29
Variation of Spoken Slovene in 
the Case of Geographically Mobile 
Speakers 
Maja BITENC
Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani
Based on the pioneering variationist research on Slovene language material, 
the article explores the authentic language use of speakers of the Cerkno dia-
lect who commute daily or weekly to work or school in Slovenia’s capital, Lju-
bljana. The research corpus comprises excerpts from informants’ full-day au-
dio self-recordings, selected to represent variation of location, interlocutors, 
and conversation topic. Through a quantitative analysis of five phonological 
variables, the study reveals distinct language strategies with speakers of other 
varieties, resulting in a classification of one code-switcher, three code-mix-
ers, and one dialect speaker language strategies employed by the informants 
when communicating with speakers of other varieties, resulting in a classifica-
tion of code-switchers, code-mixers and dialect speakers. Furthermore, the 
qualitative data derived from interviews shed light on various sociopsycholo-
gical aspects of the focal topic, such as the informants’ perception of their own 
speech behaviour, their experiences with language use, and their language 
attitudes, providing deeper insights into their language variability and high-
lighting the intricacies of language choice and interpersonal communication.
Keywords: variation of spoken Slovene, Cerkno dialect, speakers’ profiles, 
self-recording, sociolinguistic interviews, language attitudes 
Bitenc, M.: Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile 
Speakers. Slovenščina 2.0, 11(2): 29–58. 
1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek / Original Scientific Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2023.2.29-58
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
30
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
1 Introduction
The aim of the research presented in this paper is to investigate of the 
diverse language practice and intralanguage variation of five mobile 
Slovene speakers of the Cerkno local dialect who commute daily or 
weekly to work or school in Slovenia’s capital, Ljubljana, as well as to 
examine some the relevant sociopsychological topics. 
The study aims to adapt and test the methodological approaches 
of variationist sociolinguistics (cf. the works of Labov (1972, 2004) 
and Tagliamonte (2006, 2012) and comparable research in other lan-
guage communities, as mentioned in section 3) on Slovene language 
material for the first time, and to define the typology of speech stra-
tegies in dialect contacts in the Slovene capital. It seeks to supersede 
the division and dichotomy of this research area in Slovene linguisti-
cs, where the idealized poles of standard language and dialect have 
been the main focus to date, and to establish a new foundation for re-
searching the field, the need and incentive for which has been expres-
sed previously in the expert literature (e.g., Kenda-Jež, 2004; Stabej, 
2010). The topics raised in this context seem to be very relevant to 
Slovene due to its high level of geographical language diversity, espe-
cially in an age of increasingly pronounced geographical mobility.
Studying language variation, particularly in mobile speakers who 
move between regions and bring different speech varieties and di-
alectal features into contact, offers valuable insights into the actu-
al language use and the sociolinguistic factors that influence indivi-
duals’ language behaviour, such as age, gender, education, social ne-
tworks, personal history, characteristics, and linguistic experiences. 
Besides, examining how varieties interact and evolve contributes to 
a better understanding of the processes of language change. Mobi-
lity and exposure to different speech varieties also influence individu-
als’ language attitudes and self-perception. By exploring how mobile 
speakers adapt to different interlocutors and negotiate their lingui-
stic identities in diverse contexts, we gain insights into the complex 
relationship between language and identity. This understanding can 
help speakers navigate linguistic landscapes, connect effectively with 
others, and achieve success in personal and professional domains. 
31
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
Additionally, such research advances various fields related to langua-
ge and society, sheds light on issues of social integration and inclusi-
on, power relations between the centre and periphery, and the dyna-
mics between standard and non-standard varieties. Understanding 
the linguistic experiences and challenges faced by mobile individuals 
promotes inclusive language policies, educational programmes, and 
social support systems that foster linguistic diversity, diminish lingui-
stic stereotypes and prejudices, and ensure equal opportunities for all 
(Labov, 1972; Edwards, 2009; Auer and Schmidt, 2010; Tagliamonte, 
2012; Milroy, 2002). 
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides 
an overview of the sociolinguistic situation regarding the Slovene lan-
guage and the Idrija region. Section 3 offers a brief review of relevant 
previous work, with a particular focus on the European and Slovene 
contexts. The research presentation focuses on two younger infor-
mants, both high school students.1 The methodological framework 
is presented in Section 4, while Section 5 presents the results and 
discussion. Subsections 4.1 and 5.1 deal with the quantitative varia-
tionist study data, while subsections 4.2 and 5.2 explore the qualita-
tive sociolinguistic interviews. Section 6 concludes the paper with a 
discussion of the findings and an assessment of their potential impli-
cations for future research directions.
2 The sociolinguistic situation in Slovenia and the 
Idrija region 
The sociolinguistic situation regarding Slovene, a South Slavic langu-
age now spoken by approximately 2.4 million speakers,2 is charac-
terized by several distinctive features. Firstly, there is a significant 
geographical diversity of the language, encompassing seven dialect 
groups and over 40 local dialects and subdialects (cf. Škofic et al., 
2011, p. 11). Additionally, Slovene has a long history of serving as an 
L-language in diglossic relations with German, Italian, Hungarian and 
Serbo-Croatian. Furthermore, the standardization of the written and 
1 Two adult female informants are presented in detail in Bitenc and Kenda-Jež (2015).
2 For a general overview of the Slovene sociolinguistic situation, see Greenberg (1997) and 
Bitenc (2013).
32
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
spoken language exhibits an asymmetric nature. While the unificati-
on of the written language and the abandonment of regional literary 
traditions originated from the second half of the 19th century, the de-
velopment of a unified spoken standard was not as well-established 
and regional varieties continue to be observed (cf. Pogorelec, 1984; 
Toporišič, 2000; Stabej, 2010). The Slovene language territory exhi-
bits complex patterns of social and regional stratification of language 
varieties, with various dialects featuring different levels of prestige 
and distance from the standard Slovene, as well variations in mutu-
al intelligibility (cf. Bitenc, 2013, pp. 58–61; Bitenc and Kenda-Jež, 
2015, pp. 31–32). The classic Slovene theory of language varieties 
(Toporišič, 2000, pp. 13–27) presents dialect variability in terms of 
the division between standard (“literary”) and non-standard (“non- 
literary”) varieties.3 According to critical reflections on the theory, this 
schematic and rigid interpretation of different language forms and 
communicative situations can neither explain nor take into account 
the real sociolinguistic situation in the language community (Stabej, 
2010, p. 198). Slovene linguistics, with its prevailing structuralist ori-
entation until the end of the 20th century, has predominantly focused 
on traditional dialects as well as standard (“literary”) language, since 
these were supposed to be the only varieties with a systemic chara-
cter (Smole, 2004, pp. 321–324). The majority of language observati-
on and description has been based on introspection, and in the theory 
of standard language, the Czech model of Common Czech has been 
adapted to the Slovene situation (Pogorelec, 1998). 
Slovene sociolinguistics has been characterized by special histo-
rical circumstances in the Slovene language territory and has gone 
chiefly in the direction of (standard) language policy and planning, 
dealing with bi- or multilingualism, language as an indicator of inte-
rethnic relations, language ideologies, and so on (Nećak Lük, 1998; 
Stabej, 2010). The need and incentive for a systematic empirical in-
vestigation of spoken Slovene and its variability have been expressed 
3 Standard (literary) varieties include formal language and “common” or standard colloquial 
language; non-standard (non-literary) varieties include rural dialects, regional interdialects, 
slang, jargon and cant (Toporišič, 2000, pp. 13–27). In the theory, the Czech model of the 
Prague School with “spisovný jazyk” and “obecná čeština” has been adapted to the Slovene 
situation (cf. Pogorelec, 1998, p. 59; Wilson, 2010, pp. 34–39).
33
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
previously in the expert literature (Pogorelec, 1998; Kenda-Jež, 2004; 
Stabej, 2010), but it is only recently that concrete suggestions and 
relevant research have appeared to address this gap. 
The Cerkno dialect, spoken in the Idrija region, which is about 60 
kilometres to the west of Ljubljana, belongs to the Rovte dialect gro-
up, whose structural development differs from the general Slovene 
tendencies. The dialect in noticeably different from varieties selected 
as the basis for standard Slovene, and in comparison with the urban 
dialect of Ljubljana there are noticeable differences in phonological 
system, morphology and lexicon, the most salient of which is the re-
tention of vocalic quantitative oppositions (cf. Bitenc and Kenda-Jež, 
2015, pp. 32–33). The dialect has high status and prestige in the Idri-
ja region and is generally also used in semiformal contexts. This can 
be attributed to long communication isolation and the period of Slove-
ne-Italian diglossia during the Italian occupation of the region in the 
interwar period (Kenda-Jež, 2002, p. 67), when the dialect was the 
only variety of Slovene that was used in the region and therefore de-
veloped greater functional flexibility. The city of Idrija is known for ha-
ving the second largest mercury mine in the world, whose begin nings 
date back to the late 15th century, and has a remarkable history not 
only in the economic-technical field, but also in the areas of culture 
and education4 (Kleindienst, 1995, pp. 9–12). It has an important role 
as a regional centre, and lies at the intersection of the influential regi-
ons of two urban centres, Ljubljana and Nova Gorica (Fridl et al., 2001, 
p. 97), the latter on the border with Italy, which also testifies to its 
specific sociolinguistic situation. According to demographic data from 
censuses from the second half of the 20th century, the level of educati-
on and the proportion of the population in employment has increased 
significantly. The size of the working population with a residence in 
Idrija and a workplace in Ljubljana doubled from 2000 to 2011 (from 
237 to 492 inhabitants). In 2002, some 1,114 of 2,682 school and 
university students residing in Idrija attended educational institutions 
in municipalities located in other statistical regions. Among the daily 
4 The first Slovene theatre was founded in Idrija in 1780 and the first Slovene high school with 
Slovene as the prevailing language of instruction in 1901.
34
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
commuters, the majority commuted to the municipality of Ljubljana5 
(cf. also Bitenc, 2016b, pp. 164–169).
Recent surveys of the Cerkno dialect for the Slovene and Slavic 
atlases have enabled a detailed phonological description of the Cerkno 
dialect (e. g. Rigler, 1981 and Kenda-Jež, 2002). Also relevant for the 
present research is a discussion of the potential classification of the lo-
cal dialect of Idrija as a subdialect of the Cerkno dialect (Skalin, 2002). 
3 Relevant studies in the Slovene and European 
context
In Slovene linguistics, there has been a strong focus on the study of 
traditional dialects, reflecting a dichotomous view on language va-
riability (cf. section 2). Extensive efforts at documenting traditional 
dialects have resulted in a substantial corpus of dialectal material, 
compiled through highly structured interviews conducted with non-
-mobile, older rural informants, and partly presented in dialectologi-
cal atlases (Škofic, 2011; Škofic, Gostenčnik, Kumin Horvat, Jakop, 
Kenda-Jež et al., 2016). Dialectological studies of city dialects are 
rare, however, which can be attributed to the strict theoretical division 
between rural and city dialects (literally “city speech”) in Slovene lin-
guistics (Kenda-Jež, 2004, p. 270). 
The central variant of the capital Ljubljana and its surroundings 
has been the object of phonological studies conducted on unrepre-
sentative samples of speakers and connected with standardization 
and spoken standard planning since the second half of the 20th cen-
tury (cf. Rigler, 1970–1978; Srebot Rejec, 1988; Jurgec, 2011). A 
million-word corpus of spoken Slovene known as GOS6 (Verdonik and 
Zwitter Vitez, 2011) has been compiled, but in order for its material 
to be used as a basis for variationist investigation, more data about 
speakers’ base dialects and more detailed transcription, especially 
for potential phonological studies, would be necessary. 
In two relevant studies on the variation of spoken Slovene, Gu-
zej (1989) investigated the regional variation of migrants, a couple 
5 http://www.stat.si/StatWeb/
6 www.korpus-gos.net
35
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
migrating from Slovenske gorice and Kozjansko to Gorenjska, while 
Škofic-Guzej (1994) analysed the speech of high school students from 
Mengeš and Beltinci in Ljubljana. Other studies of the spoken langua-
ge have focused on different specific research questions, such as dis-
course markers and self-corrections (Verdonik, 2007), and text types 
in spontaneous speech (Smolej, 2012). 
There have been a number of questionnaire studies on different 
samples about the use of dialects and attitudes to them on the basis 
of informants’ self-assessment, e.g., Smole (2004), Lundberg (2014) 
(partly with the methodological approaches of perceptual dialecto-
logy), and Zemljak Jontes and Pulko (2019). In a questionnaire sur-
vey, attitudes towards different sociolects were investigated (Skubic, 
2005) and two experiments with the socio-psychological methodo-
logy of the matched-guise technique focused on language attitudes 
regarding spoken standard Slovene and a distinctive Cerkno local dia-
lect (Bitenc, 2014a and 2014b). 
In the European context, linguists from different language com-
munities have explored different aspects of dialect change, in parti-
cular dialect convergence or divergence (Auer, Hinskens and Kerswill, 
2005). The studies demonstrate the important structural impact of 
the addition of a standard variety to the language repertoire of large 
parts of the population as a consequence of modernization and mo-
bility in European societies, the centralization of the state, the spread 
of mass media, and changes in the education system. However, the 
outcomes of dialect change in various sociolinguistic situations show 
significant diversity. They range from situations where traditional dia-
lects are nearly extinct, to those where the influence of the standard 
variety on the dialect is strong but still permits vital regiolects and 
base dialects, and to situations where the standard variety plays a re-
latively minor role in the ongoing dialectal changes (Auer, 1998). Eu-
ropean sociolinguists have also dealt with the various social reasons 
for variety shifts and changes in the course of social and communica-
tive modernization, with a special emphasis on migration (Mattheier, 
2000). Within a project that transcends European frames, researchers 
have focused on the connection between language and space in the 
investigation of linguistic variation (Auer and Schmidt, 2010). 
36
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
Especially relevant are sociolinguistic studies in environments 
that are close to the Slovene sociolinguistic situation in terms of di-
alect diversity or the structure of language varieties (Germany, the 
Czech Republic, Norway, Denmark). Notable among these are the in-
vestigation of the linguistic behaviour of inhabitants of Erftstadt-Erp, 
a small town near Cologne (Besch, 1981 and 1983), the analysis of 
changes in German regiolects and (regional) dialects (Schmidt and 
Herrgen, 2011), the examination of linguistic accommodation among 
Moravian university students in Prague (Wilson, 2010), the qualitative 
exploration of linguistic variation among Norwegians who have migra-
ted to Oslo from rural areas (Mæhlum, 1986), and an investigation 
of language change in real time among mobile and non-mobile infor-
mants from three Danish towns (Monka, 2013).7 The insights of these 
studies have significantly influenced the conceptualization of the re-
search in different ways. They employed a combination of quantita-
tive and qualitative methods to analyse and explain the informants’ 
linguistic behaviour, using variationist analysis and a range of various 
phonological and morphological variables. Most of them focused on 
mobile informants, where the potential to observe intermediate lin-
guistic phenomena is bigger, and used an interview-based research 
design, involving different interlocutors with different language vari-
eties. Schmidt and Herrgen (2011) paid special attention to the di-
alect-standard continuum and potentially more stable intermediate 
varieties, while Besch (1981 and 1983) characterized different types 
of speakers’ profiles and speech strategies in interactions with vari-
ous interlocutors. 
4 Methodology
The research is a pilot investigation, focusing on in-depth case studies 
of five informants: three females (Ula, Ita, and Eva) and two males 
(Jan and Tim).8 Among the participants, three were adults (Ita, Eva, 
7 A detailed description and critical evaluation of the methodological approaches for these 
and other studies can be found in Bitenc (2016b, pp. 123–155 for the Slovene language 
community and pp. 83–96 for other language communities).
8 To maintain the informants’ anonymity, their names are changed in the context of the 
research and the article.
37
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
and Tim), while two were high school students (Ula and Jan). This ar-
ticle specifically focuses on two younger informants to provide a com-
prehensive illustration of the research process and to highlight the 
intricate relationship between their life stories and speech profiles.
4.1 Variationist study
4.1.1 Speech recordings and domains
With the aim of observing authentic language use and diminishing 
observer’s paradox, the technique of informants’ full-day audio self-
-recording was used in the present study to provide the material for 
the variationist analysis. For the duration of one entire day, the infor-
mants wore a voice recorder (Olympus Digital Voice Recorder WS-
-210S) in a small bag on their chest. The research corpus is based on a 
text selection from all of the collected material according to different 
criteria: especially the interlocutors and the topic of the conversation, 
but also the time, place and formality of the situation. The individu-
al informants’ particularities, as well as the potential for comparing 
functionally similar speech situations, were taken into account when 
defining the domains. 
The life circumstances and everyday dynamics of the two high 
school students included in the study were so different that it was 
impossible to define the same domains for both of them. Ula and Jan 
both have the domains of local friends and teachers (in public). In ad-
dition, Ula has the domains of a roommate and other peers from el-
sewhere, whereas for Jan, on the other hand, there are the domains of 
peers at both regular school and at music school. Jan also had some 
conversations with two teachers during breaks (the teachers’ parts 
of these were kept private) and there was a recording of communal 
prayer (Our Father and Glory be to the Father) at church.9
9 For the adults, the majority of the speech recordings belong to four main domains: local 
friends, children, and work colleagues, the latter being divided into the domains of casual 
topics (holidays, children, housing issues, etc.) and expert topics (professional work).
38
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
4.1.2 Transcriptions and phonological variables 
The recordings were transcribed orthographically, using the 25 letters 
of the Slovene alphabet and phonetic symbols for specific dialect fe-
atures (variables).10 
The central part of the investigation is an analysis of five phono-
logical variables (three vowel variables and two consonant variables), 
chosen on the basis of previous observation (the author is a dialect 
speaker and used to be a commuter herself) and dialect research in 
the area (Kenda-Jež, 1999, 2002):
(1) Variable (ɔ): unstressed central /ɔ/ ↔ local dialect /a/ (the result of 
“akanje”)11
s[a] sɛ u ˈbistu ˈtiː [a]tp[ɔ]ˈwiːdal ˈdiːlɛʒu dɛ jɛ kmɛˈtija [a]sˈtaːla ɛˈnɔtna 
‘in fact they gave up their share so that the farm remained unified’
(2) Variable (oː): central /oː/↔ local dialect /uː/, /uo/
a j ˈt[oː] ʒɛ prɛˈwɛʧ? : ˈt[uː] ˈzɛj dɛˈlujɛ 
‘is this too much already?’ : ‘this is now working’
(3) Variable (eː): central /eː/ ↔ local dialect /iː/, /ie/
uˈr[iː]dnu ɔˈɣlɛda : ˈr[eː]dnɔ ɔˈglɛda 
‘worth seeing’ : ‘worth seeing’
(4) Variable (g): central /g/, [k] ↔ local dialect /ɣ/, [x]
ˈlɔpɔʋɔ pa na ˈmuorʃ ˈjet paˈ[ɣ]liedat : ˈti si ˈrːku de bi ˈʃɔ pɔˈ[g]
leːdat ˈlɔpɔwe 
‘you can’t go and see villains’  : ‘you said you would go and see 
villains’
(5) Variable (ʋ): central /ʋ/ (before vocals) ↔ local dialect /w/
ˈtɛ zuˈnanjɛ s[w]ɛtɔˈ[ʋ]aːʦe sɔ ˈrɛk dɛ nɛ ˈbɔjɛ ˈliːtas ˈnɛʧ upɔˈraːblɛl 
‘they said they wouldn’t use these outside advisers at all this year’ 
In addition, attention is paid to certain morphological variables 
and lexicon. Due to the limited material (the relatively small number 
of tokens), the results are not subject to statistical analysis. Testing 
10 A narrow phonetic transcription was used for the first two, adult female informants. The 
simplification of transcription conventions enabled a larger database while still preserving 
an adequate level of transcription detail (cf. Tagliamonte, 2006, p. 54). 
11 The development of Protoslovene unstressed and short stressed *o > a.
39
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
the reliability of the obtained results with additional data analysis did 
not reveal any significant changes in distribution patterns.12 
4.2 Sociolinguistic interviews
Qualitative data were gathered in sociolinguistic interviews (approxi-
mately three hours of recordings for Ula and Jan), conducted by the 
researcher, a dialect speaker herself, with the individual informants. 
The interviews took place soon after the self-recording. The main to-
pics and open-ended questions were prepared in advance, but the 
interviewer conducted the interview relatively freely, allowing the in-
terviewees to elaborate and reflect upon issues especially relevant to 
them, and to influence the course of the conversation. The atmosphere 
during the interviews was generally relaxed and pleasant, although it 
did vary to some extent depending on the location (a café with Ula and 
a school hall with Jan), the timing, and the relationship between the 
informant and the researcher as an ex-member of the local community 
(Ula is an acquaintance of the interviewer, whereas she met Jan due to 
the research). The rich discourse with many personal stories both from 
the interviewees and the interviewer allowed for in-depth analyses of 
conversational contributions with reflections and emotions that could 
have remained unnoticed in a more constrained context. 
All of the relevant parts of the interviews were transcribed. In re-
lation to the transcriptions for the variationist study, conventions were 
further simplified, but the transcriptions still enable observation of va-
riables in the interviews. The selections were sorted according to dif-
ferent topics, and thematic conversational analysis was carried out.13 
After collecting basic data (informant’s family background, perso-
nal history, education, social network, personal interests and charac-
teristics), special attention was paid to the informants’ perception of 
their own speech behaviour, their language attitudes, their experience 
with language use and the connection between language and identity.
12 It is planned to use the results as a basis for a more extensive research project investigating 
spoken language in a larger geographical area, with adequate exploration techniques 
(distributional analysis and cross-tabulation).
13 All of the transcriptions as well as the excerpts according to different topics are available on 
the CD that forms a supplement to Bitenc (2016a).
40
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
5 Results and discussion
5.1 Speech patterns
A comparison of informants shows that they differ even in the vari-
eties they use in the local environment, which can be explained by 
the fact that their parents originate from – and they themselves have 
resided in – different towns in the Idrija region. Jan grew up in Idri-
ja, acquired the local Idrija dialect in his childhood and retained it 
after moving to another town in the vicinity (Godovič), which can be 
attributed to the special status of the Idrija local dialect as a variety 
of the regional educational, cultural and administrative centre. Ula 
grew up in Kanomlja with the Kanomlja local dialect. Probably due 
to her father’s Idrija origins and contacts with other people from the 
area, Ula soon acquired the characteristics of the Idrija local dialect, 
which were also prevalent in her speech at the time of the recording. 
For the variationist study, the total length of Ula’s recordings is 17 hr 
59 min 42 sec, while the total length of Jan’s recordings is 11 hr 56 
min 22 sec. For Ula, 16 excerpts were selected for analysis with a 
length of 30 min 33 sec (individual excerpts last from 6 sec to 4 min 
36 sec, whereas for Jan, 13 excerpts with a total length of 48 min 
52 sec were selected (individual excerpts last from 13 sec to 12 min 
48 sec). Ula mostly discussed school issues and plans for seaside 
holidays with her peers. She also answered her teacher’s questions 
in an oral examination at a history lesson. As a promising musician, 
Jan mostly conversed about music and concerts with his peers as 
well as his teachers. At an English lesson he took an active part in a 
discussion about current issues regarding this school subject.
The proportions of dialect variants for different domains (Ta-
ble 1) show that Ula uses two distinctively separate codes that she 
mostly refers to as idrijščina14 (Idrija local dialect) and ljubljanščina 
(Ljubljana urban dialect); her graph (Figure 1, top left) is also distinc-
tively divided in two. Although she claims that she speaks the Idrija 
local dialect with her roommates, the proportion of dialect variants 
is lower in this variety than in the variety she uses with local friends 
14 The expressions taken and translated from informants’ narratives are written in italics.
41
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
(87% in comparison with 96%). In her ljubljanščina (colloquial spe-
ech of Ljubljana) or pravilna slovenščina (correct Slovene), a certain 
share of dialect variants remains (17% with peers from elsewhere, 
including her boyfriend, and 9% with teachers). 
Table 1: Different domains and the distribution of variables for Ula and Jan
Variable Local friends
Roommate 
(Ula) / Peers 
at school 
(Jan)
Peers from 
elsewhere 
(Ula) / Peers at 
music school 
(Jan)
Teachers 
private 
Teachers 
public Prayer 
Ula Jan Ula Jan Ula Jan / Jan Ula Jan / Jan
(ɔ)
89/15 82/8 23/8 19/9 3/65 14/9 / 5/12 0/16 7/27 / 0/6
86 91 74 68 4 61 / 29 0 21 / 0
(ː)
119/1 129/5 23/1 43/11 21/56 20/12 / 7/9 1/6 15/13 / 0/5
99 96 86 80 27 63 / 44 14 54 / 0
(ː)
61/2 81/1 15/0 29/2 14/35 17/0 / 11/2 0/3 11/9 / 0/2
97 99 100 94 29 100 / 85 0 55 / 0
(g)
77/1 63/2 9/1 28/1 3/70 13/4 / 9/9 0/7 13/9 / 2/1
99 97 90 97 4 76 / 50 0 59 / 67
(ʋ)
123/0 124/0 26/1 47/0 15/74 37/3 / 12/1 4/10 16/5 / 1/10
100 100 96 100 17 93 / 92 29 76 / 9
Average 96 96 87 88 17 79 / 60 9 52 / 15
Note. The first row for each variable: number of dialect/standard variants, the second row: 
percentages of dialect variants.
Examining the number and average value of dialect variants 
in different domains for Jan (Table 1), a gradual decrease can be 
observed from 96% with local friends, through 88% and 79% with 
peers at school and music school, to 60% and 52% with teachers 
private and public, and finally 15% in the case of prayer. Jan has a 
diverse language repertoire with more intermediate speech varieties 
with different proportions of dialect variants for individual variables, 
but his speech remains substantially dialectally coloured even in the 
most formal conversations with his teachers. He is aware of the va-
riability of his speech and accurately states that he is sometimes re-
ally half way between the dialect and the standard, but would hardly 
ever totally switch. In the comparative graph (Figure 1, bottom left), 
42
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
Jan’s domains of teachers public and private are combined, whereas 
the domain of prayer is omitted. 
Even a cursory glance at the shares of dialect variants reveals a 
surprisingly accurate match in Ula’s and Jan’s conversations with lo-
cal friends (96% for both) and in the column with those peers from 
elsewhere to whom the informants feel closest (Ula’s roommate 87% 
and Jan’s school friends 88%). However, in the others columns – with 
the share for Ula’s peers from elsewhere and Jan’s peers at music 
school, as well as for teachers – the differences between Ula and Jan 
are considerable and clearly reveal the fact that they use very diffe-
rent language strategies with the majority of speakers of other vari-
eties. Jan’s speech remains rather dialectally coloured and his local 
origin and identity are recognizable in all domains. Even in his com-
munication with peers at music school and with teachers, the propor-
tion of dialect variants is 79% and 60% or 52 %, respectively. Ula, on 
the other hand, changes her speech to such an extent that only rare 
dialect traces remain and her speech is, as she herself reports, distin-
guished as dialect only by the most linguistically sensitive listeners. In 
her communication with peers from elsewhere and with teachers the 
share of dialect variants is 17% and 9%, respectively. 
In Ljubljana, both Ula and Jan use two different varieties with 
peers from elsewhere, but the criteria according to which they ca-
tegorize them are different. For Ula, the criterion is the time when 
she met certain people: with a roommate from the Gorenjska region, 
she uses markedly dialectally coloured speech, which she attributes 
to the fact that they became acquainted just after she came to Lju-
bljana, when she was not yet used to code-switching.15 Other peers 
15 The concepts of code-switching and code-mixing (and borrowing) are dealt with from 
different points of view and defined in different ways by different authors; there is no 
commonality of practice and it seems difficult to distinguish clearly between the terms. 
They mostly refer to language choice between two or more languages, but also embrace 
variation within the same language (different language varieties, dialects, styles or registers). 
Some scholars have reserved code-switching for cases where the two codes maintain their 
monolingual characteristics and code-mixing for those with some convergence between the 
two (Gardner-Chloros, 2009, pp. 10–13; Fasold, 1987, pp. 180–183). In the context of this 
research, we use the terms in congruence with the German sociolinguistic project Erfstadt/
Erp (e.g., Besch, 1983; Niebaum and Macha, 2014, p. 198). Code-switching refers to the 
linguistic and communicative behaviour where varieties (dialect and standard) maintain 
their relative coherence, whereas in the case of code-mixing, different shares of dialect and 
standard variants of investigated variables are combined. 
43
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
from elsewhere include all of the peers not from Idrija whom Ula 
got to know later on during her school years in Ljubljana, when her 
speech profile was already different and her ljubljanščina was alre-
ady the natural choice for communication with people from other 
regions. For Jan, the criterion is the closeness and time spent with 
his colleagues: his speech is more dialectally coloured with peers 
at regular school, with whom he spends more time and has a closer 
relationship, then with peers from music school, whom he knows 
less personally. 
The results of the variationist part of the study show that different 
types of speakers exist and that we can often speak about continuum-
-like transitions between the dialect and the standard. The informants 
use different linguistic strategies: the distribution of dialect variants in 
different domains shows that Ula uses two distinctive codes with lo-
cal friends and speakers in Ljubljana, whereas Jan retains a relatively 
high percentage of dialect variants in most domains and approaches 
the standard more significantly only when talking to teachers. Using 
terminology from German sociolinguistics (Erfstadt/Erp Projekt; e.g., 
Besch, 1983; Niebaum and Macha, 2014, p. 198), we can label the 
informants as a code-switcher (Ula) and a code-mixer (Jan), although 
Jan approaches the profile of a dialect speaker with a high percentage 
of dialect variants in their communication with different collocutors in 
Ljubljana (Figure 1).16 
16 The adult male informant, Tim, stands as a clear example of a dialect speaker, as evidenced 
by the high percentage of dialect variants observed in all domains. On the other hand, the 
two adult female informants, Ita and Eva, can be classified as code mixers. Eva employs the 
dialect when interacting with local friends, while displaying a gradual yet significant shift 
towards the standard in the remaining three domains: conversing with children and engaging 
with work colleagues on both casual and expert topics. Ita’s profile aligns more closely with 
Jan’s, with a more pronounced shift towards the standard observed primarily in Ljubljana 
during interactions with work colleagues on expert subjects. 
44
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
Figure 1: Speakers’ profiles and distribution of variables according to different domains for 
the younger informants.
Code-mixers’ intermediate forms, in particular, enable the infor-
mants to express a kind of double or ambivalent geographical, social 
and linguistic identity, i.e., social identification with more codes and 
social groups simultaneously, which can be paralleled with the consi-
deration of all language activity as expressions of “acts of identity” (Le 
Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985). Code-mixers’ hybrid repertoire with 
gradual transitions or relative accommodation can also be interpreted 
in terms of “strategies of neutrality”. In uncertain situations, spea-
kers tend to use a linguistic variety that is neutral to attributes that 
they perceive as salient in the situation, attempting to use favourable 
aspects of potentially salient attributes of each variety to their advan-
tage (Scotton, 1976, p. 940; cf. Mæhlum, 2000, pp. 104–105). The 
informants’ language situation can be described as uncertain to some 
extent, and their preferred strategies can be interpreted as neutral. 
Due to the small number of informants, it is not possible to deter-
mine the relationship between social factors and variability. However, 
it can be observed that the greater proportion of dialect variants with 
the male informants is in line with the so-called “sociolinguistic gen-
der pattern”’ (cf. Fasold, 1996, p. 92), which refers to males speakers’ 
tendency to use forms that are considered wrong or stigmatized more 
frequently than female speakers (cf. also Tagliamonte, 2012, pp. 
32–33). The difference between younger informants, Ula and Jan, is 
considerable in Ljubljana – with Ula’s peers from elsewhere and Jan’s 
45
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
peers at music school, as well as for teachers – Jan’s speech remains 
rather dialectally coloured, whereas Ula keeps only rare dialect traces 
in her speech (see Section 6.1 for detailed proportion of dialect vari-
ants in different domains). 
In addition, there is an obvious use of slang in the speech of both 
high school students, which is typical for the period of adolescence 
and serves young people as a marker of ingroup membership and a 
deviation from the norms of their elders (Chambers, 2003, pp. 186–
189). Both Ula and Jan use common slang expressions, some of whi-
ch derive from English. Examples include ˈful (slang for totally) and 
ˈtip (a guy). In addition, Ula very often says ˈsori (sorry), də ˈbest (the 
best) and ̍ fọːra (a joke), as well as using jargon from the school enviro-
nment, such as kˈlaːs (slang for ‘class’), prˈfoksa (teacher), zaˈliwat (cut 
classes), ˈmata (maths), zˈγodla (history) and ˈbajla (biology). Jan uses 
ˈkul (cool), ˈzakon (great) and ˈbadžet (budget), as well as using expert 
and jargon expressions in conversations about music, such as ˈjaːki 
koˈmaːt (nice song) and špˈrudlat (play badly). 
Considering the concept of the linguistic market and the connec-
tion between language use and education or profession (Sankoff and 
Laberge, 1978; cf. Ash, 2008, pp. 413–414), the relevance of Ula’s 
role of “technician of language” in their professional engagement can 
be pointed out. Her assistant work at expert meetings presented a sti-
mulus for the use of the standard variety. She claims that at her expert 
work or at conferences with that high society the dialect wouldn’t be 
acceptable, they would look at you strangely – it’s not appropriate, it 
doesn’t fit, which demonstrates that competence in the standard is 
associated with social success (cf. Mæhlum, 2010). 
5.1.1 The envelope of variation 
Different variables show different tendencies and the analysis de-
monstrates that vowel variables change to a greater extent than con-
sonant variables. (ɔ) is changed first and has the lowest percentage of 
dialect variants for all informants and in most domains,17 so it may be 
17 A common share of dialect variants for all informants was 47% for the variable (ɔ), 68% for 
(eː), 73% for (g), 77% for (oː) and 80% for (ʋ).
46
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
possible to speak about a dialect change in progress for this variable. 
However, it seems to be below the informants’ level of consciousness, 
as it is never mentioned in the interviews. A voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ 
of variable (g), on the other hand, proves to be a salient feature, a 
stereotype (cf. Labov, 1972, pp. 314–317). It was most difficult to di-
stinguish between the standard and the dialect variant for the variable 
(ʋ), especially with noise on the recordings and a fast speech tempo. 
For the variable (ɔ), there were also cases with intermediate sounds 
that were difficult to define as either /a/, /o/ or perhaps /ә/. Interme-
diate or interdialectal phenomena that are part of neither the dialect 
nor the standard can be interpreted as a result of numerous strategies 
of code-mixing and code-switching.18 It seems important to point out 
that, according to Auer and Hinskens (2005, p. 356): 
the driving force behind change in the individual, and also in the 
community, is not imitation of the language of one’s interlocutor but, 
rather, an attempt to assimilate one’s language to the possibly stereo-
typed characteristics of a group one wants to be part of, or resemble. 
In order to properly define the envelope of variation, certain items 
that behave differently from other members of their class and show 
no variation were excluded from the analysis (cf. Labov, 2004, p. 7; Ta-
gliamonte, 2012, p. 13), which holds true mostly for vowel variables. 
An additional questionnaire was completed by the informants and 
two language experts and dialect speakers in order to define these 
items.19 The informants agreed that certain loanwords that pertain to 
18 Ula and Jan (also Tim) use a few typical reflexes of the Idrija local dialect, among them the 
diphthong o as the reflex of o, which acquired stress following the regressive accent shift 
from word-final short syllables onto pretonic short vowels, and short acute o in word-final 
syllables. This sound is, however, interchanged with long and narrow o-s and interdialectal 
short o-s, most often in frequently used lexemes, such as ˈpo(l)/ˈpọː(l)/ˈpo(l) (then, later) or 
ˈdol/ˈdọːl/ˈdol (down). Participant observation and some experts’ comments show that the 
decrease in the use of the diphthongs in Idrija local speech occurs not only in the speech of 
geographically mobile speakers, but also with non-mobile inhabitants, especially among the 
younger generations, so we might speak of dialect change in progress.
19 For each lexeme, where there was a dilemma as to whether to regard an individual case 
as a variant of a variable, the two experts as well as the informant whose utterance was in 
question stated whether or not they would use the word with the dialect variant, as well. For 
40 of the 112 questionable examples, all three agreed that they would not, whereas for the 
other 72 words their opinions differed. In the latter cases, the answer that occurred twice 
was taken into account. 
47
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
expert language do not have dialect variants (e.g., patɔlɔˈgija ‘patho-
logy’ and ɔdˈʋɛtniʃke stɔˈritʋɛ ‘lawyer services’) as well as certain pro-
per names (e.g., ˈseːʧa, the name of the coastal town Seča, or poˈloːna, 
the female personal name Polona). Interesting examples also inclu-
de lexical items that can be used with the dialect variant when used 
as common nouns (e.g., ˈdiːlu (dialect) vs. ˈdeːlo (standard) for ‘work’), 
but would only be used with the standard variant when used as proper 
nouns (ˈdeːlo as the name of the Slovene newspaper Delo). Similarly, 
words such as ˈneːɣa ‘care’ or ˈdoːm ‘home’ have common dialect va-
riants ˈniːɣa and ˈduːm, whereas they are never used with the dialect 
variant when used in a set phrase or in an idiom: ˈneːɣa otˈrɔːka ‘child 
care’ as a school subject or diˈjaːʃki ˈdoːm ‘boarding school’.
5.2 Participant reflection
5.2.1 Language attitudes and experiences with language use
All of the informants assign great significance to the Cerkno dialect 
for their personal and local identity, but demonstrate different langu-
age attitudes towards their own dialects. The two younger informants 
express mainly positive feelings about it (Jan says it is great and so-
mething special, Ula finds it really interesting and nice, as it is so unu-
sual). In contrast, the adult females, in particular, comment relatively 
negatively about it (they describe it as hilly and clumsy, not beautiful, 
hard and coarse). This may be interpreted as an indication of a gene-
rational shift towards greater acceptance of and increasing tolerance 
towards nonstandard regional varieties, as well as the growing orien-
tation towards local and regional identity, also referred to as the “dia-
lect renaissance” (Auer et al., 2005, p. 36). 
When people from elsewhere comment on the informants’ dialect 
or dialectally coloured speech, they typically say it is interesting (Ula) 
and beautiful (Ula); it varies the atmosphere (Jan). They often smile 
(Ula) or make fun of it in a nice way; Jan points out that he has never 
found out whether they like it or whether it bothers them. Jan says that 
he somehow feels if the dialect doesn’t suit somebody and thinks it mi-
ght be intrusive for some people if…[he] spoke entirely in the dialect all 
48
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
the time. Ula and Eva have experienced that people in Ljubljana urged 
dialect speakers from Idrija region to learn how to speak.
The informants report a prevailingly negative attitude towards 
the inhabitants of Ljubljana and their speech, which is connected 
with non-linguistic characteristics in the sense of commodity and su-
periority. Ula says that the inhabitants of Ljubljana treat their dialect 
as holy, whereas Jan claims that some simper and madly like to use 
English expressions, whereas others speak very beautifully and their 
speech isn’t disturbing. 
The informants report that collocutors often do not understand 
what they say, and that their reaction depends on the individual. For 
Ula, this was a reason for accommodation: It really got on my nerves 
when I was explaining something and then somebody asked: “What 
did you actually say?” Jan sometimes asks his interlocutors: Do you 
understand? Is it ok? 
Members of the local community often perceive an individual’s 
language accommodation towards a standard variety as a withdrawal 
from the local community. Ula comments: I hear it all the time: that 
I have totally abandoned my dialect and how could I; it is more as 
a joke, that I have betrayed my homeland! Jan, who accommodates 
less, is critical of speakers who accommodate more when talking to 
speakers of other varieties. As he explains: I find it a bit stupid that 
some people want to hide it when they come to Ljubljana. It’s really 
harmful to some people that they start to converse here a bit and then 
start speaking that way at home, too. It seems the problem is that in 
the view of their compatriots speakers with greater accommodation 
show some non-affiliation (Jan), that they deny their origin and local 
identity and accept another identity instead. The data show that the 
understanding of the complexity of the linguistic choices depends on 
personal experience. Jan’s family happens to grimace when he speaks 
to his teacher from Ljubljana on the phone; moreover, his father so-
metimes says: Don’t you just start talking like this sometime! Jan then 
defends himself: Look, don’t worry, I’ve never started speaking like this 
at home. In the interview, he comments that they aren’t in this kind of 
situation every day and it is difficult for them to imagine it. 
49
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
5.2.2 Language awareness and metalanguage
The informants mainly claim that their accommodation is automatic. 
Ula says that she has never questioned her speech, and that it is her 
automatic reflex to use correct Slovene with people she does not know. 
Jan claims that in his opinion accommodation works plainly sponta-
neously. He accurately explains these processes: It is a question of 
every person making out some kind of system according to which she/
he then acts; it is not self-conscious. Then a person sees, now I am in 
this situation, I will speak like this. It comes with experience. I’ve been 
doing this for four years now and a system evolves, a mould according 
to which a person acts.
The informants show different levels of language awareness and 
differ significantly in the accuracy of the description of their own 
speech behaviour. The terms they use for different language vari-
eties speak for themselves. Jan, for example, uses the term ‘litera-
ry (colloquial) speech’ to refer to one of his varieties, whereas Ula 
speaks about ‘correct Slovene’ or ljubljanščina (Ljubljana urban di-
alect) or about speaking ljubljansko ‘in the Ljubljana way’. Other in-
formants use this expression rarely and only when referring to other 
people’s speech or when expressing attitudes towards this variety. 
Ula demonstrates some uncertainty regarding these labels: Also at 
the faculty I mainly use the correct language or maybe some Ljublja-
na slang, or I don’t know what to call it. When the adult informants 
refer to the standard, Ita only uses the expression ‘colloquial Slo-
vene’, Eva the terms ‘beautiful/correct/colloquial Slovene’, whereas 
Tim speaks about ‘Slovene’ (as opposed to the dialect). The terms 
show that the informants perceive and evaluate the varieties diffe-
rently, and highlight that the concepts of a ‘beautiful’ and ‘correct’ 
language still persist within the language community. This reflects 
the influence of the prescriptive tradition and the standard language 
ideology in Slovene linguistics, and calls for a better understanding 
of language variation, appreciating linguistic diversity instead of im-
posing rigid norms and recognizing the inherent beauty in all forms 
of language expression.
50
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
6 Conclusion
The article presents interlanguage variability in a case study of five 
commuters from the Idrija region with a distinctive Cerkno dialect to 
the capital, Ljubljana. The technique of full-day self-recording provi-
ded a great deal of authentic material and enabled the selection of va-
rious authentic speech situations with the informants’ actual acqua-
intances. Although it is still necessary to identify and account for con-
textual effects, the observer’s paradox is diminished to a minimum: 
according to the informants, they quickly forgot about the recorder 
and payed minimal attention to it. However, there are often a lot of 
useless segments on the recordings, and recording conversations 
more selectively may therefore be more convenient in future studies. 
The variationist analysis of five phonological variables demonstra-
tes that vowel variables change to a greater extent, and that among 
the variables (ɔ) has the lowest percentage of dialect variants, where-
as a voiced velar fricative /γ/ of variable (g) proves to be a salient fea-
ture, a stereotype. According to different language strategies in con-
tacts with speakers of other varieties, the five subjects represent dif-
ferent speakers’ profiles: a code-switcher with two rather distinctive 
varieties in communication with local friends in Idrija versus speakers 
in Ljubljana, three code-mixers with different intermediate varieties 
in different domains, and a dialect speaker with a high percentage of 
dialect variants in all domains. Intermediate or interdialectal sounds 
and varieties can be interpreted as a result of numerous strategies 
of code-mixing and code-switching. They enable the informants to 
express a kind of double or ambivalent geographical, social and lin-
guistic identity, i.e., social identification with more codes and social 
groups simultaneously. 
The sociopsychological topics dealt with in the in-depth sociolin-
guistic interviews – such as language attitudes, informants’ percepti-
on of their own speech behaviour, their experience with language use 
and the connection between language and identity – additionally illu-
minate the informants’ language variability and the reasons for their 
different linguistic strategies, as well as testifying to the complexity of 
language choice and interpersonal communication.
51
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
The cases of two high school students, examined in more detail 
in the central part of the article, show that individual life experien-
ces and everyday dynamics influence language use to a significant 
extent. With her two distinctly different codes, Ula was defined as 
a code-switcher, whereas Jan, with his diverse language repertoire 
with more intermediate varieties, was labelled a code-mixer. Both 
use common slang expressions and, in contrast to the female adult 
speakers, express positive attitudes towards their own dialect, whi-
ch might be interpreted as an indication of a generational shift to-
wards increasing tolerance of nonstandard regional varieties and 
a growing orientation towards local identity, also referred to as the 
‘dialect renaissance’. In the future a longitudinal study will be pos-
sible, which could reveal potential changes in Ula and Jan’s language 
strategies on their path to adulthood. As for the next research step 
within the framework of a postdoctoral project, I have decided to 
focus on adults, since language behaviour and language attitudes (at 
least in the form of informants’ self-evaluation and self-reflection 
as reported in the interviews) can vary quite significantly through 
different stages up to adulthood, when language choices are mo-
stly stabilized. I will investigate the language repertoire of spea-
kers from two other dialect regions, Lower Carniola (Dolenjska) and 
Styria (Štajerska) – specifically, from the town of Ribnica and the city 
of Maribor – who commute to work in Ljubljana on a daily basis. The 
findings will enable a comparison of language variation of speakers 
whose dialects have been involved in the standardization of Slovene 
in different ways and to a different extent, and of related sociolin-
guistic issues. Furthermore, they will illuminate the different presti-
ge and status dialects, as well as related stereotypes and prejudi-
ces, which can be important for understanding complex interdialect 
relationships in the Slovene language territory, with its high level of 
geographical language diversity. The longitudinal plan is to exploit 
language use and relevant sociolinguistic questions on larger sam-
ples, on different dialect areas, and in both urban and rural speech 
settings, in order to gather relevant data about language variation 
and potentially more stable intervarieties or regional standards, as 
well as regional variants of the spoken standard.
52
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
The integration of the different research traditions as well as lin-
guistic and sociopsychological methodological approaches that we 
have pursued seems to provide a solid basis for further investigations, 
especially in the Slovene context, where there are few comparable 
studies to refer to, particularly in the present time of new and very 
complex technological and social issues. The results can contribute 
to a more objective description of the sociolinguistic picture of the 
Slovene language community, and to understanding the nature of the 
language variability of Slovene and its social significance. A more open 
view of language variability in linguistics, and consequently in the edu-
cation system, can help to diminish the influence of the reigning stan-
dard language ideology and aid speakers of Slovene to achieve more 
relaxed and efficient communication in different life situations. Since 
sociolinguistic conditions differ hugely between and within Europe-
an countries, and since variationist studies in Slavic environments are 
scarce, the research can help to transcend the prevailing Anglo-Ame-
rican bias in sociolinguistics (Wodak idr. 2011: 1), which is of major 
importance to sociolinguistic theory itself. 
Acknowledgments
The author’s postdoctoral research project, titled Sociolinguistic Variation 
of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Mobile Speakers: Resources, Methods and 
Analysis (project number Z6-9371), is funded by the Slovenian Research 
Agency, and the author would like to express gratitude for their support. The 
author is also thankful to her PhD mentors, Dr. Marko Stabej and Dr. Kar-
men Kenda-Jež, for their valuable assistance in designing the research and 
providing helpful comments throughout its process. Additionally, the author 
extends appreciation to Dr. Albina Nećak-Lük and the anonymous reviewers 
for their insightful feedback on the text. The author would like to acknowled-
ge Dr. Brit Maehlum, Dr. Sali A. Tagliamonte, Dr. Johanna Vaattovaara, and 
Dr. Peter Trudgill for their valuable advice on methodological issues. Lastly, 
heartfelt thanks are extended to the informants, without whom the research 
would not have been possible. 
53
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
References
Ash, S. (2008). Social Class. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes 
(Eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 402–422). 
Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Auer, P. (1998). Dialect Levelling and the Standard Varieties in Europe. Folia 
Linguistica, 32(1–2), 1–9.
Auer, P., & Hinskens, F. (2005). The role of interpersonal accommodation in 
a theory of language change. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens & P. Kerswill (Eds.), 
Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages (pp. 
335–357). Cambridge, New Yourk: Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P., Hinskens, F., & Kerswill, P. (Eds.). (2005). Dialect Change: Conver-
gence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge, New York: 
Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P., & Schmidt, J. E. (Eds.). (2010). Language and Space: An Internati-
onal Handbook of Linguistic Variation: Theories and Methods. Berlin: De 
Gruyter Mouton.
Besch, W. (Ed.). (1981). Sprachverhalten in ländlichen Gemeinden: Ansätze 
zur Theorie und Methode: Forschungsbericht Erp-Projekt 1. Berlin: E. 
Schmidt.
Besch, W. (Ed.). (1983). Sprachverhalten in ländlichen Gemeinden: Dialekt 
und Standardsprache in Sprecherurteil: Forschungsbericht Erp-Projekt 2. 
Berlin: E. Schmidt.
Bitenc, M. (2013). Slovene, Between Purism and Plurilingualism. In F. X. Vila 
(Ed.), Survival and Development of Language Communities: Prospects 
and Challenges (pp. 58–80). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 
Bitenc, M. (2014a). Stališča gimnazijcev do slovenskih jezikovnih zvrsti: Razi-
skava s tehniko prikritih dvojic. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteranske 
študije: Series historia et sociologia, 24(2), 307–318. 
Bitenc, M. (2014b). Tehnika prikritih dvojic: Primerjava in kritično ovredno-
tenje dveh poskusov. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije: 
Series historia et sociologia, 24(2), 319–330. 
Bitenc, M., & Kenda-Jež, K. (2015). Language variation in Slovene: A case 
study of two geographically mobile speakers. In E. Torgersen, S. Hårstad, 
B. Mæhlum & U. Røyneland (Eds.), Language Variation – European Per-
spectives V (pp. 31–42). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pu-
blishing Company.
Bitenc, M. (2016a). Variantnost govorjene slovenščine pri geografsko mobil-
nih osebah: Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 
54
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
Bitenc, M. (2016b). Z jezikom na poti med Idrijskim in Ljubljano. Ljubljana: 
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 
Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its 
Social Significance. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity. New York: Cambridge University 
Press.
Fasold, R. (1996). The Sociolinguistic of Language: Introduction to Sociolingu-
istics II. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.
Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Orožen Adamič, M., Perko, D., & Zupančič, J. (2001). 
Nacionalni atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana: Rokus.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, New York: Cambrid-
ge University Press.
Greenberg, M. L. (Ed.). (1997). The Sociolinguistics of Slovene. International 
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 124. Berlin, New York: Mouton de 
Gruyter.
Guzej, J. (1989). Vpliv migracij na jezik in govor posameznika. Jezik in slo-
vstvo, 35(3), 52–57.
Jurgec, P. (2011). Slovenščina ima 9 samoglasnikov. Slavistična revija, 59(3), 
243–268.
Kenda-Jež, K. (1999). Med narečjem in knjižnim jezikom. In Z. Zorko & M. Ko-
letnik (Eds.), Logarjev zbornik (pp. 304–315). Maribor: Slavistično društvo.
Kenda-Jež, K. (2002). Cerkljansko narečje: Teoretični model dialektološkega 
raziskovanja na zgledu besedišča in glasoslovja. Unpublished doctoral 
thesis. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
Kenda-Jež, K. (2004). Narečje kot jezikovnozvrstna kategorija v sodobnem 
jezikoslovju. In E. Kržišnik (Ed.), Aktualizacija jezikovnozvrstne teorije 
na Slovenskem: Členitev jezikovne resničnosti (pp. 263–276). Ljubljana: 
Center za slovenščino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Fi-
lozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Kleindienst, L. (1995). Bam knapa vzėla, bam zmėraj vesėla: Idrijske anekdo-
te in smešnice. Ljubljana: Kmečki glas.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (2004). Quantitative Analysis of Linguistic Variation. In U. Ammon, 
N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics / Soziolingu-
istik 1 (pp. 6–21). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Le Page, R., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
55
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
Lundberg, G. H. (2014). Dialect Leveling and Local Identity in Slovenia. In 
J. Witkoś & S. Jaworski (Eds.), New Insights into Slavic Linguistics (pp. 
241–252). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mæhlum, B. (1986). Språklige variasjonsmønstre hos innflyttere i Oslo. Oslo: 
Novus.
Mæhlum, B. (2000). Strategies of Neutrality in the Arctic. In K. Mattheier 
(Ed.), Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe (pp. 99–108). Frankfurt 
am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang.
Mæhlum, B. (2010). Language and social spaces. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt 
(Eds.), Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic 
Variation 1: Theories and Methods (pp. 18–32). Berlin, New York: De 
Gruyter Mouton.
Mattheier, K. J. (Ed.). (2000). Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe. Fran-
kfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Brussels, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang.
Milroy, L. (2002). Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change – Wor-
king with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguisti-
cs, 6(1), 3–15.
Monka, M. (2013). Sted og sprogforandring. En undersøgelse af sprogforan-
dring i virkelig tid hos mobile og bofaste informanter fra Odder, Vinde-
rup og Tinglev. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Copenhagen: University of 
Copenhagen.
Nećak Lük, A. (1998). Jezik v etničnih študijah: Nekaj raziskovalnih pristopov 
in izsledkov iz slovenske izkušnje. In I. Štrukelj (Ed.), Jezik za danes in 
jutri (pp. 77–90). Ljubljana: Društvo za uporabno jezikoslovje Slovenije, 
Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja.
Niebaum, H., & Macha, J. (2014). Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deut-
schen: 3., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin, Boston: Walter de 
Gruyter GmbH.
Pogorelec, B. (1984). K vprašanju bilingvizma in diglosije iz slovenske izku-
šnje. In A. Nećak-Lük & I. Štrukelj (Eds.), Dvojezičnost - individualne in 
družbene razsežnosti (pp. 67–73). Ljubljana: Društvo za uporabno jezi-
koslovje Slovenije.
Pogorelec, B. (1998). Jezikovno načrtovanje govornega jezika pri Slovencih: 
Teorija, praksa in odprti problemi slovenskega zbornega jezika. In I. 
Štrukelj (Ed.), Jezik za danes in jutri (pp. 56–64). Ljubljana: Društvo za 
uporabno jezikoslovje Slovenije, Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja.
Rigler, J. (1970–1978). Akcentske variante I–III. Slavistična revija, 18(1–2), 
5–15; 19(1), 1–12; 26(4), 365–374.
56
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
Rigler, J. (1981). Cerkno (OLA 6). In P. Ivić (Ed.), Fonološki opisi srpskohr-
vatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvaćenih 
Opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom (pp. 67–78). Sarajevo: Akademija 
nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. 
Sankoff, D., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic market and the statistical 
explanation of variability. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models 
and Methods (pp. 239–250). New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, J. E., & Herrgen, J. (Eds.). (2011). Sprachdynamik: Eine Einführung 
in die moderne Regionalsprachenforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Scotton, C. M. (1976). Strategies of Neutrality: Language Choice in Uncertain 
Situations. Language, 52(4), 919–941.
Skalin, N. (2002). Idrijski govor kot podnarečje cerkljanskega narečja? Unpu-
blished graduation thesis, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana.
Skubic, A. E. (2005). Obrazi jezika. Ljubljana: Študentska založba.
Smole, V. (2004). Nekaj resnic in zmot o narečjih v Sloveniji danes. In E. Krži-
šnik (Ed.), Aktualizacija jezikovnozvrstne teorije na Slovenskem: Členitev 
jezikovne resničnosti, (pp. 321–330). Ljubljana: Center za slovenščino 
kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Filozofske fakultete Uni-
verze v Ljubljani.
Smolej, M. (2012). Besedilne vrste v spontanem govoru. Ljubljana: Znanstve-
na založba Filozofske fakultete.
Srebot Rejec, T. (1988). Word Accent and Vowel Duration in Standard Slove-
ne: An Acoustic and Linguistic Investigation. München: Verlag O. Sagner.
Stabej, M. (2010). V družbi z jezikom. Ljubljana: Trojina, zavod za uporabno 
slovenistiko.
Škofic-Guzej, J. (1994). O oblikovanju slovenskega pogovarjalnega jezika. 
Slavistična revija, 42(4), 571–578.
Škofic, J. (Ed.). 2011. Slovenski lingvistični atlas 1: Človek (telo, bolezni, dru-
žina). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU.
Škofic, J., Gostenčnik, J., Kumin Horvat, et. al. (2016). Slovenski lingvistični 
atlas 2: Kmetija. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center 
SAZU.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analyzing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, 
Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Toporišič, J. (2000). Slovenska slovnica: Četrta, prenovljena in razširjena iz-
daja. Maribor: Obzorja.
57
Variation of Spoken Slovene in the Case of Geographically Mobile Speakers
Verdonik, D. (2007). Jezikovni elementi spontanosti v pogovoru: Diskurzni 
označevalci in popravljanja. Maribor: Slavistično društvo.
Verdonik, D., & Zwitter Vitez, A. (2011). Slovenski govorni korpus GOS. Lju-
bljana: Trojina, zavod za uporabno slovenistiko.
Wilson, J. (2010). Moravians in Prague: A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Con-
tact in the Czech Republic. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Wodak, R., Johnstone, B., & Kerswill, P. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE Handbook 
of Sociolinguistics. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE 
Publications.
Zemljak Jontes, M., & Pulko, S. (2019). Odnos do rabe socialnih zvrsti med 
mladimi. In H. Tivadar (Ed.), Slovenski javni govor in jezikovno-kulturna 
(samo)zavest (pp. 247–254). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske 
fakultete.
Variantnost govorjene slovenščine pri geografsko mobilnih 
osebah 
Članek predstavlja prvo variantnostno študijo na slovenskem gradivu in se 
osredotoča na avtentično jezikovno rabo govorcev z Idrijskega, ki se šolajo oz. 
delajo v Ljubljani. Gre za dnevno ali tedensko geografsko mobilne govorce, ki v 
prvotnem okolju vsaj v neformalnih govornih položajih pretežno govorijo last-
no narečje, v osrednjeslovenskem prostoru pa v komunikaciji z govorci drugih 
varietet uporabljajo različne strategije govornega obnašanja. V ospredju je 
predstavitev mlajših informantov, dijakinje in dijaka. 
Metodološko se kvantitativna analiza petih fonoloških variabel povezuje 
s kvalitativnimi podatki iz sociolingvističnih intervjujev. Raziskovalni korpus 
za variantnostno študijo sestavlja izbor izsekov iz celotnega nabora pos-
netkov glede na kraj, sogovorce in temo pogovora, analiza se osredotoča 
na tri samoglasniške in dve soglasniški variabli. Kvalitativni podatki iz 
sociolingvističnih intervjujev vključujejo osebno zgodovino posameznik-
ov, njihovo samooceno govornega obnašanja, izkušnje z jezikovno rabo, 
ozaveščenost jezikovnega (ne)prilagajanja, jezikovna stališča ter razumevanje 
povezave med jezikom in identiteto. 
Informanti uporabljajo različne strategije govornega obnašanja, tako da 
lahko opredelimo različne tipe oz. profile govorcev: kodne preklopljevalce, 
narečne govorce in kodne mešalce. Na kontinuumu med narečjem in stand-
ardnim jezikom se kaže več vmesnih jezikovnih varietet, ki se ne ujemajo z 
v slovenskem jezikoslovju pogosto pretirano shematizirano dihotomijo med 
58
Slovenščina 2.0, 2023 (2) | Articles
knjižnim jezikom in tradicionalnimi narečji. Pri posameznih analiziranih var-
iablah je mogoče opaziti različne tendence. Potrjuje se relevantnost različnih 
družbenih in socialnopsiholoških dejavnikov pri pojasnjevanju posamezniko-
vega govornega obnašanja, kompleksnosti jezikovnih izbir in medosebne 
komunikacije. 
Ključne besede: variantnost govorjene slovenščine, cerkljansko narečje, profili 
govorcev, samosnemanje, sociolingvistični intervjuji, jezikovna stališča