Diss. : Sprachwissenschaft : Aachen. - Bibliogr. p. 285-296. -

Mgr. Veronika Štěpánová Czech orthoepic codification Abstract This doctoral thesis deals with the codification of standard Czech pronunciation. It focuses on how the phonetic level of the language is studied and described and, more generally, on orthoepic codification, its criteria, sources, relationship to orthography, etc. A historical overview of Czech orthoepic research, in particular of the first attempts at codification, work carried out for the orthoepic manuals Výslovnost spisovné češtiny I (ed. B. Hála; 1955, 1967) and Výslovnost spisovné češtiny II (ed. M. Romportl; 1978) is presented. In addition, research into standard Czech pronunciation from the 1980s to the present day is summarised from a new perspective. The primary focus of the thesis is a critical analysis of the principal Czech orthoepic manuals: not only Výslovnost spisovné češtiny I and II but also some older and newer works. Special attention is given to features (1) whose evaluation has changed over time (e.g. the pronunciation of mě and sh, the use of the glottal stop, simplification of certain consonant clusters, or voice assimilation before sonorants) and (2) which are problematic form the point of view of the contemporary pronunciation norm. This thesis is closely connected with the recently created Monolog corpus, which...

La considération de la langue et de l’écriture comme codes sémiotiques en contact devrait logiquement découler de l’affirmation saussurienne : « Langue et écriture sont deux systèmes de signes distincts ». Au même titre que les langues en contact, le contact entre la langue et l’écriture est propice au transfert sémiotique réciproque. L’acquisition de l’écrit induit un changement cognitif radical et l’apparition de l’écrit dans une communauté linguistique modifie son organisation. L’empeinte plus forte du stimulus visuel par rapport à celle du stimulus auditif et le prestige qu’accorde la maîtrise de l’écrit sont les facteurs cognitif et social privilégiant le transfert sémiotique de l’écriture vers la langue. Sur le plan lexical, une tradition scripturale accompagnée d’une orthoépie [règles de lecture à haute voix] fournit à la langue des mots venus d’autrefois et d’ailleurs, comme les emprunts savants aux langues classiques et les emprunts graphiques entre des langues sans contact communautaire. Des mots graphémiques sans origine linguistique sont également vernacularisés, comme la lexicalisation d’abréviations. La vernacularisation d’éléments scripturaux enrichit la langue. Un cas particulièremnt extrême est celui de la naissance de l’hébreu moderne parlé – l’hébreu littéraire non vernaculaire du début du 20e siècle en est la source principale. Sur le plan phonologique, l’orthoépie peur modifier la phonologie comme le montre l’apparition de groupes consonantiques en français. Sur le plan sémantique l’écrit peut être à l’origine d’une réorganisation des signifiés en fonction de l’orthographe ; de nombreuses figures de style sont inspirées par les propriétés de l’écriture. / The study of writing and language as semiotic codes in contact should have logically followed from the Saussurian statement: “Language and writing are two distinct systems of signs”. On the same theoretical basis as that of contact linguistics, the contact between language and writing might be conducive to mutual semiotic transfer. The acquisition of writing induces a radical cognitive change and the emergence of writing within a linguistic community modifies its organisation. The greater physical force of the visual stimulus as against aural stimulus and the high prestige gained by the mastery of writing are the cognitive and social factors that favour semiotic transfer from writing to language. With regard to lexicon, a writing tradition accompanied by an orthoepy [rules of reading aloud] provides the language with words from afar in place and in time, like learned words from classical tongues and graphic loanwords between languages whose linguistic communities are not in direct contact. Graphemic words with no linguistic provenance are also vernacularised, like the lexicalisation of abbreviations. The vernacularisation of written elements enriches language. A particularly extreme case of vernacularised written sources is that of the emergence of spoken Modern Hebrew – literary non vernacular Hebrew of early 20th century being its main source. On the phonological level, orthoepy may modify phonology, as can be shown by the emergence of consonantal clusters in French and of - et #952;- in author in English. On the semantic level, writing may be the source of the reorganisation of the signifiés based on spelling; numerous figures of speech are inspired by the attributes of writing.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate norm in contemporary Russian verbal stress. In a first step the concept of norm is explored. It is shown that the criteria generally used in Russian for defining norm (correspondence to the language system, usage and authority/tradition/necessity) are not applied strictly. It is also concluded that any study of norms must take into account the distinction between the explicit norm, i.e. the codification, and the implicit norm, i.e. the usage and attitude of educated native speakers. In a second step the explicit norm is investigated. The analysis is based on the stress notation in two orthoepic dictionaries. This comparison shows that there is not, as is often suggested, one unanimous, "objectively existing", explicit stress norm. In a third step, the implicit norm is examined. This is done through a survey of reported and actual usage, carried out on 106 Russian speakers in Moscow. Subsequently, implicit norms are related to explicit norms. There is compliance between these in many cases, but the discrepancies are numerous. Furthermore, there is no direct or predictable relationship between the implicit stress norms and the labels these stresses are assigned in handbooks. A comparison with additional sources demonstrates that among the, in all, nine sources no two are perfectly alike in their notation. Sources that reflect the implicit norm better than others are identified. Finally, dictionary data and the survey results are compared with results from previous surveys (1956-1994). This shows that certain stress variants have apparently functioned as the implicit norm for several decades, but this has not yet been taken into account in codification. The general conclusions are that there is in theory an unclear definition of norm; there is in practice disagreement in codification; there is no official codex, although some sources might be considered more reliable; there is in many cases a discrepancy between explicit and implicit norms, which is most likely a result of arbitrariness or subjectivism and of conservatism. It is possible that these conclusions are valid for areas of language normativisation other than verbal stress.