Dimensions of Linguistic Space: Variation – Multilingualism – Conceptualisations Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung
Edited By Lars Bülow, Ann Kathrin Fischer and Kristina Herbert
This volume focuses on the use and structure of the German language in Austria. In addition, the aim of the book is to compare the linguistic conditions in Austria with those in other German speaking countries. The 20 articles present current findings from the research fields of variation, contact and perception.
Der Band widmet sich schwerpunktmäßig der Verwendung und Struktur der deutschen Sprache in Österreich. Ziel des Sammelbandes ist es außerdem, die sprachlichen Verhältnisse in Österreich mit denjenigen in anderen deutschsprachigen Ländern zu vergleichen. In 20 Beiträgen werden daher aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse aus den Forschungsbereichen Variation, Kontakt und Perzeption vorgestellt.
Borrowing, Code-Switching and Fused Lects: Language Contact and Multilingual Practices from a Socio-Historical Perspective (Stefaniya Ptashnyk)
Abstract: This article deals with different forms of language contact, which we can observe in written sources from historical multilingual cities, and their functions in multilingual communication. Examples from Lviv’s newspapers from the 19th century demonstrate that language contact is inseparably linked to the social context and to social factors such as the relative status of the contact languages, the power relations between the speakers of the different languages involved etc.
1 Language contact as a phenomenon of social multilingualism
In the last decades, linguistic discussions about language contact have increased, especially those regarding such phenomena as code-switching (CS), mixed or split languages, and others. Nevertheless, we can observe that there is no clear boundary between some of them until now (cf. Auer 2014: 294–296; Gardner-Cloros 2009: 4–6; Myers-Scotton 2002: 74–75).
In general, researchers distinguish two categories of contact-induced phenomena:
1. Long term effects linked to language change, such as borrowings, convergence, attrition, interferences etc., which can be regarded as transfers of features or more or less stable changes in the language system. A great deal of linguistic attention has been devoted to lexical borrowing from a lexicological point of view as well as from the perspective of historical sociolinguistics and language history.
2. Phenomena linked to language interaction, performance or to concrete speech acts. Variously labelled as “bilingual speech”, “code-switching”, “language mixing”, “mixed languages”, “language variation”, “language shift”, “fused lects” etc., they have all been the subject of linguistic research, even if some researchers use a different terminology to describe them. In modern linguistics, code-switching has been given particular emphasis, mostly as it refers to spoken language. The most popular strategies of CS, defined as juxtaposition of two languages or as the use of more than one language, variety, or style by a speaker within the same act of communication or within the same text, have been described by many researchers. Different typologies←213 | 214→ of code-switching have been proposed by linguists. Some researchers – for example Auer (cf. 1999; 2014), Muysken (cf. 2010), Gardner-Chloros (cf. 2009) – suggest the distinction between (a) alternational CS and (b) insertional mixing. In case of insertional mixing, there is a matrix language for each syntactically independent unit (sentence) in which elements of the other language are inserted. In contrast, “alternational mixing” means that a sentence or another syntactically independent unit begins in one language and ends in another; in such cases it is difficult to define the matrix language (cf. Auer 2014: 305). Myers-Scotton (cf. 2003) distinguishes between “minimal insertions” and “embedded islands”. Minimal insertion consists of inserting stems from one language into the grammatical frame (matrix) of the other language; the lexical material from the inserted language is adapted to the grammatical structure of the matrix language. Embedded island insertion puts the other-language item into the matrix frame together with accompanying grammatical markers (cf. Myers-Scotton 2003: 76).
While in spoken contexts code-switching has been investigated from different points of view, studies on written CS, especially in historical texts, are less numerous. But in fact it appears in written language in many forms and can be found in a huge variety of text types or genres. A lot of research has been done on historical CS with English (cf. Schendl/Wright 2011). Also the recent work in the history of German language deals with CS in written sources, particularly where Latin material is inserted into German sentences. A prominent example for code-switching are Luther’s bilingual dinner conversations (cf. Stolt 1964). Apart from that, German-Latin CS has been investigated in the work of the linguist Schotellius (17th century) (cf. McLelland 2004) and of Notker the German (cf. Glaser 2016), in sermons (cf. Kämmerer 2006), in the “Leges Barbarorum” from the Early Middle Ages, as well as in a variety of other legal texts like diploma and capitularies of Carolingian or middle-age charters and their collections in so-called “Traditionsbücher” (cf. Prinz 2010: 293–294). German-Latin code-switching can also be observed in scientific texts, especially in medical ones, in the vitae of saints, as well as in literature, including drama, verse and songs etc. As a rule, the Latin material is structured like islands which consist minimally of a noun with its Latin inflection, but frequently constitute a more complex nominal phrase. In all these examples, the matrix language is German; Latin elements are inserted into the grammatical frame of German.
Despite the fact that scientists underline the necessity to explore language contact and thus an important part of language history as a basis for language change (cf. Mattheier 1995: 15), there have been only few investigations on CS with German and non-Latin languages until now. Code-switching could be interesting for←214 | 215→ language historians in different respects, above all for research into how “fused lects” arise from language mixing.
Code-switching occurs in contact situations of many types – among native multilingual groups, immigrant communities, and regional minorities (cf. Gardner-Chloros 2010: 1). Very interesting material can be found in written documents from historical multilingual cities and other communities, in particular from urban centres of the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century. One of these historical multilingual cities is Lviv (also called “Lemberg” in German during the Habsburg period), which my article focuses on. In my paper I will show how multilingualism manifests itself in historical texts. As a corpus for the investigation German, Polish and Ukrainian newspaper texts were used, published in Lviv during the 19th century. My paper focuses particularly on code-switching as one of the possible outcomes of contact between two or more languages, which often coexists and overlaps with other outcomes. I attempt to outline some criteria of how CS can be distinguished from other types of multilingual performance in written sources. In the next step, I will discuss the sociolinguistic factors, why CS occurs and takes the form it does in each individual case. Particularly, I will uncover the traces of the relationship between contact languages in Lviv, and explain why CS may be seen as the product of a power struggle between contact languages in the context of societal multilingualism.
Before describing language contact phenomena in written texts, I will present a brief sketch of the sociolinguistic situation in Lviv and of the Habsburg language policies during the 19th century.
2 Lviv as a multilingual society in the 19th century: Historical background, sociolinguistic situation and language policies of Habsburg
19th century Lviv was the capital of the Crownland Galicia (“Kronland Galizien und Lodomerien”), which belonged to the Austrian Empire from 1772 to 1918. Like in most other urban centres of the Habsburg Empire, the linguistic situation in Lviv during the 19th century stands out due to the great variety of different nationalities and their languages being in close contact with each other: Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Germans, Armenians, Czechs etc. (cf. Ptashnyk 2010: 288).
For the characterisation of the ethnic structure of the population in Lviv two criteria are important: language and religion. Members of the Roman Catholic Church were regarded as Poles, whereas members of the Greek Catholic (Uniate) Church were mostly Ukrainians. The Jewish community can be identified by the Jewish/Israelite confession; a big part of them spoke Yiddish in their everyday life.←215 | 216→ Protestants were usually German-speaking (cf. Fellerer 2003: 109–113). However, there is not always a one-to-one relationship between these two criteria.
We have very little information about the ethno-linguistic structure of Lviv’s population in the early 19th century. One of the very early sources of such information is the collection of polemic texts “Die ruthenische Schrift- und Sprachenfrage”, published in 1861, which provides the following information about confessions of the inhabitants: In 1851, 68.835 people lived in Lviv; 33.224 were Roman Catholics, 4.090 Greek Uniats, and 21.357 Israelites (cf. Die ruthenische Schrift- und Sprachenfrage 1861: 246–247):
Figure 1: Confessions in Lviv in 1851
The succeeding statistics of the Habsburg monarchy provide more exact information, based on regular census surveys conducted every 10 years after 1880. In 1900, 159.877 people lived in Lviv; 20.409 of them called German their “colloquial language in everyday life”; 120.634 people spoke Polish and 15.159 inhabitants spoke Ukrainian (Gemeindelexikon von Galizien 1907: 2). Additionally, languages such as Bohemian-Moravian-Slovakian, Slovenian, Serbian-Croatian and Romanian were also mentioned by the inhabitants of Lviv as their everyday language (Figure 2).←216 | 217→
Figure 2: Languages of everyday use in Lviv in 1900
This multilingual situation in Lviv led to close contact between the respective languages, especially between German, Polish, Ukrainian, and Yiddish. These language contacts left their traces in numerous multilingual practices of communication, on which my paper focuses.
Since Maria Theresia had come to power in 1740, the Austrian government continuously passed laws regulating language use in the domains of school, administration and the judiciary. Their main goal was to establish German as the state language. For Lviv, which became part of the Habsburg Monarchy after 1772, this policy meant the germanisation of the most important domains of public life. As a result, German reached a stable dominance in the public live in Lviv in the first half of the 19th century. However, the so-called “springtime of nations”, as well as the civil revolution of 1848 brought considerable changes into the political situation in the Habsburg Empire. The non-German nationalities living in the Habsburg Monarchy no longer accepted the dominant role of German. They tried to gain more political rights for their own languages.
The Habsburg administration attempted to regulate the asymmetric relationship between the different ethnic groups by granting them linguistic and societal equality. The principle of language equality was formulated first in the Bohemian Charter of 1848. After the defeat of the civil revolution, the politics of Neo-Absolutism followed; consequently during the 1850s language rights were wiped off the political agenda of the Habsburg government. In the 1860s the nationalities of the Habsburg←217 | 218→ Empire started to fight again for their language rights. The key step in regulating national and language rights was reached in 1867 with the Austrian Constitution. Article 19 of the Constitution guaranteed equality of all nationalities in the monarchy as well as their right to use their “landesübliche Sprachen”1 in school, administration, and public life (cf. Wandruszka/Urbanitsch 1980: 1199).
Nevertheless, this act of law could not prevent the real asymmetries between the different languages as well as the ethnic groups involved. After 1867, the sociolinguistic development in Lviv was characterised by the increasing dominance of the Polish language. At the same time, German lost its prestige in Lviv, whereas Ukrainian gained more rights. Complete equality between the Ukrainian and the Polish language, however, could not be reached until the end of the Habsburg period. Besides, Yiddish was not recognised as an independent language at all. In the late 19th and in the early 20th century, we can observe significant prestige differences regarding the societal status of contact languages in Lviv; a lot of language conflicts manifested themselves in different ways as we can observe in written texts as well as in media discourses of that time (cf. Ptashnyk 2008).
3 Language contact in Lviv in the 19th century
In the context of multilingualism, languages and varieties are involved in the process of language contact, which can be described in the following way:
[…] language contact originates from cultural, economic, political and scientific contact between ethnic and demographic groups […]. Language contact arises from the direct or indirect social interaction of the speakers, influenced by the units of the communicative act and its sociocultural context. (Oksaar 1996: 1)
Influenced by each other, the contact languages can be regarded as flexible entities in motion, able to change and able to be changed.
3.1 Loanwords as contact phenomena
The best visible contact phenomena are lexical loanwords or borrowings. In 19th century Galicia, we can find borrowings in all contact languages. Linguistic research on this topic shows clearly that German was the most popular “donor language” in Galicia, especially after 1848/49 (cf. Moser 2005; Datsenko 2009; Höfinghoff 2006, 2015; Thomas 1997). A number of German loanwords can be found in Polish as well as in Ukrainian. This fact can be explained by the high←218 | 219→ sociolinguistic status of German in Galicia during the 19th century. German was only to a small extent a recipient language as well.
In this paper it is not possible to describe all the borrowing processes during the 19th century in detail. I would, however, want to mention that the borrowings from German can be found in “donor domains” such as trade, science, military, administration, judiciary, education as well as gastronomy and crafts. The following examples show German loanwords incorporated into Ukrainian (cf. Thomas 1997; Besters-Dilger 2006):
aнцайґувати = German: anzeigen ‘to report’ (to the authorities); бумельцуґ = German: Bummelzug ‘slow train’; ратуша = German: Rathaus ‘town hall’; бурмістер = German: Bürgermeister ‘mayor’; штраф = German: Strafe ‘penalty’.
абахта (гауптвахта) = German: Hauptwache ‘main guard’; анґріф = German: Angriff ‘attack’; вербунок = German: Werbung ‘recruitment’; Гальт! Вирда? (Стій – хто це?) = German: Halt! Wer da? ‘stop, who goes there?’
борк = German: borgen ‚debt‘; гендляр = German: Händler ‚trader, dealer‘; ґешефт = German: Geschäft ‚business, deal‘; ляда = German: Lade ‘counter’
A huge number of German loanwords were also used in everyday life: ґанок (Gang ‘entrance hall’), шпулька (Spule ‘bobbin’), шпіц (Spitze ‘top’), цвібак (Zwieback ‘rusk’), файка (Pfeife ‘pipe’), феріі (Ferien ‘holidays’), братрура (Bratrohr ‘oven’), куфер (Koffer ‘suitcase, box’), матура (Matura ‘high-school graduation certificate’) (cf. Thomas 1997; Besters-Dilger 2006). Furthermore, Höfinghoff (cf. 2015) showed in her investigation into the newspaper “Zoria Halyc’ka” (“Зоря Галицька” = “The Galician Star”) from 1855 how German loanwords were used in Ukrainian scientific texts. German was a generous donor language for creating philosophical terms in the form of so-called “loan translations”: вôльновластнѧ, German: Freistaat ‘free state’; мыслевладнѣ (Р.в.) = German: Denkvermögen ‘intellectual power’; предсүществованьѧ = German: Präexistenz ‘pre-existence’ (cf. Höfinghoff 2015: 288–291). As we can see, the Ukrainian terms were literally translated following the German terms word-for-word or root-for-root.
Such examples evidently show that lexical transfer (borrowings) does not necessarily lead to a stable language change: Not being incorporated into the standard language, most of the loanwords mentioned disappeared in the early 20th century. A handful of them are used up until now in the West Ukrainian colloquial lan←219 | 220→guage or in dialects, but their use is regionally limited, for example гальба пива ‘half a litre of beer’; книдель ‘dumpling’; обцас ‘heel’; дека ‘ten grams’; фіякр ‘cab’; каляфйор ‘cauliflower’; шпиталь ‘hospital’; штрудель ‘strudel’; сервус ‘hello’.
Which contact phenomena can be established as a long-time influence on the recipient language and which of them are only effective in the medium term depends on various factors, among others on the sociohistorical context, on the language policy and on the prestige of the languages involved. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that German, which had a very high prestige in Galicia in the 19th century, was the main donor language.
3.2 Multilingual practices in written texts
Next in this paper, I am going to discuss the most popular multilingual practices in written texts during the 19th century. Analysing the bilingual strategies used, one has to find criteria of how to classify them and how to distinguish them from each other. First of all, we can observe different types of code-switching, alternational as well as insertional mixing. In Figure 3 the Hebrew word TNK (“Tanach”) is embedded in the German text in the newspaper “Der Israelit” (this newspaper was the organ of the Jewish society “Schomer Israel” in Lemberg, published mostly in German). “Tanach” denotes the Jewish Bible texts, including their three parts: Tora, Neviim and Ketuvim. The Hebrew insert is embedded into the German sentence-matrix. This kind of CS could be termed as minimal insertion.
Figure 3: Der Israelit, 1875, no. 15, page 2
Another example of insertional mixing is shown in the following article from the Ukrainian newspaper “Dilo” (“Діло”), where a Polish phrase is inserted into the Ukrainian matrix (for the English translation see below; the Polish insertion is underlined). This polemic text deals with the issue of Ukrainian as the language of instruction being undermined by Polish in Galician schools.
Figure 4: Dilo, 1880, no. 42, page 42
Furthermore, there are also examples for alternational code-switching between two languages, where the switch comprises two sentences in juxtaposition. In Figure 5 we can see the switch from Polish to German; the German sentence is underlined in the English translation below.←221 | 222→
Figure 5: Dziennik Narodowy, 1848, no. 64, page 13
A similar example for alternational CS can be found in the Polish newspaper “Tygodnik Lwowski”, where a Latin sentence appears within the Polish text (A):
(A) Jeżeli myślisz, obejrzawszy się po Lwowie, że jesteś w Polsce, to policz tych co się po polsku noszą, bo chodzących po niemiecku pewnie niezliczysz: „nomen eorum est legio”. (Tygodnik Lwowski, 1868, no. 6, page 48).4
Another very popular multilingual practice in the newspapers from the 19th century is the use of two or more languages for small text units printed next to each other. This strategy was favoured particularly for the announcement pages of newspapers, as in Figure 6:←222 | 223→
Figure 6: Der Israelit, 1873, no. 10, page 7
Most of the announcements and advertisements are published on the last page of the newspaper “Der Israelit”; they are written mainly in German, with the exception of the last one which is written in Yiddish. It promotes a mineral spring sanatorium (Heilbrunnen-Anstalt) which offers its services with a certain discount.
Figure 7 presents similar bilingual examples from the official gazette of the German and Polish newspaper “Lemberger Zeitung” / “Gazeta Lwowska”. For the announcements both languages – German and Polish – are used next to each other. However, in both cases (Figure 6 and Figure 7), every single announcement can be seen as a separate text. So here we are dealing with a multilingual practice that can be clearly distinguished from CS because there is no switch within the text.←223 | 224→
Figure 7: Amtsblatt zur Lemberger Zeitung / Dziennik urzedowy do Gazety Lwowskiej, no. 152, 5th of July 1850, page 948
Figure 8 demonstrates another special mode of bilingual practices which is different from the examples in Figures 6 and 7. One of the articles from the newspaper “Der Israelit” contains the “Propination Privilege of the Lviv Jews” which was originally (1796) written in Latin. Next to the original text, we have its German translation, since German, being the main language of the newspaper, was probably better understood by its readers. So, two languages – German and Latin – are used in juxtaposition. They are printed side by side within the same article, and this is a feature which is constitutive for the definition of code-switching. At the same time, we clearly recognise the difference of this case and its typography: both parts are written in separate columns.←224 | 225→
Figure 8: Der Israelit, 1873, no. 10, page 4
How should such multilingual practices be categorised? Are we dealing with a form of code-switching in this case or is it a different phenomenon? In my opinion, the last example differs from the typical cases of code-switching: The language shift occurs within a text; however, it consists of two (smaller or bigger) text parts in different languages which contain exactly the same information. For this reason, we should distinguish this type of written bilingual practice from regular code-switching, even if some similarities are present (such as the juxtaposition of two languages, language switch within the same text etc.).
The use of two languages in the newspaper head has a similar character, as shown in Figure 9. The title of the newspaper “Der wahre Jude” and the data are printed in Yiddish and in German. In contrast, the main body of the newspaper consist mainly of Yiddish texts.←225 | 226→
Figure 9: Der Wahre Jude, 1904, no. 1, page 1
Last but not least, I want to mention so called “fused lects” or “mixed codes”. The following example (B) from the Polish newspaper “Tygodnik Lwowski” contains a dialogue between two Galician Jews; the first speaker is an emancipated Jew, whereas the second is rather traditionally oriented. If we look at the dialogue, we can observe that two languages – Polish and German – are used in a very special way, even if the main text body is formulated in German:
(B) – Hörst du, Moszku, weissest du nicht, wann ist zweite zgromadzenie der Rada powiatowa? – Ny, abo ja wiem, o czem Wacpan gada. – No, weissest nicht, was Rada powiatowa gilt?… ist eine erlaubte instytucja autonomiczna für galicyjskisches Land. – Proszę pana, zaco teraz taka moda, że panowie gwałtem mówią po niemiecku… a tak uczono, że aż nikt nie rozumie; czy to nie lepiej mówić tak jak dawniej, po polsku? – Głupiś, Moszku; widać że ty gazet nie czytasz, i nic nie wiesz, bo gdybyś czytał „Przegląd krakowski“, tobyś się dowiedział, że z Niemcami teraz przymierze zawieramy.5 (“Tygodnik Lwowski”, 29th of March 1868, page 104)←226 | 227→
In the remarks of the first speaker some formulations are grammatically incorrect, for example hörst du as incorrect imperative form or weissest instead of weißt. The ordinal number zweite should be correctly used with the definite article die. The word galicyjskisches is a kind of mixing or “fusion” of the Polish adjective galicyjski and the German galizisch with the corresponding German inflection. In addition, we find the Polish phrase zgromadzenie der Rada powiatowa (meeting of the District Council) in the German text; we may presume that the speaker does not know the corresponding German designations.
The author of the article made use of this kind of language mixing for stylistic purposes: The faulty expressions sound inept, even ridiculous. At the same time, the protagonist is depicted as claiming to be well informed, educated and progressive. The commentary of the Polish-speaking Moszko (“the gentlemen speak so learnedly that no one understands them”) allows us to interpret this example as an intended language mixing used specifically for the characterisation of particular people. Projected onto political conditions, this language mixing can be seen as a stylistic device that includes an anti-semitic component.
Of course, the development from mixing to fusion should be described by means of more sources which would allow us to reconstruct the conventionalisation of mixing patterns. On the other hand, these bilingual practices may be regarded as “fused lects”, i.e. as typical varieties in Lviv or in Galicia, arising from language contact, because such stylisations are neither rare nor accidental. Similar mixing phenomena can also be observed in other texts from Galicia in the 19th century, not only in newspapers, but also in plays and in literary works (cf. Hofeneder 2011), and they are very often used for stylistic purposes. For example, mixing Polish vocabulary into spoken Ukrainian marks protagonists who are striving for more success and social prestige. Polish-German-Yiddish language mixtures are characteristic of the behaviour of Jewish protagonists, and German-Polish-Ukrainian interferences are a characteristic feature of the military jargon. This observation confirms the thesis of Auer (2014: 327): “Both mixing and fused lects are products of identity construction”. They are no direct documentation or reflection of real language use, but they can serve as indirect images of how a “mixed lect” can be produced by multilingual individuals or in multilingual societies, of how the circumstances of their usage within the com←227 | 228→munity permit that they may become established as a stable “mixed language”, and lastly of how they function as symbols of ethnic or cultural identity or as a markers for a threatened social entity.
Language contact and contact-induced changes such as borrowings, loanwords, transfers etc. have often been viewed primarily from the point of view of their linguistic results. It is no less important to analyse language contacts “in progress” by means of historical texts. Such material allows us to investigate multilingual practices as social phenomena and to explore special features of the communication in multilingual societies. This could be helpful for a better understanding of the social structure of the given multilingual community, and of the political and social relationships between different speech communities and their members.
The analysed examples from Lviv’s newspapers helped us to realise that language contact is inseparably linked to the social context and to social factors such as the relative status of the contact languages, the power relation between the speakers of the different languages etc. As we could see, the functions of the multilingual practices can vary greatly: Regarded as activities situated in a social setting, the phenomena of language contact reveal the relation between different linguistic groups within a society. We gain some information about the prestige of languages in a given society as well as about attitudes towards individual languages. For example, a language with high prestige is often a very influential donor language for borrowings. Also code-switching patterns reflect different social roles and functions as an index of interethnic relationships.
In the analysed newspaper texts from the 19th century we could observe different forms of “multilingual practices”: On the one hand, we dealt with phenomena that can be clearly categorised as code-switching. On the other hand, we could observe other practices of multilingualism when quotations and translations were used within a text. They should be distinguished from CS even if they share some common features. More precise criteria for the distinction between code-switching and other similar multilingual practices should be elaborated for research into historical code-switching.
The multilingual practices and patterns described here are often text-type related. In this paper I only dealt with newspaper texts, but there is a huge amount of material from other domains showing us a vibrant palette of communicative practices in multilingual administration, education etc. that should also be analysed to gain a better understanding of the societal multilingualism in historical cities.←228 | 229→
Due to lack of space, we left some questions unanswered, for example: How can we explore the socio-cultural embedding of mixed language texts? How can we discover attitudes towards code-switching in historical texts? In my opinion, these aspects should be included in the investigation of historical language contact.
Auer, Peter (1999): From codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. In: International Journal of Bilingualism 1999, 3–4, 309–332.
Auer, Peter (2014): Language mixing and language fusion: When bilingual talk becomes monolingual. In: Besters-Dilger, Juliane/ Dermarkar, Cynthia/Pfänder, Stefan/Rabus, Achim (eds.): Congruence in Contact-Induced Language Change: Language Families, Typological Resemblance, and Perceived Similarity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 294–334.
Bergmann, Rolf (ed.) (2003): Volkssprachig-lateinische Mischtexte und Textensembles in der althochdeutschen, altsächsischen und altenglischen Überlieferung. Heidelberg: Winter.
Besters-Dilger, Juliane (2006): Deutsch-galizische lexikalische Sprachbeziehungen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Austriazismen). In: Reinhart, Johannes/Reuther, Tilmann (eds.): Ethnoslavica. Festschrift für Gerhard Neweklowsky zum 65. Geburtstag. Wien: Sagner, 29–42.
Datsenko, Ihor (2009): Das Wörterbuch der Juridisch-politischen Terminologie (1851) als Index der galizischen Realität. In: Doktoratskolleg Galizien (ed.): Galizien. Fragmente eines diskursiven Raums. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 131–142.
„Die ruthenische Schrift- und Sprachenfrage“ (1861). Lemberg: Stauropigianisches Institut.
Fellerer, Jan (2003): Discourse and Hegemony, The case of the Ukrainian language in Galicia under Austrian rule (1772–1914). In: Schjerve-Rindler, Rosita (ed.): Diglossia and Power, Language Policies and Practice in the 19th Century Habsburg Empire. Berlin: de Gruyter, 107–166.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope (2009): Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope (2010): Language Contact and Code-Switching. In: Hickey, Raymond (ed.): The Handbook of Language Contact. New York: Blackwell Publishing, 1–15.
Gemeindelexikon von Galizien (1907). (= Gemeindelexikon der im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder. Bearbeitet auf Grund der Ergebnisse←229 | 230→ der Volkszählung von der K. K. Statistischen Zentralkommission, 12). Wien: K. K. Hof- u. Staatsdruckerei.
Glaser, Elvira (2016): Mittelalterliches Code-Switching? Zu den Sprachwechselstrategien Notkers III. von St. Gallen. In: Wich-Reif, Claudia (ed.): Historische Sprachkontakforschung. Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte, 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 35–60.
Hofeneder, Philipp (2011): Das ukrainische Volkstheater. Zwischen sprachlicher Stilisierung und Volksbildung? In: Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 2011, 2, 271–303.
Höfinghoff, Marina (2006): Deutsche Entlehnungen im Ukrainischen an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert: Bestand und Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart. Wien: Praesens.
Höfinghoff, Marina (2015): Beitrag der galizischen Presse zur Entwicklung des Kulturwortschatzes im Ukrainischen des 19. Jh. In: Cwanek-Florek, Ewa/Nöbauer, Irmgard (eds.): Sprachliche Wechselbeziehungen in der Habsburgermonarchie. Wien: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum Wien Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 57–84.
Kämmerer, Carmen Maria (2006): Codeswitching in Predigten des 15. Jahrhunderts. Mittellatein – Frühneuhochdeutsch. Mittellatein – Altitalienisch. Berlin: Logos.
Langer, Nils/Havinga, Anna (2015): Invisible Languages in Historical Sociolinguistics: A conceptual outline, with examples from the German-Danish borderlands. In: Havinga, Anna/Nils Langer (eds.): Invisible Languages in the 19th century. Oxford: Lang, 1–34.
Mattheier, Klaus J. (1995): Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen: Desiderate und Perspektiven. In: Gardt, Andreas/Mattheier, Klaus J./Reichmann, Oskar (eds.): Sprachgeschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Gegenstände – Methoden – Theorien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1–18.
McConvell, Patrick/Meakins, Felicity (2005): Gurindji Kriol: A mixed language emerges from code-switching. In: Australian Journal of Linguistics 25/1, 9–30.
McLelland, Nicola (2004): A historical study of codeswitching in writing: German and Latin in Schottelius Ausführliche Arbeit von der Teutschen HaubtSprache (1663). In: International journal of bilingualism 2004, 8/4, 499–523.
Moser, Michael (2005): Some Viennese contributions to the development of Ukrainian terminologies. In: Brogi-Bercoff, Giovanna/Lami, Giulia (eds.): Ukraine’s reintegration into Europe: A historical, historiographical and political urgent issue. Alessandria: dell’Orso, 139–180.←230 | 231→
Muysken, Pieter (2010): Scenarios for Language Contact. In: Hickey, Raymond (ed.): The Handbook of Language Contact. New York: Blackwell Publishing, 265–281.
Myers-Scotton, Carol (1998): A way to dusty death: The Matrix Language turnover hypothesis. In: Grenoble, Lenore A./Whaley, Lindsay J. (eds.): Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 289–316.
Myers-Scotton, Carol (2002): Contact linguistics: bilingual encounters and grammatical outcome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, Carol (2003): What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena. In: Matras, Yaron/Bakker, Peter (eds.): The Mixes Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73–105.
Nesse, Agnete (2002). Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk in hansatidens Bergen. Oslo: Novus.
Newerkla, Stefan Michael (2004, 22011): Sprachkontakte Tschechisch – Deutsch – Slowakisch. Deutsche Lehnwörter im Tschechischen und Slowakischen: historische Entwicklung, Beleglage, bisherige und neue Deutungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.
Oksaar, Els (1996): The History of Contact Linguistics as a Discipline. In: Goebl, Hans/ Nelde, Peter H./Stary, Zdenek/Wölck, Wolfgang (eds): Kontaktlinguistik; Contact Linguistics; Linguistique de contact: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. I. Halbband. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1–11.
Prinz, Michael (2010): Vergessene Wörter – frühe volkssprachliche Lexik in lateinischen Traditionsurkunden: In: Schmid, Hans Ulrich (ed.): Perspektiven der germanistischen Sprachgeschichtsforschung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 292–322.
Ptashnyk, Stefaniya (2008): Sprachen im Konflikt: Zur diskursiven Reflexion der Galizischen Polyglossie in Lemberger Zeitungen des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Nekula, Marek/Bauer, Verena/Greule, Albrecht (eds.): Deutsch in multilingualen Stadtzentren Mittel- und Osteuropas. Um die Jahrhundertwende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert. Wien: Praesens, 139–162.
Ptashnyk, Stefaniya (2010): Variation und die historische Sprachkontaktforschung: Am Beispiel der multilingualen Stadt Lemberg. In: Ziegler, Evelyn/Gilles, Peter/Scharloth, Joachim (eds.): “Variatio delectate”. Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation. Festschrift für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 287–308.
Ptashnyk Stefaniya (2016): Historische Sprachkontakte in einer multilingualen Stadt: Beschreibungsprobleme und Desiderate (am Beispiel Lembergs im 19. Jahrhundert). In: Wich-Reif, Claudia (ed.): Historische Sprachkontakt←231 | 232→forschung (Jahrbuch für germanistische Sprachgeschichte 7). Berlin: de Gruyter, 235–263.
Schendl, Herbert / Wright, Laura (2011): Code-switching in early English: Historical background and methodological and theoretical issues. In: Schendl, Herbert/Wright, Laura (eds.): Code-switching in early English. Berlin: de Gruyter, 15–46.
Stolt, Birgit (1964): Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden. Studien zum Problem der Zweisprachigkeit. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Thomas, George (1997): German Loanwords in Slavic Languages of the Habsburg Empire. In: Canadian Slavonic Papers 3–4, 333–359.
1 In Galicia, Polish, German, and Ukrainian were recognised as “landesübliche Sprachen”, i.e. as ‘languages commonly used in a particular region’.
2 English translation by S.P.: “There is no doubt that the school has become the arena of Polish politics to such an extent that not only subjects like Polish language, World history and Geography serve as a fertile field for the instilling of patriotic feelings, but even Classical Philology is used to this aim by calling the one or the other Polish hero a Polish Achilles”.
3 English translation by S.P.: “The voices full of hatred are crying that among the Poles in Galicia, it resonates all the time: ‘Death to the Germans’!”
4 English translation by S.P.: “If you think, after looking around in Lviv, that you are in Poland, you should count the persons dressed in a Polish way because the people dressed in a German way, you probably could not count: ‘Nomen eorum est legio’”.
5 English translation by SP.: “Listen, Moszko! Do you know when the second meeting of the District Council will take place? – I do not know what Sir is talking about. – You don’t know what a District Council is? It is an approved autonomous institution for Galicia. – I beg your pardon, what happened that currently it is fashionable for gentlemen to speak German all of a sudden… And they do it so learnedly that no one understands them. Is it not better to speak the same way as before, in Polish? – You are stupid, Moszko, you read no newspapers and you know nothing. If you read the “Cracow Review”, you would have learned that we were making an alliance with the Germans.”