 
an adapted questionnaire of the Friulian ASLEF atlas 
in 21 Istrian Slovenian data points. Materials were 
collected and mapped for 740 questions (which are 
written as cues with no context) categorised into 
thematic sets (such as natural phenomena, flora, 
fauna, parts of the human body, illnesses etc.). 
This atlas, too, is raw-data-based as the materials 
are not interpreted but merely provided for further 
linguistic analyses. 
In addition to the above atlases, the Institute for 
Linguistic Studies at the University of Primorska 
Science and Research Centre designed the Narečni 
atlas slovenske Istre in Krasa (NASIK) project. The 
researchers, namely Goran Filipi, Rada Cossuta 
and Suzana Giljanovič, conceived the atlas with 
a view to present dialectal materials collected 
with the questionnaire for Lingvistični atlas Istre in 
selected Slovenian Istrian and Kras local speeches. 
The atlas designers saw regional geolinguistics as 
very meaningful, stating that compared to national 
atlases, regional ones are much better thought-out 
and more realistic as, based on special adapted 
questionnaires, they reveal the most authentic 
aspect of the researched area with greater precision 
(Giljanović, 2011). In spite of reasonable prospects, 
the project has not borne fruit. 
In parallel with the atlases listed above, 
Goran Filipi prepared different regional atlases 
that mostly explore the multilingual situation on 
the Istrian peninsula, also covering the Slovenian 
local dialect of Nova vas in one such atlas (Filipi 
& Buršić Giudici, 2012). Monographs published 
between 1998 and 2017 actually provide materials 
for atlases, but no maps as such. They discuss lexis 
in different semantic fields, such as: the weather, 
geomorphology, the body and feelings, numerals 
and descriptive adjectives, time and the calendar, 
life, marriage and family, the house and property, 
the wardrobe and accessories, food and drink, 
animals, agriculture, wild flora and mushrooms. As 
a standalone unit, the Lingvistični atlas pomorske 
terminologije istrskih govorov (Filipi & Buršić 
Giudici, 2013) was created, discussing, among 
22 local dialects, terminology collected in the 
local dialect of the town of Izola, which the author 
defines as an Istrian Venetian local dialect.
In 2019, another regional atlas for the Littoral 
dialect group was published, namely the first 
volume of the Istrskobeneški jezikovni atlas 
severozahodne Istre/Atlante linguistico istroveneto 
dell’Istria nordoccidentale by Suzana Todorović 
(2019), which is actually a bilingual monographic 
publication on Romance dialectology as it 
primarily explores Istrian Venetian local dialects, 
including three Slovenian Istrian data points as 
control points (Bertoki, Šared, Dragonja). In terms 
of Alinei’s linguistic atlas classification, this is a 
second-generation raw-data-based atlas; it includes 
573 bilingual lexical language maps providing lexis 
in the subject fields of weather, geomorphology, 
traditions and institutions, body and illnesses. The 
dialectal materials are not interpreted; they are 
written next to the name of each research point in 
phonetic transcription.
In 2020, the second volume of the Istrskobeneški 
jezikovni atlas severozahodne Istre/Atlante 
linguistico istroveneto dell’Istria nordoccidentale by 
the same author (Todorović, 2020) was published; 
it matches the first in conceptual terms and covers 
lexis for numerals, descriptive adjectives, time and 
the calendar, life, marriage, family, the house and 
property. 
In terms of Alinei’s definition of linguistic 
atlases, all the above atlases from the western part 
of the Slovenian language area can be considered 
second-generation raw-data-based atlases. 
The northern part of the Slovenian 
language area
The dialects of the Carithian dialect group in 
the Austrian state of Carinthia have been studied 
in detail by the dialectologists of the Slovenian 
Scientific Institute of Vienna and the Institute for 
Slavistics at the University of Graz. Their work 
was carried out following the concept of a long-
term goal, i.e. a project for collecting lexical and 
phonetic distinctive features of this area. The project 
was designed in the 1980s (Hafner & Prunč, 1980) 
and included the publication of Ključ (Schlüssel, 
Hafner & Prunč, 1982), two volumes of the Tezaver 
slovenskega ljudskega jezika na Koroškem (A–B 
1982, C–dn 1987), twelve linguistic maps with 
commentaries and a provisional typology of certain 
isolexes in the Slovenian dialects of the Austrian 
state of Carinthia (Pfandl, 1981).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
280
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
The above project includes, inter alia,3 determi-
ning the locations of isophones and isolexes in the 
entire area under consideration.
On the dialect map of the Slovenian lan-
guage, the boundaries of the Carinthian dialect 
group were determined based on phonetic and 
morphological phenomena. The participants of 
the above project were aware that such an ap-
proach to differentiation can be complemented 
with information on the locations of isolexes, 
which often reveal different interconnections 
between individual localities. Within a research 
project on the Lexical inventory of the Slovenian 
folk language in Carinthia (Leksikalna inventari-
zacija slovenskega ljudskega jezika na Koroškem/
Lexikalische Inventarisierung der slowenischen 
Volkssprache in Kärnten), a field data gathering 
of the lexis was thus carried out in 220 local dia-
lects, based on 111 questions prepared in advance 
(Pfandl, 1981, 449–452). The collected materials 
are mapped on symbol maps where each symbol 
is selected using a carefully designed system – 
the same geometric shape is used to map lexemes 
that are related in origin, and within these, indi-
vidual distinctive phonetic features are presented 
using inner parts. Lexemes appearing in certain 
areas are displayed using the areal technique 
on some maps (e.g. Map 5: pomlad – Frühling, 
Map 11: teloh – Schneerose, Map 12: zvonček – 
Schneeglöcklein). In 2014, another objective of 
the dialectological research project was partly 
accomplished as part of Andrejka Žejn’s doctoral 
dissertation. The author drew 38 symbol lexical 
linguistic maps equipped with linguistic (and 
partly ethnological) commentaries as well as 7 
synthetic maps showing different types of areal 
distribution. The commentaries have a tripartite 
structure, with the first part analysing objects 
and listing their names, the second part explain-
ing the names from the point of view of their 
origin, and the third part providing descriptions 
of the geographical distribution of the names.  In 
terms of Alinei’s definition of linguistic atlases, 
the geolinguistic project described above is a 
second-generation interpretative atlas.
3 The final goal of the project consists of five partial objectives: 1. lexicographic objective: the publication of the Te-
zaver slovenskega ljudskega jezika na avstrijskem Koroškem, 2. phonological and geolinguistic objective: determining 
the locations of isophones in the common dialectological area, 3. lexical and geolinguistic objective: determining the 
locations of isolexes, 4. linguistic-sociolinguistic objective: exploring the semantic structure of the lexis in individual 
lexical fields with regard to the language ability of bilingual speakers, 5. linguistic-ethnological objective: a description 
of the complex linguistic situation and of significant ethnographic and cultural-historical elements (Žejn, 2006, 447; 
Žejn, 2014, 11–12). 
4 Other regional linguistic atlases of European and non-European languages that are not examined here include, for 
example: the Linguistic Atlas of Sicily, http://atlantelinguisticosicilia.it/cms/home/chi-siamo/; the Linguistic Atlas 
of Campania, http://www.alcam.de/, the Linguistic Atlas of the Lesser Antilles, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-
01360688.
The eastern part of the Slovenian 
language area
The dialects of the Pannonian dialect group have 
been the subject of in-depth research by the dialec-
tologists of the Faculty of Arts at the University of 
Maribor. A notable contribution from this area, i.e. 
Medjezikovni stiki v besedju iz pomenskega polja 
kmetija v slovenskogoriškem narečju by Mihaela 
Koletnik (Koletnik, 2015), was created under the 
influence of the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas national 
project, as the author intended her monograph in 
regional geolinguistics to contribute to the expan-
sion, i.e. densification of the research network for 
the Slovenske gorice dialect.
The materials for 224 linguistic maps have been 
collected in twelve equally distributed research 
points using the SLA questionnaire. Materials 
belonging to the “farm” semantic field have been 
analysed and commented upon. 
In terms of the classification of atlases, this is 
a second-generation interpretative atlas contain-
ing maps equipped with linguistic commentaries, 
which consists of phonetically transcribed dialectal 
materials, etymological explanations of the listed 
dialectal lexemes and data on the documentation of 
the lexemes in selected dictionaries. The maps were 
made using the symbol technique.
Regional geolinguistics in Europe and beyond
Linguistic atlases have an important place in 
both European and non-European languages. This 
section briefly presents only some of these atlases, 
which I was able to access at the time of writing.4
Within the multitude of European linguistic at-
lases, an important place is held by atlases of Polish 
dialects. The beginnings of Polish linguistic geogra-
phy temporally coincide with the germ of Slovenian 
linguistic geography, namely with Ramovš’s initial 
plans for a Slovenian linguistic atlas. Polish dialec-
tology thus boasts a rich geolinguistic tradition. In 
addition to a great number of regional atlases, three 
atlases covering the entire national area have been 
made (Reichan & Woźniak, 2004). 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
281
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
The first regional-scale atlas, the Atlas of Polish 
Subcarpathia (Atlas językowy polskiego Podkar-
pacia) (Małecki & Nitsch, 1934), was designed 
by the authors as an attempt at a smaller-scale 
study before a larger project, i.e. an atlas of the 
entire Polish language area. The network of points 
included 39 localities, where materials were col-
lected using a questionnaire consisting of 1000 
questions. In presenting the materials, the authors 
followed the example of Gilliéron and other pio-
neers of Romance geolinguistics, as they decided 
to draw maps displaying dialectal answers in pho-
netic transcription next to the number of locality 
(Reichan & Woźniak, 2004).
A different and far more advanced technique of 
mapping can be observed in the Linguistic Atlas 
of Kashubian and Neighbouring Dialects (Atlas 
językowy kaszubszczyzny i dialektów sąsiednych, 
1964–1978), where coloured maps display geo-
graphic elements: rivers, towns, county borders, 
coastline. On this basis, linguistic characteristics 
are presented with black symbols of different 
shapes and different fillings, with isoglosses and 
with hatching. This interpretative atlas includes 
around 800 maps published in several volumes.
The Czech Linguistic Atlas of South-Western 
Moravia (Jazykový atlas jihozápadní Moravy) by 
Libuša Čižmárová (2000) of the Masaryk University 
in Brno is another notable West Slavic linguistic 
atlas. The materials, which were collected based 
on a textual-pictorial questionnaire, are mostly 
displayed on combined maps (with text, isoglosses, 
symbols and areas) where the names of localities 
are labelled with abbreviations explained in an al-
phabetical list preceding the maps. The combina-
tion technique uses isoglosses of different width, 
with thinner lines separating areas with phenom-
ena of the same origin that are distinguished on 
the synchronic level only phonetically (e.g. kudla 
and kodla) or morphologically, and thicker lines 
marking areas with lexemes of different origins 
(e.g. burgyňa and řepa). Each interpretative map is 
equipped with a legend and commentary.
Among non-Slavic linguistic atlases, it is worth 
listing the already-mentioned Goran Filipi, who 
co-authored the materials for several regional at-
lases, i.e. Istriotski lingvistični atlas (Filipi & Buršić 
Giudici, 2017) and Istrorumunjski lingvistički 
5 Slovenian experts, mostly students at the University of Padua (such as Milko Matičetov), contributed to the preparation of ASLEF as re-
gards the Slovenian localities. 
6 The framework of the network consists of the local dialects of Cankova, Gorica, Martjanci, Strehovci, Beltinci, Gomilica, Ne-
delica, Velika Polana, Gornja Bistrica, Hotiza, Večeslavci, Grad, Gornji Petrovci, Križevci, Kančevci, Šalovci, Markovci, Gornji 
Senik, Slovenska ves, Ženavci and Žetinci.
7 The local dialects of Turnišče and Črenšovci have been added from the old SLA network.
8 From various bachelor theses, materials have been added for the local dialects of Cankova (supplementary materials) (Gere, 
1993), Puconci (Drvarič, 2015), Petanjci (Drvarič, 2015), Dolnja Bistrica (Drvarič, 2015), Lukačevci (Cipot Hari, 2016), Dokle-
žovje (Pucko, 2015) and Gančani (Börc Hozjan, 2016), 
atlas (Filipi, 2002). These monographs represent a 
continuation of the design of the Atlas Linguarum 
Histriae et Liburniae project and provide materi-
als for 11 (1998 and 2017) and 14 (2002) local 
dialects, but no maps as such. Thematically, the 
same semantic fields are included as in the above-
mentioned atlases by the same author; the col-
lected materials are presented in lists, they are not 
(yet) mapped. 
The next multifaceted atlas (both in terms of 
spatial coverage and of language and nationality) 
is the Atlante storico-linguistico-etnografico del 
Friuli-Venezia-Giulia (ASLEF), which is actually 
an Italian regional atlas.5 The atlas consists of 6 
volumes, which the University of Padua and the 
Udine Institute of Romance Philology published in 
1972–1986. The questionnaire used to collect the 
materials consists of 6290 questions; the network 
of localities comprises 129 local dialects, of which 
18 include Slovenian-speaking populations in the 
Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia. In terms of 
methodology, the atlas follows the Romance geo-
linguistic tradition, the guidelines of which favour 
raw-data-based presentation over interpretation.
In terms of the definition of atlases, this is thus 
a second-generation raw-data-based atlas. 
REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS: CASE STUDY 
OF PREKMURJE DIALECT
Following the examples of the regional geo-
linguistics of Slovenian dialects explored so far, 
the western (Littoral), northern (Carinthian) and 
eastern (Slovenske gorice) dialects are now joined 
by a regional geolinguistic case study of another 
peripheral, i.e. eastern (Prekmurje) dialect. A 
tradition of creating regional linguistic atlases 
of peripheral dialects is present, for example, in 
the Polish language area as well (cf. Reichman & 
Woźniak, 2004).
The network of localities for the regional maps 
of the Prekmurje dialect created for this article 
builds upon the national network for the Slovenian 
Linguistic Atlas; its framework consists of 216 SLA 
local dialects, and in order to densify the network, 
another 8 local dialects have been added for the 
present discussion, including 2 local dialects of 
the old7 SLA network and 68 local dialects analysed 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
282
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
as part of various bachelor theses. The network of 
data points thus covers 29 localities9 with varying 
distances between them.
Prekmurje dialect10
Along with the Prlekija, Slovenske gorice and 
Haloze dialects, the Prekmurje dialect is part of 
the Pannonian dialect group and represents the 
easternmost Slovenian dialect at the contact with 
Germanic, Hungarian and Kajkavian language 
areas. According to the earliest dialectal dif-
ferentiation of the Slovenian language area, this 
dialect was formed in an area settled by people 
of the South Slavic group. Based on this earliest 
division, the Prekmurje dialect is considered part 
of the south-eastern unit, which is characterised 
by an early denasalisation of the PSl. nasal ę and 
ǫ, the diphthongisation of *ȏ and *ě > o and e, 
the labialisation of ā > å and the development 
of u towards i (u > ü). This dialect is particu-
larly interesting from the lexical point of view 
as Germanisms (borrowed in different periods of 
development) and Hungarisms appear alongside 
the predominant Slavic (even Old Slavic) lexis. 
(Logar, 1993) 
Extralinguistic outline of the Prekmurje dialect
In geographic terms, four units can be outlined 
in Prekmurje: Dolinsko, Ravensko11 and Goričko on 
the Slovenian side of the border and Porabje on the 
Hungarian side. The boundary between Dolinsko 
and Ravensko is the line Dokležovje–Bratonci–Lipo-
vci–Gančani–Filovci–Strehovci–Dobrovnik; on the 
other side, the line Bakovci–Rakičan–Lukačevci–
Mlajtinci–Ivanci–Bogojina connects the border Ra-
vensko villages. The boundary between Goričko and 
Ravensko follows the foot of the hills, with the local 
dialects of Korovci–Gornji Črnci–Beznovci–Zenko-
vci–Šalamenci–Brezovci–Sebeborci in Goričko and 
Cankova–Topolovci–Strukovci–Puževci–Lemerje–
Gorica–Puconci–Moravske Toplice–Tešanovci in 
Ravensko. The boundary between Goričko and 
Porabje is marked by the state border between 
Slovenia and Hungary, sharply carved in the early 
20th century.
9 The network of data points: C – Cankova (SLA T387), G – Gorica (SLA T388), Pu – Puconci, Pe – Petanjci, L – Lukačevci, M – Mar-
tjanci (SLA T389), S – Strehovci (SLA T390), D – Dokležovje, Ga – Gančani, B – Beltinci (SLA T391), T – Turnišče, Č – Črenšovci, 
Go – Gomilica (SLA T392), N – Nedelica (SLA T393), VP – Velika Polana (SLA T394), DB – Dolnja Bistrica, GB – Gornja Bistrica 
(SLA T395), H – Hotiza (SLA T396), V – Večeslavci (SLA T397), G – Grad (SLA T398), GP – Gornji Petrovci (SLA T399), K – Križevci 
(SLA T400), Ka – Kančevci (T401), Š – Šalovci (T402), Ma – Markovci (SLA T403), GS – Gornji Senik/Felsőszölnök (SLA T404), 
SV – Slovenska ves/Rábatótfalu (SLA T405), Že – Ženavci/Jennersdorf (T406) and Ž – Žetinci/Sicheldorf (SLA T414).
10 This section is an abridged and somewhat adapted part of the following article, the content of which is linked to the theme of this discus-
sion Kumin Horvat (2008). 
11 This part also includes the area of Radgonski Kot in Austria, which consists of five villages with a Slovenian-speaking population.
12 Compare with Kumin Horvat (2010, 93, note no. 7).
It is worth relating the contemporary division 
of the area under consideration with the historical 
division of the region along the Mura river. Milko 
Kos (1935, 16–20) divides the history of this area 
into three major periods: the first encompasses the 
time from the Slavic settlement to the coming of 
the Hungarians to the Pannonian Plain around the 
year 900; the second, which is the longest, ends 
with one of the most important years for Prek-
murje – 1919, when the land on the left bank of 
the Mura administratively rejoined the Slovenian 
nation; this year also marks the beginning of the 
new, third period, which still runs today. The char-
acteristics of the Prekmurje dialect as it is known 
today were formed in the second, i.e. the long-
est historical period. In this period of Hungarian 
rule, Prekmurje was administratively divided into 
two counties: the Vas County (Slovenian: Železna 
županija, Hungarian: Vasvármegye) included Po-
rabje, Goričko and the vicinity of Murska Sobota 
(Goričko and Ravensko), while the south-western 
part with Dolnja Lendava (Dolinsko) belonged 
to the Zala County (Slovenian: Zalska županija, 
Hungarian: Zalavármegye). In ecclesiastical 
terms, Prekmurje Slovenians in the Vas County 
belonged to the diocese of Győr (Raba), while 
those in the Zala County belonged to the diocese 
of Veszprém. In the 11th century, some Zala 
parishes (Bogojina, Turnišče, Dobrovnik, Dolnja 
Lendava) became part of the newly established 
diocese of Zagreb. Since 1176, the administrative 
boundary between the counties was thus also the 
ecclesiastical boundary between the dioceses of 
Győr and Zagreb. Up until the 18th century, the 
Hungarian Slovenians were divided in administra-
tive terms; in 1777, they were united in the then 
established diocese of Szombathely, which had a 
beneficial effect on the development of a regional 
consciousness (Slavič, 1999, 23). 
 
Intralinguistic outline of the Prekmurje dialect
A multitude of distinguished Slovenian and other 
dialectologists12 have explored the linguistic land-
scape of this area; only the most essential findings 
are summarised here (following Logar, 1996; Zorko, 
1994, 2005).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
283
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
The Prekmurje dialect, which features dynamic 
accentuation, is classified into the south-eastern 
group according to the original dialectisation of the 
Slovenian language. Both Common-Slovenian stress 
shifts (the zlȃto > zlatȏ, ȍko > ȏko > okȏ type and the 
retraction of short stress onto pretonic long vowels) 
took place. In this dialect, the shortened old acute 
is mostly still short; lengthening is present in the 
local dialects of Goričko. There is a monophthong-
diphthong system of long vowels and monophthong 
system of short vowels. The vowel inventory thus 
encompasses: a) long vocalism: iː, uː, uː, (üː), 
eː, oː, ẹː, (öː), ọː, eː, oː, aː/ȧː, b) short vocalism: 
i, u, ü ẹ, ọ, e, å, .
Synchronically, based on newer phonetic phe-
nomena, the Prekmurje dialect can be divided into 
three units: the northern local dialects (Goričko 
and Porabje) are characterised by the labialisation 
of short and unstressed a, the development of final 
-ł > -o, j > d’; the central dialects (Ravensko) also 
13 Morphological analyses of the lexemes are taken from the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas 2.2 (SLA 2.2), which the author of the 
present article co-authored.
labialise the short and unstressed a and feature the 
development of -ł > -o, j > g (before front vowels 
in word-initial positions), j > dž (before back vow-
els), t > k (before ); the southern local dialects 
(Dolinsko) labialise the long stressed a, -ł > u, t > 
k (before ). 
LINGUISTIC MAPS
The following section presents and comments on 
the lexical maps for the area of Prekmurje dialect, 
which have been drawn based on the dialectal ma-
terials. The dialectal materials have been selected 
with a view to differentiate the area in question as 
certain lexemes indicate a complete homogeneity 
of the linguistic landscape, while others show divi-
sions into two or three parts combining different 
layers. The commentary consists of three parts; 
the first defines the mapped objects, the second 
provides a morphological analysis13 of the lexemes 
Map 1: Lexical map for ‘stairs’. Map 2: Lexical map for ‘ceiling’.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
284
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
under consideration, and the third differentiates 
them geographically.
The mapping methods follow the Slovenian ge-
olinguistic tradition, which was developed as part 
of the drafting of the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas. 
Although different types can be used to differenti-
ate dialectal materials on the mapped linguistic 
elements, the symbol technique of mapping has 
been selected.
Lexical linguistic maps
Map no. 1 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘horizontal spaced platforms at different 
heights to facilitate walking up or down’, stopnice 
‘stairs’ in standard Slovenian, collected using 
question V133.01 stopnice ‘stairs’.
Two lexemes have been recorded in the local 
dialects under consideration, i.e. stolbe (< *stolb-
a/-ę < stъlb-a ‘stair ’) and štege (< *(šteg)-ę ← 
MHG stëge ‘stairs’), including the phonetic variant 
stolmba/stolmbe recorded in the data points of 
Markovci (M) and Slovenska ves (SV) for the first 
lexeme. Based on the mapped materials, the region 
under consideration reflects homogeneity as the 
stolbe lexeme (dialectal: stube) is recorded in most 
local dialects, and the štege lexeme is recorded 
only once in the local dialect of Žetinci (Ž).
Map no. 2 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘part of building that limits, closes off 
a room from above’, strop ‘ceiling’ in standard 
Slovenian, collected using question V139.01 strop 
‘ceiling’.
Five lexemes are recorded for the mapped 
meaning in the local dialects under consideration, 
i.e. plafon (< *(plafon)-ъ ← German Plafond ‘ceil-
ing’), čakatur (< unclear origin, probably related to 
štokatur ← German Stuckatur ‘moulding’), prosnice 
(< unclear origin), strop (< *strop-ъ ‘ceiling, roof’) 
and mostnice (*most-ьn-ic-ę ← *most-ъ ‘bridge’).
In terms of lexemic differentiation, two areas 
can be drawn here: a homogenous Porabje-Goričko 
area with the predominant plafon lexeme is sepa-
rated from the Ravensko area, which includes the 
plafon, čakatur and strop lexemes and represents a 
transition to the Dolinsko area, where the čakatur 
Map 3: Lexical map for ‘pot’. Map 4: Lexical map for ‘fork’.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
285
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
and prosnice lexemes alternate evenly. The strop 
lexeme is rare in the dialect, recorded dispersedly 
in only three local dialects – Gornja Bistrica (GB), 
Gomilice (Go) and Cankova (C) – even merely as a 
variant name in the last two. The mostnice lexeme 
is recorded in only one local dialect (Kančevci 
(Ka)).
Map no. 3 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘cylinder-shaped container for cooking’, 
lonec ‘pot’ in standard Slovenian, collected using 
question V149.01 lonec ‘pot’.
Three lexemes have been recorded for the 
mapped meaning in the local dialects under con-
sideration, i.e. lonec (< *lon-ьc-ь ‘clay pot, clay 
bowl’), pisker (< *(piskr)-ъ, probably from MHG 
phister, phistrīne ‘bakery’ with the semantic de-
velopment ≥ ‘oven (for baking bread)’ ≥ ‘pan (for 
baking bread)’ ≥ ‘pot’) and labuška (< *(labuš)-ьk-a 
← Hungarian lábas ‘pan’).
Based on the mapped lexemes, the Prekmurje 
linguistic landscape can be divided into two ho-
mogenous areas, namely Dolinsko, where only 
the lonec lexeme is recorded, and the Ravensko-
Goričko-Porabje area, where the majority lexeme 
pisker and the one-off labuška (Kančevci (Ka)) are 
recorded.
Map no. 4 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘utensil consisting of prongs and a han-
dle for sticking pieces of food on’, vilice ‘fork’ 
in standard Slovenian, collected using question 
V152.01 vilice ‘fork’. 
Three lexemes are recorded for the mapped 
meaning in the local dialects under consideration, 
i.e. razsoške (< *orz-soš-ьk-a/-ę ← *orz-sox-a ← 
*orz- [prefix meaning ‘apart’] + *sox-a ‘branch’), 
vilice (< *vidl-ic-ę ← *vidl-a ‘vila’ ← *vidl-o 
‘contraption for coiling, reel’) and gopljice (< 
*(gopljic)-ę ← German Gabel ‘fork’ in the Bavarian 
German pronunciation (a > o, -b- > -p-), with the 
first lexeme also recorded in its singular form, 
razsoška.
The geographic distribution of the lexemes shows 
a bi- or tripartite division of the Prekmurje language 
area. The vilice lexeme is continuously recorded in 
the Dolinsko local dialects and in the border Goričko 
local dialect of Markovci (Ma), with the area also 
Map 5: Lexical map for ‘knife’. Map 6: Lexical map for ‘garden’.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
286
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
extending into the local dialects of Porabje. On the 
other hand, the razsošk- lexeme is attested in the 
Goričko-Ravensko area, appearing both in the plural 
(GP, K, V, Pe, G, Pu, S) and singular (Š, Gr, Ka, C, M, 
Ma and L) forms. 
Map no. 5 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘utensil for cutting consisting of a blade 
and handle’, nož ‘knife’ in standard Slovenian, 
collected using question V153A.01 nož ‘knife’.
Two lexemes from the same word family are 
recorded for the mapped meaning in the local 
dialects under consideration, i.e. nož (< *nož-ь 
‘knife’) and nožec (< *nož-ьc-ь).
The geographic distribution of the lexemes 
shows a bipartite division of the Prekmurje lan-
guage area, namely into the Dolinsko-Ravensko 
area with nož as the only recorded lexeme and 
the Goričko-Porabje area where the nožec lexeme 
predominates – the nož lexeme is only recorded in 
the local dialect of Kančevci (Ka) in this area.
Map no. 6 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘small plot of land, usually near a house, 
where grass, trees, vegetables or ornamental plants 
are grown’, vrt ‘garden’ in standard Slovenian, col-
lected using question V165(b).01 vrt za zelenjavo 
in rože ‘vegetable and flower garden’.
Six names are recorded for the mapped meaning 
in the local dialects under consideration, i.e. ograd 
(*o(b)-gord-ъ ← *o(b)-gord-i-ti ← *ob- ‘next to, near, 
around’ + *gord-i-ti ‘to wall in, to make a fence’), 
ogradec (*o(b)-gord-ьc-ь), gradec (*gord-ьc-ь or 
*o(b)-gord-ьc-ь), ogradček (< *o(b)-gord-ьč-ьk-ъ ← 
*o(b)-gord-ьc-ь), gradčenik (< *gord-ьč-ьn-ik-ъ or 
*o(b)gord-ьc-ь) and grede (*gręd-ę ‘a plot of land 
suitable for cultivation, bed’), five of which are part 
of the same word family with the grad- root.
The geographic distribution of the lexemes 
shows a bipartite division of the Prekmurje lan-
guage area, namely into the Dolinsko area, where 
the grede lexeme predominates (as a variant name, 
the ograd lexeme is recorded only in the local 
dialect of Hotiza (H)), and the Ravensko-Goričko-
Porabje area, where all the recorded lexemes are 
part of the same word family – the ogradček lexeme 
is the most common, while the others (ogradec, 
gradec and gradčenik) appear only once each.
Map 7: Lexical map for ‘(door) handle’. Map 8: Lexical map for ‘bed’.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
287
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
Map no. 7 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘movable contraption used to open or 
close doors’, kljuka ‘(door) handle’ in standard 
Slovenian, collected using question V285(b).01 
kljuka pri vratih ‘door handle’.
 Three names are recorded for the mapped 
meaning in the local dialects under consideration, 
i.e. kljuka (< *kĺuk-a ‘crooked piece of wood, 
hook’), kvaka (< *kvak-a ‘hook’) and hakelj 
(< *(xakĺ)-ь ← diminutive of OHG hācko, hāko, 
MHG hāke ‘hook, raftsman’s pole’).
The geographic distribution of the lexemes 
shows a bipartite division of the Prekmurje lan-
guage area, with the predominant kljuka lexeme 
recorded in the homogenous Ravensko-Goričko-
Porabje area (only the local dialect of Markovci 
(Ma) has the one-off hakelj), while the Dolinsko 
area is a conglomerate of the equally represented 
kljuka and kvaka lexemes.
Map no. 8 shows the dialectal names for the 
meaning ‘piece of furniture designed and adapted 
for lying, sleeping’, postelja ‘bed’ in standard 
Slovenian, collected using question V779(a).01 
postelja ‘bed’.
The following names are recorded for the 
mapped meaning in the local dialects under con-
sideration: postelja (< *po-steĺ-a (< *po-stel-j-a) ← 
*po-stьl-a-ti *po-steĺ-ǫ ← *po- ‘on’ + *stьl-a-ti *steĺǫ 
(< *stel-jǫ) ‘to spread out, to litter ’), postelj (< *po-
steĺ-ь (< *po-stel-j-ь), gen. sg. -i ‘bed’), štampet (< 
*(štampet)-ъ ≤ *(špampet)-ъ (through dissimila-
tion of p-p > t-p) and štampek (*(štampek)-ъ ≤ 
*(špampet)-ъ (through dissimilation of p-p > t-p 
and transition of -t ≥ -k). 
The geographic distribution of the lexemes 
shows a multipartite division of the Prekmurje 
language area; the lexemic form postelj (fem.) 
seemingly predominates in the Dolinsko area; 
the Ravensko area has a transitional character 
based on these materials as both the postelja and 
14 The materials are transcribed using the ZRCola input system developed at ISJFR ZRC SAZU by Peter Weiss. https://zrcola.zrc-sazu.si/.
postelj forms are attested there, and the Goričko-
Ravensko-Porabje area mostly displays the postelja 
lexemic form. The štampet lexeme (Ž) and its vari-
ant štampek (Ka) appear only once each.
THE MATERIALS14
It seems sensible to publish the materials de-
spite the non-uniform transcription as this enables 
the verification of the geolinguistic presentation 
and its analysis. The materials for the Slovenian 
Language Atlas (Škofic et al., 2016a, 2016b) are 
kept by the Dialectological Section of the Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language at 
ZRC SAZU in Ljubljana, in notebooks and index 
cards in the catalogue; in recent years, the mate-
rials have also been digitised and are kept in the 
form of scans. In the present article, the materials 
are published in citation form, i.e. as they are 
written in the index card-notebook database, in 
two transcriptions, the old, so-called Ramovš 
transcription and the new national transcription 
(Benedik, 1999, 20).
The first column lists the sequential number 
of the local dialect, which is used to systematise 
the materials. The second column contains the 
label of the local dialect, which is also displayed 
on linguistic maps; the third lists the name of 
the locality, and the fourth provides information 
on which variant of Prekmurje dialect the local 
dialect belongs to (D: Dolinsko, R: Ravensko, G: 
Goričko, P: Porabje). The Type column lists the 
source of the materials (the SLA collection or 
bachelor theses (DN)), and the subsequent col-
umns contain phonetically transcribed dialectal 
materials for the eight analysed cues (V133.01 
stopnice ‘stairs’, V139.01 strop ‘ceiling’, V149.01 
lonec ‘pot’, V152.01 vilice ‘fork’, V153A.01 nož 
‘knife’, V165(b).01 vrt ‘garden’, V285(b).01 kljuka 
‘(door) handle’ and V779(a).01 postelja ‘bed’).
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
288
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
Label Locality Variant Type
V133.01 stopnice 
‘stairs’
V139.01 strop 
‘ceiling’
V149.01 lonec ‘pot’
1 C Cankova R SLA, DN sˈtube stˈrọp, plaˈfọn ˈpisker
2 G Gorica R SLA stȗb, stȕbe plåfn, plafn pȋskr, pȋsker
3 Pu Puconci R DN sˈtube plaˈfoːn ˈpiːsker
4 Pe Petanjci R DN sˈtube plaˈfoːn ˈpiːsker
5 L Lukačevci R DN sˈtube plaˈfọːn ˈpisker
6 M Martjanci R SLA stȕbe čḁkḁtr pȉskär
7 S Strehovci R/D SLA stȕb čåkåtȗr lnc
8 D Dokležovje D DN sˈtuːbä čakaˈtuːr ˈlunäc
9 Ga Gančani D DN sˈtube plaˈfoːn ˈlunec
10 B Beltinci D SLA stȕbe plafȏn, čakatȗr lȕnec
11 T Turnišče D SLA-s stȕbe čakatȗr lȕnec
12 Č Črenšovci D SLA-s stȕb prusnȉc, čakatȗr l nc
13 Go Gomilica D SLA sˈtube, stȕb, stȕbe čakatȗr, stˈrọp, čakatȗr, průsnȉc
ˈlunec, lȕnc, lȕnec, 
ˈlọnec
14 N Nedelica D SLA stȕbä čakatȕr, prusnȉcä lnäc
15 DB Dolnja Bistrica D SLA sˈtube plaˈfoːn ˈlunec
16 VP Velika Polana D SLA stȕb čakatȗr, prusnȉc l nc
17 GB Gornja Bistrica D SLA sˈtube stˈrọp ˈlunec
18 H Hotiza D SLA stȕb čakatȗr, prusnȉc lȕnc
19 V Večeslavci G SLA sˈtuːbe plaˈfọːn ˈpiːsker
20 Gr Grad G SLA stȗb plafȃn pȉskär
21 GP Gornji Petrovci G SLA stȕb plafn pȉskr
22 K Križevci G SLA stȗbe mosnȉce pȋskär
23 Ka Kančevci G SLA sˈtube plaˈfọn ˈlȧːbuška
24 Š Šalovci G SLA sˈtuːbe plaˈfọːn ˈpiːser
25 Ma Markovci G SLA stȕmba (nom. pl.) plafn pȋst’är
26 GS Gornji Senik P SLA
stȕbe, sˈtube, sˈtuːbe, 
sˈtuːbe
plafn, plaˈfọːn, 
plaˈfọːn, plaˈfọːn
pȉsker, ˈpisker, 
ˈpiːsker, ˈpiːsker
27 SV Slovenska ves P SLA sˈtumbe plaˈfọn ˈpiser
28 Že Ženavci / SLA - -- --
29 Ž Žetinci R SLA
šˈteːge, štéiga (nom. 
sg.) / ˈpisker
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
289
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
Label Locality Variant Type V152.01 vilice ‘fork’ V153A.01 nož ‘knife’
V165(b).01 vrt 
‘garden’
1 C Cankova R SLA, DN ˈråšuška ˈnọš *ogˈråček
2 G Gorica R SLA
ršušk (nom. pl.), 
rȃšoška nš, nš ugrčk, /
3 Pu Puconci R DN ˈråšoške ˈnọš /
4 Pe Petanjci R DN ˈråšoške ˈnọš /
5 L Lukačevci R DN ˈråšuška ˈnọš ogˈråček
6 M Martjanci R SLA ršuškå nš ogrčäk
7 S Strehovci R/D SLA ršušk (nom. pl.) nš /
8 D Dokležovje D DN ˈviːlcä ˈnọš gräˈdiːẹ
9 Ga Gančani D DN viˈlice ˈnọš greˈdẹː
10 B Beltinci D SLA vȉlice nš /
11 T Turnišče D SLA-s vȉlce nš grde
12 Č Črenšovci D SLA-s vȉlc nȍž grd
13 Go Gomilica D SLA ˈvilice, vȉlịca, vȉlice ˈnọš, nȍš, nš, grd
14 N Nedelica D SLA vȉlcä nš grdä
15 DB Dolnja Bistrica D SLA ˈvilice ˈnọš /
16 VP Velika Polana D SLA vȉlc nȍš grd
17 GB Gornja Bistrica D SLA ˈvilce ˈnọš /
18 H Hotiza D SLA vȉlc nȍš ȍgrad, grd
19 V Večeslavci G SLA ˈråːšoške ˈnoːžec ọgˈråːček
20 Gr Grad G SLA rȍšoška nȍžic ogrčäk
21 GP
Gornji 
Petrovci
G SLA rȃšuške, rȃškuše nžic /
22 K Križevci G SLA ršoške nȍžic ogrčäk
23 Ka Kančevci G SLA ˈråšuška ˈnọš /
24 Š Šalovci G SLA ˈråːšoška ˈnọːžẹc ogˈraːdec
25 Ma Markovci G SLA ršušt’a, vȋlca nȍžic grȃdac
26 GS Gornji Senik P SLA
vȉlca, ˈvilca, ˈviːlce, 
ˈvüːlce
nžẹc, ˈnoːžẹc, 
ˈnoːžic, ˈnoːžẹc ogˈråːčenek
27 SV Slovenska ves P SLA ˈvilcä ˈnaːžc /
28 Že Ženavci / SLA -- -- --
29 Ž Žetinci R SLA
ˈgopca (nom. sg.), 
gpce ˈnoš /
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
290
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
Label Locality Variant Type
V285(b).01 kljuka ‘(door) 
handle’
V779(a).01 postelja ‘bed’
1 C Cankova R SLA, DN kˈlüka *ˈpọstäla
2 G Gorica R SLA klkå, klka pstlå, pste
3 Pu Puconci R DN kˈlüka /
4 Pe Petanjci R DN kˈlüka /
5 L Lukačevci R DN kˈlüka /
6 M Martjanci R SLA klkå pȍstelå
7 S Strehovci R/D SLA klka pste
8 D Dokležovje D DN kˈlüːka ˈpọstäl
9 Ga Gančani D DN kˈvåka /
10 B Beltinci D SLA kvka, klka psteu
11 T Turnišče D SLA-s kvka pstela
12 Č Črenšovci D SLA-s klka pȍsto
13 Go Gomilica D SLA kˈvaːka, klka, klka, kvȁka ˈpọste, pȍst, pstela
14 N Nedelica D SLA kvka, klka, klka pstä
15 DB Dolnja Bistrica D SLA kˈlüka /, *pȍst
16 VP Velika Polana D SLA kvȁka pȍst
17 GB Gornja Bistrica D SLA kˈvaka postew
18 H Hotiza D SLA kvȁka pȍst
19 V Večeslavci G SLA kˈlüːka ˈpᵘọːstela
20 Gr Grad G SLA klka pstela
21 GP Gornji Petrovci G SLA klka pstȧla
22 K Križevci G SLA klkå pstålå
23 Ka Kančevci G SLA kˈlüːka šˈtåmpäk
24 Š Šalovci G SLA kˈlüːka ˈpọːstala
25 Ma Markovci G SLA ȃt’e, ȃće pstala
26 GS Gornji Senik P SLA klka, kˈlüːka, kˈlüːka, kˈlüka pstala, ˈpọstela, ˈpọːstala, ˈpọːstala
27 SV Slovenska ves P SLA kˈlüːkä /
28 Že Ženavci / SLA -- --
29 Ž Žetinci R SLA kˈlüka šˈtåmpet, šˈtåmpet
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
291
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
CONCLUSION
The aim of this article has been to contribute to 
knowledge on regional geolinguistics of the Slove-
nian language area. The geographic distribution of 
the lexemes under consideration in the Prekmurje 
dialect clearly shows the connectedness of certain 
areas, both in diachronic and synchronic terms. The 
drawn linguistic maps thus show how Prekmurje 
dialect is divided, which suggests the boundary be-
tween the southern flats (Dolinsko) and the northern 
hilly area (Ravensko and Goričko) is still relatively 
distinct; it follows the 12th-century historical eccle-
siastical border. The boundary between the Goričko 
and Ravensko areas is not as prominent, which is 
also a reflection of the fact that this territory had 
no administrative divisions in the past and has been 
linked more tightly through history.
All Slovenian regional geolinguistic studies 
conducted so far demonstrate that regional geolin-
guistics significantly complements and enriches the 
field of national dialectological research, though 
it still seems essential to simultaneously publish 
national linguistic atlases, which integrate regional 
fragments into a whole, showing a broader picture 
of the language area under consideration.
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
292
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
REGIONALNA GEOLINGVISTIKA – PRIMER PREKMURSKEGA NAREČJA
Mojca KUMIN HORVAT
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, Novi trg 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija
e-mail: mojca.horvat@zrc-sazu.si
POVZETEK
S tem člankom smo želeli prispevati k védenju s področja regionalne geolingvistike slovenskega jezi-
kovnega prostora. Geografska distribucija obravnavanih leksemov prekmurskega narečja jasno prikazuje 
povezanost določenih območij, tako v diahronem kot v sinhronem smislu. Na podlagi izrisanih jezikovnih 
kart je prikazana členitev prekmurščine, iz česar je razvidno, da je meja med južnim ravninskim (do-
linskim) in severnim gričevnatim (ravenskim in goričkim) področjem še danes razmeroma ostra, in sicer 
poteka po zgodovinski cerkvenoupravni ločnici iz 12. stoletja. Meja med goričko in ravensko ploskvijo 
je manj izrazita, kar je tudi odraz tega, da to ozemlje v preteklosti upravno ni bilo razdeljeno, pač pa je 
bilo skozi zgodovino tesneje povezano. Iz vseh dosedanjih primerov slovenske regionalne geolingvistike 
je razvidno, da ta bistveno dopolnjuje in bogati področje nacionalnih dialektoloških raziskav, še vedno 
pa se zdi nujno hkrati izdajati nacionalne lingvistične atlase, ki regionalne drobce povezujejo v celoto in 
prikazujejo širšo sliko obravnavanega jezikovnega prostora.
Ključne besede: geolingvistika, regionalna geolingvistika, prekmursko narečje
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
293
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alinei, Mario (1983): Introduction. In: Atlas 
Linguarum Europae. Commentaires. Volume I – pre-
mier fascicule. Van Gorcum, Assen, XV–XXXIX.
Pelegrini, Giovan Battista (1972–1986): At-
lante storico-linguistico-etnografico friulano 1–6. 
Padova, Udine, Istituto di Glottologia e Fonetica 
dell’Università, Istituto di Filologia Romanza 
della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature straniere 
dell’Università di Udine.
Benedik, Francka (1999): Vodnik po zbirki za 
Slovenski lingvistični atlas (SLA). Ljubljana, Inštitut 
za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU.
Börc Hozjan, Jasna (2016): Besedje za hišo in 
orodja v izbranih prekmurskih govorih. Diplomsko 
delo. Maribor, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mari-
boru.
Cipot Hari, Laura (2016): Besedje za kmečko 
hišo in orodje v izbranih prekmurskih govorih. 
Diplomsko delo. Maribor, Filozofska fakulteta Uni-
verze v Mariboru.
Cossutta, Rada (1987): Slovenski dialektološki 
leksikalni atlas tržaške pokrajine (SDLA-TS). Trieste, 
Università degli studi di Trieste, Scuola superiore di 
lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori.
Cossutta, Rada (1996): Slovenski dialektološki 
leksikalni atlas koprske pokrajine (SDLA-Kp). Tri-
este [Rada Cossutta].
Cossutta, Rada (2005): Slovenski dialektološki 
leksikalni atlas slovenske Istre (SDLA-SI). Koper, 
Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-raziskovalno 
središče, Založba Annales, Zgodovinsko društvo za 
južno Primorsko.
Čižmárová, Libuše (2000): Jazykovy atlas ji-
hozápadní Moravy. Brno, Masarykova univerzyta.
Drvarič, Marisa (2015): Besedje s pomenskega 
polja “Kmetija” v izbranih prekmurskih govorih. 
Diplomsko delo. Maribor, Filozofska fakulteta Uni-
verze v Mariboru. 
Materials for the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas 
(SLA). Kept by the Dialectological Section of the 
Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language at 
ZRC SAZU.
Filipi, Goran (2002): Istrorumunjski lingvistički 
atlas. Pula, Znanstvena udruga Mediteran.
Filipi, Goran & Barbara Buršić Giudici (2012): 
Istromletački lingvistični atlas. Atlante Linguistico 
Istroveneto. Zagreb, Pula, Dominović, Znanstvena 
udruga Mediteran, Sveučilišče Jurja Dobrile u Puli.
Filipi, Goran & Barbara Buršić Giudici (2013): 
Lingvistički atlas pomorske terminologije istarskih 
govora. Atlante Linguistico della Terminologia 
Marinaresca delle Parlate Istriane. Lingvistični atlas 
pomorske terminologije istrskih govorov. Zagreb, 
Pula, Dominović, Znanstvena udruga Mediteran, 
Sveučilišče Jurja Dobrile u Puli.
Filipi, Goran & Barbara Buršić Giudici (2017): 
Istriotski lingvistički atlas. Atlante linguistico is-
trioto. Pula, Znanstvena udruga Mediteran.
Gere, Marija (1993): Govor Cankove. Diplomska 
naloga visokošolskega študija. Maribor, Pedagoška 
fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru.
Giljanović, Suzana (2011): Od izidu Narečnega 
atlasa slovenske Istre in Krasa (NASIK). Croatica 
Iadertina, 395–402.
Greenberg, L. Marc (1993): Glasoslovni opis 
treh prekmurskih govorov in komentar k zgodovin-
skemu glasoslovju in oblikoglasju prekmurskega 
narečja. Slavistična revija, 41, 4, 465–487.
Hafner, Stanislav & Erich Prunč (1980): Lexikalis-
che Inventarisierung der slowenischen Volkssprache 
in Kärnten: Grundsätzliches und Allgemeines. Graz, 
Institut für Slawistik der Universität Graz.
Hafner, Stanislav & Erich Prunč (1982): Schlüs-
sel zum Thesaurus der slowenischen Volkssprache 
in Kärnten. Vienna, Verlag der Österreichischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Kos, Milko (1935): Panonska krajina od naselitve 
Slovencev do prihoda Madžarov. Slovenska krajina. 
Zbornik ob petnajstletnici osvobojenja. Beltinci, 
Konzorcij, 16–20.
Koletnik, Mihaela (2015): Medjeziko-
vni stiki v besedju iz pomenskega polja kmetija v 
slovenskogoriškem narečju. Maribor, Mednarodna 
založba Oddelka za slovanske jezike in književnosti, 
Filozofska fakulteta.
Kumin Horvat, Mojca (2008): Narečna podoba 
Prekmurja (po gradivu za Slovenski lingvistični 
atlas). In: Jesenšek, Marko (ur.): Življenje in delo 
Jožefa Borovnjaka. Maribor, Filozofska fakulteta, 
Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti, Zora 
55, 235–256. 
Kumin Horvat, Mojca (2010): Izoglose v prek-
murskem narečju: regionalna geolingvistika. Slavia 
Centralis, 3, 2, 87–108.
Logar, Tine (1993): Slovenska narečja. Ljubljana, 
Mladinska knjiga.
Logar, Tine (1996): Dialektološke in jezikovnoz-
godovinske razprave. Ljubljana, ZRC SAZU, Inštitut 
za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša.
Małecki, Mieczysław & Kazimierz Nitsch (1934): 
Atlas językowy polskiego Podkarpacia. Kraków, 
Polska akademija umiejętności.
Pfandl, Heinrich (1981): K regionalni porazdel-
itvi izoleks v slovenskih narečjih na Koroškem. 
Slavistična revija, 29, 449–452.
Pucko, Renata (2015): Glasoslovni in obliko-
slovni oris dokležovskega govora. Diplomsko 
delo. Maribor, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v 
Mariboru.
Reichan, Jerzy & Kazimierz Woźniak (2004): 
Polskie atlasy dialektologiczne i etnograficzne. 
Kraków, Wydawnictwo Lexis. 
ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 32 · 2022 · 2
294
MOJCA KUMIN HORVAT: REGIONAL GEOLINGUISTICS – CASE STUDY OF PREKMURJE DIALECT, 277–294
Slavič, Matija (1999): Naše Prekmurje. Zbrane 
razprave in članki. Murska Sobota, Pomurska založba.
Škofic, Jožica et al. (2016a): Slovenski 
lingvistični atlas 2: kmetija, 1: atlas. Ljubljana, 
Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU (Jezikovni atlasi). 
Škofic, Jožica et al. (2016b): Slovenski lingvistični 
atlas 2: kmetija, 2: komentarji. Ljubljana, Založba 
ZRC, ZRC SAZU (Jezikovni atlasi). 
Škofic, Jožica (2020): Slovenian Dialects in Wen-
ker’s Sprachatlas des deutschen Reichs. In: Fleischer, 
Jürg (ed.): Minderheitensprachen und Sprachminder-
heiten: Deutsch und seine Kontaktsprachen in der 
Dokumentation der Wenker-Materialien, (Deutsche 
Dialektgeographie, 126). Hildesheim, Zürich, New 
York, G. Olms, 601–636.
Todorović, Suzana (2019): Istrskobeneški jeziko-
vni atlas severozahodne Istre 1. Atlante linguistico is-
troveneto dell’Istria nordoccidentale 1. Koper, Libris, 
italijanska unija, Osrednja knjižnica Srečka Vilharja. 
Todorović, Suzana (2020): Istrskobeneški jeziko-
vni atlas severozahodne Istre 2. Atlante linguistico 
istroveneto dell’Istria nordoccidentale 2. Koper, 
Libris, italijanska unija, Osrednja knjižnica Srečka 
Vilharja. 
Zorko, Zinka (1994): Panonska narečja. In: Ja-
vornik, Marjan et al. (ed.): Enciklopedija Slovenije, 
vol. 8, Nos–Pli. Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga, 232–233.
Zorko, Zinka (2005): Prekmursko narečje med 
Muro in Rabo na vseh jezikovnih ravninah prim-
erjalno z današnjim nadnarečnim prekmurskim 
knjižnim jezikom. In: Vugrinec, Jože et al. (ed.): 
Prekmurska narečna slovstvena ustvarjalnost. 
Zbornik mednarodnega znanstvenega srečanja. 
Murska Sobota, Ustanova dr. Šiftarjeva fundacija 
Petanjci, 47–69.
Zuljan Kumar, Danila (2016): O sporočilnosti 
jezikovnih atlasov: (Primerjava med zapisi v SLA, 
ALI in ASLEF). In: Jesenšek, Marko (ur.): Rojena 
v narečje: akademikinji prof. dr. Zinki Zorko ob 
80-letnici, Mednarodna knjižna zbirka Zora, 114. 
Maribor, Mednarodna založba Oddelka za slo-
vanske jezike in književnosti, Filozofska fakulteta, 
129–139.
Žejn, Andrejka (2006): Graški leksični razisko-
valni projekt – uresničevanje prvega delnega cilja. 
In: Koletnik, Mihaela & Vera Smole (ur.): Diahronija 
in sinhronija v dialektoloških raziskavah. Maribor, 
Slavistično društvo, Zora 41, 446–455.
Žejn, Andrejka (2014): Določitev poteka izoleks 
v slovenskih narečjih na avstrijskem Koroškem. 
Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulte-
ta Univerze v Ljubljani.