The Language Project Głogolěnьščina

Conceptual Foundations, Programmatic Claim & Functional Objectives

Głogolěnьščina is conceived as an art project and explicitly understands itself not as a natural, historically evolved language, but as a planned language. Whereas natural languages in the course of their development often tend towards structural simplification, analogical levelling and the reduction of morphological complexity, Głogolěnьščina pursues an opposite principle: deliberate complexification. Its task consists in the most comprehensive possible representation and systematic elaboration of grammatical categories, particularly in the domain of inflection, in order to enable semantic and syntactic precision.

At the centre stands the systematic exploration and combination of morphological parameters: case systems, aspectual differentiations, derivational nuances and historically attested secondary forms are not reduced, but maintained productively or re-functionalised. Grammatical categories are understood as formally definable sets of features, whose combinations are maximally exploited in paradigmatic and syntagmatic structures. The aim is the increase of structural differentiation and thus the most precise possible semantic specification. Where necessary, new categories, differentiations or paradigms are added. In this sense, Głogolěnьščina, despite its conceptual foundational design, constitutes a dynamic, evolving structure, which – similar to a living language – is subject to continual expansion and internal reorganisation.

There exists a prescriptive grammar, that is, a normative set of rules establishing binding forms and structures. At the same time, this system permits various varieties depending on register. By “register” is understood the functional level of style and usage – for example, an elevated, archaicising, liturgical or a reduced, everyday register. Depending on communicative intention, different morphological and phonological features come to the fore.

Structures are deliberately integrated that are attested both synchronically and diachronically in Slavic languages. “Synchronic” in linguistics denotes the description of a language system at a specific point in time, that is, without consideration of its historical development. “Diachronic”, by contrast, refers to the examination of linguistic processes of change over time. The language thus combines simultaneously existing (synchronic) and historically documented (diachronic) features of the Slavic linguistic area.

Głogolěnьščina is therefore not arbitrarily constructed; rather, its approach is observational, empirical and descriptive: it draws upon actually existing or historically attested phenomena, systematises them and brings them together within a new, aesthetically motivated overall configuration. Thus Głogolěnьščina understands itself as a linguistic experimental field that does not reduce complexity, but cultivates it intentionally.

Philological Motivation and Artistic Initial Phase

At an early stage, I developed a pronounced affinity for writing systems and linguistic structures, particularly those of the Slavic linguistic sphere. A special fascination was exerted by the Cyrillic script, which, through Russian, provided primary access to Slavia. Later, however, another linguistic orientation emerged: an increasing turn towards the Czech language, through the acquisition of which a reciprocal constellation of interests between East and West Slavic orientations took shape – on the one hand, the visual and cultural imprint of the East Slavic-associated Kyrillica as applied to Russian, and on the other, the structural and phonological proximity to the West Slavic idioms.

Over time, the desire grew to allow my philological ambitions to flow into my artistic practice. Around 2010, I therefore began to integrate lexical creations sporadically – initially in the form of headings or inscriptions within pictorial works. These early insertions were not yet subject to a conceptualised system, yet they marked the transition from a purely visual appropriation to a structurally motivated language construction.

A more intensive engagement only began in connection with the Icons. Within this body of work, the possibility arose not only to employ Kyrillica, but also the historical Azbuka as an aesthetic and semantic element. At that time, however, I was by no means yet familiar with the internal systematics of this script; still less did I understand the underlying liturgical linguistic tradition.

On icons there generally appears Church Slavonic, the liturgical high language of Slavia orthodoxa transmitted since the 11th century. It developed from the older Old Church Slavonic, yet over the centuries was standardised and transmitted in various regional recensions (for instance of Russian, Serbian or Bulgarian character).

Church Slavonic is not a spoken vernacular language, but a sacred written language with conservative grammar and a deliberately archaicising character, which continues to function up to the present as a liturgical and cultural medium. In terms of diglossia theory, it functions as a High Variety, that is, as a formally superior, normatively stabilised variety used in religious, ceremonial and representative contexts, while the respective vernacular languages assume the role of Low Varieties in everyday usage.

It was precisely this conjunction of sacred script, historical linguistic form and formal rigour that formed the point of departure for the later development of Głogolěnьščina as an autonomous artistic-linguistic project.

Scholarly Engagement with Slavic Languages

After completing my art studies, I enrolled at Humboldt University in Berlin in order to devote myself systematically to Slavic studies and to acquire the Czech language at a professional level. In this academic context, I first engaged in depth with Old Church Slavonic as well as with historical stages of Slavic. The diachronic dimension of linguistic development – in particular the reconstruction of earlier phonological and morphological states – thereby gained central importance for my further work.

Periods of study in Prague, Moscow and Lviv enabled a specialised focus in the fields of Old Church Slavonic, Czech dialectology and Ukrainian studies. In Moscow, I also studied icon painting at Saint Tikhon’s University and simultaneously devoted myself with particular inclination to Church Slavonic. This conjunction of linguistic history, liturgical language and sacred pictorial practice deepened the interplay between philology and my artistic work considerably.

Structural Features and Grammatical Architecture

The grammatical architecture of Głogolěnьščina is intentionally highly differentiated in design: the aim is not reduction, but the systematic expansion of formal categories. The language system possesses three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), which operate not only in the nominal and adjectival domain, but are also grammatically marked in verbal inflection. This produces an intensified congruence structure that explicitly represents syntactic relations.

In the domain of number, alongside singular and plural, dual, trial and a fourfold number (quadral) are distinguished. The term “quadral” is formed analogically and denotes a specially marked four-number category which exists at least in certain Oceanic/Austronesian languages. The combination of all number categories I have created allows for more precise quantification.

The case system is extensively developed and comprises: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, comitative, instructive, locative I and II, ablative, illative, temporal and abessive. This multitude of relations permits a finely articulated syntactic and semantic differentiation that in natural language developments is often reduced in favour of structural simplification.

In addition, there exist definite and indefinite articles as well as a binary aspectual system in the verbal domain (perfective vs. imperfective). The aspectual opposition remains productive and is not levelled.

A central design principle is the extensive avoidance of syncretisms. In linguistics, “syncretism” denotes the merger of originally distinct grammatical forms into an identical phonetic or written form. In order to minimise such formal coincidences as far as possible, care is taken, at least in writing, to differentiate graphically between homophonous endings. A historical model is offered here by Church Slavonic, for instance in masculine adjectives in the genitive/accusative of animacy, where a distinction is made between -агω and -аго, although both forms may be realised phonetically in an almost identical manner.

The grammar of Głogolěnьščina thus pursues the principle of maximal formal transparency: grammatical categories are not to remain implicit, but to be marked explicitly.