[174]číslo strany rukopisuproductive categories within the stem system of that period (see, e. g., the expansion of o-stems and expansion of derivatives with the suffixes with o-, like pán : páň > pán : pánóv 9.23; obnoviti : obnávěti > obnoviti : obnovovati, 10.21; častý : čěstě > častý : často, 11.23b). But the units that left the stem-systematic centre of the lexical system owing to such a phonological disintegration of stem correlations can – in accordance with the effect of psychic factors – continue to exist on the periphery of the system, having, assumed a specific intellectual, expressive or stylistic function (12, 14.12, 18.1). The Czech vocabulary was similarly enriched thanks to units isolated from the paradigmatic system; this is the case of fossilized verbal forms (vece 10.26, takřka 11.11), nonprepositional cases (dole 11.23, dojíti odplaty 11.21), anomalous forms (v hlavách 11.24) etc., see 12. — As for the rise of new lexical units by adding new correlations of stem-systematic and lexico-semantic character, special attention was given here to the so-called regressive processes, deprefixation (obaliti → baliti, 20.1), desuffixation (rakvice → rakev, 20.2), the acquirement of non-reflexive character (smeknúti sě → smeknúti, 21.1) and of non-metaphorical meaning (kořiti se ‘yield’ → kořiti se ‘bow in reverence’, 27.14). — Cf. summary 12,16, 22.

(35.7) But the chief prerequisites for the rise of new lexical units are not inherent in the lexical system only; they can often be found outside that system – in the extralingual reality. These extra-linguistic factors of lexical evolutionary processes of the Czech language – not only the factors of the rise but also of the loss and formal changes of its lexical units – can be seen on the cultural and political development of the Czech language community (III). This development prepares the circumstances not only for the acceptance of a new reality (things, institutions, relations etc., 30), for the extinction of an old one (31) and for the change of its knowledge and evaluation (32–33), but also for denomination of new phenomena by foreign lexical elements (30.1) or for a conscious introduction of new Czech words, not taken over from the language of neighbouring nations (see, e. g., the activity of Jan Hus aimed at the improvement of language, 30.32, or of the representatives of the Czech national revival, 30.31). Both this conscious or spontaneous derivation of native words and the taking over of foreign lexical elements links new lexical elements with the old ones (see, e. g., the formation of stem-systematic and lexico-semantic correlations according to foreign models as in the so-called stem-systematic calques, like listovati to list, in accordance with the German correlation Blatt : blättern, 30.12, and the semantic calques, like úderník ‘a shock-worker’ to úderník ‘storm-trooper’, in accordance with the similar semantic correlation of the Russian word udarnik, 30.13). But only when integrated into the relations already automatized in the domestic system (e. g., by forming native derivatives), the foreign lexical unit proceeds from the extreme periphery nearer to the centre of domestic lexical system, i. e. it loses its foreign character (2.31–2.32). As a reverse lexical evolutionary processes can be mentioned, the withdrawal of the domestic lexical unit from the centre nearer to the periphery of the system. It takes place through the loss of the relation to other units, owing to the change in extra-lingual reality: when the juridical practice of expelling a criminal from the community by whipping was abolished, the lexico-semantic correlation of the type vypráskaný ‘punished by whipping’ : vypráskaný ‘foxy, wily’ faded out and so the synonyms vypráskaný, fikaný, mazaný, šibal etc. lost their semantic motivation (31.23); their appurtenance to a periphery of the lexical system could be seen in their tendency to expressivity. The position of units in the lexical system thus also depends on the denoted extra-lingual reality and its changes: the investigator must take into account whether the structural meaning of the given lexeme corresponds with some phenomenon of the extra-lingual reality elucidating the relation between the form of that lexeme and its lexical meaning, or not. That is why the structural analysis of the vocabulary may not be limited to the level of linguistic formation, to the area of merely paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations.