Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- 26 Sociolinguistic Variation in Slavic Languages
- 27 False Cognates
- 28 Dialectal Fragmentation
- 29 Language Contacts
- 30 The Slavic Literary Micro-Languages
- 31 Heritage Language Forms
- 32 Scripts
- 33 Orthographies
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
32 - Scripts
from Part 5 - Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- 26 Sociolinguistic Variation in Slavic Languages
- 27 False Cognates
- 28 Dialectal Fragmentation
- 29 Language Contacts
- 30 The Slavic Literary Micro-Languages
- 31 Heritage Language Forms
- 32 Scripts
- 33 Orthographies
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This chapter shows that the Slavic scripts roughly align with the cultural division between Slavia Orthodoxa and Slavia Latina. Although the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition of the Glagolitic script connected to the Old Church Slavonic language was originally not confined to either of the two areas and the Glagolitic script was used longest in Catholic Croatia, it is nowadays continued in the form of the Cyrillic script, whereas the Latin alphabet in Slavia Latina is based on a completely different, ‘Western’ tradition. However, mutual influences abound and can be seen in script changes and various instances of biscriptality as well as in the introduction of roman type in the West in the sixteenth century, the adoption of its design principles in the ‘civil type’ in the East in the eighteenth century, and the gradual replacement of both blackletter and Old Cyrillic, which was (almost) completed only in the twentieth century.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 675 - 696Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Alpatov, V. M. (2015). A Latin alphabet for the Russian language. In Tomelleri, V. S. & Kempgen, S., eds., Slavic Alphabets in Contact, Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Bircer, S. (2004). Transliteracija russkix grafem v latinicu v ėlektronnoj perepiske na russkom jazyke, Saint Petersburg: Izdatelʹstvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, H. (1996). How did Glagolitic writing reach the coastal regions of northwestern Croatia? Croatica 42/43/44, 69–79.Google Scholar
Bláha, O., Dittmann, R., Komárek, K., Polakovič, D., & Uličná, L. (2015). Kenaanské glosy ve středověkých hebrejských rukopisech s vazbou na české země, Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Bunčić, D. et al. (2016). Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology, Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Čajka, F. (2011). Církevněslovanská legenda o svaté Anastázii, Prague: Slovanský ústav AV ČR.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1996). Typology of writing systems. In Günther, H. & Ludwig, O., eds., Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use: Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, Vol. 2, Berlin & New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1380–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1999). Typology of writing systems. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 520–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, P. T. (2009). Grammatology. In Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchsbauer, J. (2021). Litterarum aenigmata: Zur Rekonstruktion des Zeichenbestandes der frühen Glagolica. In Fuchsbauer, J., Stadler, W., & Zink, A., eds., Kulturen verbinden/Connecting Cultures/Sbližaja kulʹtury: Festband anlässlich des 50-jährigen Bestehens der Slawistik an der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, pp. 83–114.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, N. & Buchmann, F. (2009). Die Längenhierarchie: Zum Bau der graphematischen Silbe. Linguistische Berichte, 218, 127–155.Google Scholar
Gippius, A. A. & Mixeev, S. M. (2022). Drevnerusskie glagoličeskie nadpisi-graffiti XI–XII vekov iz Novgoroda: № 30–55. Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskoga instituta u Zagrebu, 72(1), 47–92.Google Scholar
Hercigonja, E. (2006). Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, 2nd ed., Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska.Google Scholar
Isaak der Syrer. (2015). Abhandlungen zur Askese. Band 1 (Facsimile der slavischen Kölner Handschrift aus dem XV. Jahrhundert), Cologne, Weimar, & Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Jončev, V. & Jončeva, O. (1982). Dreven i săvremenen bălgarski šrift, Sofija: Bălgarski chudožnik.Google Scholar
Kalajdžija, A. (2019). Predstandardni idiom bosanske alhamijado literature, Sarajevo: Institut za jezik.Google Scholar
Kempgen, S. (2015). Die kyrillische Schrift unter dem Einfluss der lateinischen: aktuelle Beobachtungen. In Tomelleri, V. S. & Kempgen, S., eds., Slavic Alphabets in Contact, Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Kupfer, F. & Lewicki, T. (1956). Źródła hebrajskie do dziejów Słowian i niektórych innych ludów Środkowej i Wschodnej Europy, Wrocław & Warszawa: Zakład imienia Ossolińskich & Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Lesjuk, M. (2014). Stanovlennja i rozvytok ukrajinsʹkoji literaturnoji movy v Halyčyni, Ivano-Frankivsk: Misto NV.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, J., Spasov, L. & Nuorluoto, J., eds. (2008). The Konikovo Gospel – Konikovsko evangelie: Bibl. Patr. Alex. 268 [Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 125], Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Lupić, I. (2019). Najstariji hrvatski latinički molitvenik. Filologija, 73, 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macháček, J. & Nedoma, R., Dresler, P., Schulz, I., Lagonik, E., Johnson, S. M., Kaňáková, L., Slámová, A., Llamas, B., Wegmann, D., & Hofmanová, Z. (2021). Runes from Lány (Czech Republic) – The oldest inscription among Slavs: A new standard for multidisciplinary analysis of runic bones. Journal of Archaeological Science, 127 (2021), 105333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazon, A. & Vaillant, A. (1938). L’Évangéliaire de Kulakia: Un parler slave du Bas-Vardar, Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Meyer, A.-M. (2018). Latinica und Kyrillica im Kontakt – Überlegungen zum Phänomen “Schriftakzent”. In Meyer, A.-M. & Reinkowski, L., eds., Im Rhythmus der Linguistik: Festschrift für Sebastian Kempgen zum 65. Geburtstag, Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, pp. 361–378.Google Scholar
Miškinene, G. (2001). Drevnejšie rukopisi litovskix tatar (Grafika, transliteracija, perevod, struktura i soderžanie tekstov), Vilnius: Izdatelʹstvo Vilʹnjusskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Moskovič, V. et al., eds. (2014). Kenaanity: Evrei v srednevekovom slavjanskom mire/The Knaanites: Jews in the Medieval Slavic World, Moscow: Mosty kulʹtury.Google Scholar
Nowak, S. (2003). Schrift auf den Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit: Untersuchungen zu den Formen der Schriftzeichen und zu formalen und inhaltlichen Aspekten der Inschriften. Doctoral dissertation, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-1735-0000-0006-AEE1–A.Google Scholar
Picchio, R. (1958). La “Istorija slavěnobolgarskaja” sullo sfondo linguistico-culturale della Slavia ortodossa. Ricerche Slavistiche, 6, 103–118.Google Scholar
Pronk, T. (2018). Czech and Sorbian in the 11th–13th century Judeo-Slavic glosses. In Kapetanović, A., ed., The Oldest Linguistic Attestations and Texts in the Slavic Languages, Vienna: Holzhausen, pp. 246–263.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1985). Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlund, K. (2020). Mehr als (nur) eine Schrift: Zwei- und Mehrschriftigkeit in Kroatien, Serbien und Bosnien-Herzegovina. Die Welt der Slaven, 65(2), 363–399.Google Scholar
Trunte, N. (2004). Πρὸς τὸ σαφέστερον: Zu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schrift. In Dürrigl, M.-A., Mihaljević, M., & Velčić, F., eds., Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam: Zbornik radova s Međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa povodom 100. obljetnice Staroslavenske akademije i 50. obljetnice Staroslavenskog instituta (Zagreb–Krk, 2.–6. listopada 2002), Zagreb: Staroslavenski institute, pp. 419–434.Google Scholar
Trunte, N. (2019). Črъtami i rězami čьtěxǫ i gataaxǫ: Zu den Anfängen slavischer Schriftlichkeit. In Matulić, B. & Lupis, V. B., eds., Verba volant, scripta manent: Zbornik u čast akademika Stjepana Krasića O. P., Split, pp. 965–1006.Google Scholar
Tschernochvostoff, G. (1995). Zum Ursprung der Glagolica [1947; edited by Juhani Nuorluoto]. Studia Slavica Finlandensia, 12, 141–150.Google Scholar
Żak, J. (1985). Fundumstände der skandinavischen Goldbrakteaten des 5. bis 6. Jahrhunderts vom Typ C aus Wapno, Großpolen, 1850 [Festskrift till Brita Malmer]. Hikuin, 11, 27–32.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. (2010). Iz zametok o ljubitelʹskoj lingvistike, Moscow: Russkïj mïrʺ.Google Scholar
Żurek, P. (2006). Polska głagolica – relikt piśmiennictwa czeskiego czy chorwackiego? In Barciak, A., & Iwańczak, W., eds., Piśmiennictwo Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i we wczesnej epoce nowożytnej, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, pp. 209–217.Google Scholar