The Morphology of 16th-Century Slovak Administrative-Legal Texts and the Question of Diglossia in Pre-Codification Slovakia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mark Richard Lauersdorf. The Morphology of 16th-Century Slovak AdministrativeLegal Texts and the Question of Diglossia in Pre-Codification Slovakia. Slavistische Beitrage, 473. Munich and Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2010. 293 pp. Maps. Tables. Index of cited forms. Bibliography. euro34.00, paper.Written Slovak was first codified in the 18th century by Anton Bernolak, who used generalized West Slovak as a basis. In the fervour of the nationalist movement of the following centuiy, Ludo vit Stur made a triumphantly successful second attempt at codification, this time with Central Slovak as the base interdialect. Literary Slovak was born. The sociolinguistics and language of the days of Bernolak and Stur have been well studied, but the status of written Slovak in earlier centuries is not fully documented or understood. From the dawn of written texts in the Slovak area in the 10th century, Latin, German, and finally Czech served as the medium of discourse in letters and legal communications. In the 15th century Czech became fixed as the norm for written expression. It was, Mark Richard Lauersdorf tells us, a classic example of literaiy diglossia in Ferguson's 1959 formulation.What was the nature of the diglossia in the 16th centuiy? Did the written language in time reveal a hybridization of the two varieties and a blurring of their boundaries? When did stable, unique interdialectal Slovak forms first start appearing, and what was the range of their appearance across the region? Pauliny called the written language of this time kulturna slovencina, dependent on Czech for syntax, but with Slovak more and more asserting itself, to the point that diglossia was turning into something else. But what?In this book Lauersdorf, author of a 1 996 monograph on Slovak phonology in the 1 6th centuiy, presents a very detailed study of 16th-century legal texts, 152 in all, many of them brief city council letters, selected from the four geographical areas: Moravian, West, Central and East Slovakia (MSk, WSk, CSk, ESk). He subjects these texts to a meticulous quantitative analysis of nine desinential features: 1st sg. non-past of I, II, III class verbs, inst. sg. of mase, andneut. nouns, dat. pi. of mase, andneut. nouns, instr. pi. of mase, and neut. nouns, loc. pi. of mase, and neut. nouns, gen.-dat.-loc. sg. of fern, hard-stem adjectives, loc. sg. of mase, and neut. hard-stem adjectives, dat. -loc. of 2nd sg. and refi, pronouns, 1st sg. pres, of the verb 'to be.'The presentation is impressive in its accuracy and detail. Historical development and regional dialects are discussed for each feature. Results are presented and analyzed by generalized patterning s, e. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".