Question: Who was the major proponent of American sociology?

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

Answer: Talcott Parsons

<hl> American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons , who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". <hl> This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by <hl> Talcott Parsons <hl>, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by <hl> Talcott Parsons <hl> , who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional".


Question: What did Parsons believe made a functional society?

Answer: structural integration

<hl> American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". <hl> This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted <hl> structural integration <hl> were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.


Question: What was the problem with the views of Parsons?

Answer: inequalities present in the status quo

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". <hl> This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo . <hl> In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for <hl> inequalities present in the status quo <hl>. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for <hl> inequalities present in the status quo <hl> .


Question: What idea from Karl Marx was used to combat the problems with structural integration?

Answer: conflict theory

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. <hl> In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. <hl> Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, <hl> conflict theory <hl> was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.


Question: What is the main belief of conflict theory?

Answer: different groups compete for control over resources

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. <hl> Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which different groups compete for control over resources . <hl> Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

American sociology in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated largely by Talcott Parsons, who argued that aspects of society that promoted structural integration were therefore "functional". This structural functionalism approach was questioned in the 1960s, when sociologists came to see this approach as merely a justification for inequalities present in the status quo. In reaction, conflict theory was developed, which was based in part on the philosophies of Karl Marx. Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which <hl> different groups compete for control over resources <hl>. Symbolic interactionism also came to be regarded as central to sociological thinking. Erving Goffman saw social interactions as a stage performance, with individuals preparing "backstage" and attempting to control their audience through impression management. While these theories are currently prominent in sociological thought, other approaches exist, including feminist theory, post-structuralism, rational choice theory, and postmodernism.

Conflict theorists saw society as an arena in which <hl> different groups compete for control over resources <hl> .


Question: What science is based on linguistics, mathematics, and engineering?

Computer science, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data. Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.

Answer: Computer science

<hl> Computer science , built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. <hl> Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data. Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.

<hl> Computer science <hl>, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data. Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.

<hl> Computer science <hl> , built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation.


Question: How has computer science helped science as a whole?

Answer: by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data

Computer science, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. <hl> One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data . <hl> Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.

Computer science, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is <hl> by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data <hl>. Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.

One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is <hl> by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data <hl> .


Question: What is the differing characteristic of contemporary computer science?

Answer: emphasising mathematical 'theory'

Computer science, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data. <hl> Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by emphasising mathematical 'theory' in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering. <hl>

Computer science, built upon a foundation of theoretical linguistics, discrete mathematics, and electrical engineering, studies the nature and limits of computation. Subfields include computability, computational complexity, database design, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and the design of computer hardware. One area in which advances in computing have contributed to more general scientific development is by facilitating large-scale archiving of scientific data. Contemporary computer science typically distinguishes itself by <hl> emphasising mathematical 'theory' <hl> in contrast to the practical emphasis of software engineering.


Question: What text is the foundation of the study of the history of science?

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

Answer: History of the Inductive Sciences

<hl> As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). <hl> A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's <hl> History of the Inductive Sciences <hl> (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.


Question: Who wrote a more professional version of History of the Inductive Sciences?

Answer: George Sarton's

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). <hl> A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). <hl> Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by <hl> George Sarton's <hl> publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.


Question: What was the history of science during the 20th century?

Answer: the history of great men and great ideas

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). <hl> Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas . <hl> He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as <hl> the history of great men and great ideas <hl>. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as <hl> the history of great men and great ideas <hl> .


Question: How could Sarton's ideas be described?

Answer: Whiggish

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. <hl> He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. <hl> The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a <hl> Whiggish <hl> belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.


Question: Who studied the history of science?

Answer: interested scientists and physicians

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. <hl> The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by interested scientists and physicians rather than professional historians. <hl> With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.

As an academic field, history of science began with the publication of William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (first published in 1837). A more formal study of the history of science as an independent discipline was launched by George Sarton's publications, Introduction to the History of Science (1927) and the Isis journal (founded in 1912). Sarton exemplified the early 20th-century view of the history of science as the history of great men and great ideas. He shared with many of his contemporaries a Whiggish belief in history as a record of the advances and delays in the march of progress. The history of science was not a recognized subfield of American history in this period, and most of the work was carried out by <hl> interested scientists and physicians <hl> rather than professional historians. With the work of I. Bernard Cohen at Harvard, the history of science became an established subdiscipline of history after 1945.


Question: What is the large question that the history of science answers?

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Answer: what science is

<hl> Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is , how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. <hl> The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about <hl> what science is <hl>, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about <hl> what science is <hl> , how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends.


Question: What did sociology in science explain?

Answer: the ways in which scientists work

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. <hl> The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work , looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. <hl> Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. The sociology of science in particular has focused on <hl> the ways in which scientists work <hl>, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

The sociology of science in particular has focused on <hl> the ways in which scientists work <hl> , looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge.


Question: What was the most popular method in the 1960s regarding science studies?

Answer: to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. <hl> Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge , and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. <hl> The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Much of the study of the history of science has been devoted to answering questions about what science is, how it functions, and whether it exhibits large-scale patterns and trends. The sociology of science in particular has focused on the ways in which scientists work, looking closely at the ways in which they "produce" and "construct" scientific knowledge. Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been <hl> to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge <hl>, and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free. The field of Science and Technology Studies, an area that overlaps and often informs historical studies of science, focuses on the social context of science in both contemporary and historical periods.

Since the 1960s, a common trend in science studies (the study of the sociology and history of science) has been <hl> to emphasize the "human component" of scientific knowledge <hl> , and to de-emphasize the view that scientific data are self-evident, value-free, and context-free.


Question: What did Humboldtian science aim to do?

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals. It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.

Answer: combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals

<hl> Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals . <hl> It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of <hl> combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals <hl>. It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of <hl> combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals <hl> .


Question: Who was the model for Humboldtian science?

Answer: Alexander von Humboldt

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals. <hl> It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt . <hl> The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals. It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer <hl> Alexander von Humboldt <hl>. The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.

It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer <hl> Alexander von Humboldt <hl> .


Question: What idea did positivism provide?

Answer: the only valid knowledge is scientific

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals. It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. <hl> The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific . <hl>

Humboldtian science refers to the early 19th century approach of combining scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity, ethics and aesthetic ideals. It helped to install natural history as a separate field, gave base for ecology and was based on the role model of scientist, naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt. The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that <hl> the only valid knowledge is scientific <hl>.

The later 19th century positivism asserted that all authentic knowledge allows verification and that all authentic knowledge assumes that <hl> the only valid knowledge is scientific <hl> .


Question: Where did the social aspect of science originate?

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science. As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

Answer: Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962

<hl> The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 . <hl> It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science. As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from <hl> Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 <hl>. It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science. As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from <hl> Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 <hl> .


Question: What idea did social science add to science as a whole?

Answer: positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. <hl> It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science . <hl> As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that <hl> positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science <hl>. As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that <hl> positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science <hl> .


Question: How did Kuhn view the history of science?

Answer: competing paradigms or conceptual systems

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science. <hl> As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of competing paradigms or conceptual systems in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. <hl> "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."

The mid 20th century saw a series of studies relying to the role of science in a social context, starting from Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. It opened the study of science to new disciplines by suggesting that the evolution of science was in part sociologically determined and that positivism did not explain the actual interactions and strategies of the human participants in science. As Thomas Kuhn put it, the history of science may be seen in more nuanced terms, such as that of <hl> competing paradigms or conceptual systems <hl> in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside of science. "Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly presented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method made seem scientific."


Question: What did Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems describe the scientific community as?

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Answer: a social construct

<hl> Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct , in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. <hl> The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as <hl> a social construct <hl>, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as <hl> a social construct <hl> , in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge.


Question: What was the era called when scientists were rejecting the notion of objectivity of science?

Answer: The Science wars

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. <hl> The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. <hl> They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. <hl> The Science wars <hl> of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"


Question: What was positivism called after it was revived?

Answer: scientism

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. <hl> They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism , a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. <hl> However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while <hl> scientism <hl>, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while <hl> scientism <hl> , a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies.


Question: What did scientism aim to do?

Answer: settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. <hl> They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies . <hl> However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

Further studies, e.g. Jerome Ravetz 1971 Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge. The Science wars of the 1990 were about the influence of especially French philosophers, which denied the objectivity of science in general or seemed to do so. They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally <hl> settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies <hl>. However, more recently some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their postmodern deconstructions have at times been counter-productive, and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests. Bruno Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant?"

They described as well differences between the idealized model of a pure science and the actual scientific practice; while scientism, a revival of the positivism approach, saw in precise measurement and rigorous calculation the basis for finally <hl> settling enduring metaphysical and moral controversies <hl> .


Question: How many people speak Czech?

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Answer: 10 million

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over <hl> 10 million <hl> people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: Which two languages strongly influenced Czech?

Answer: Latin and German

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by <hl> Latin and German <hl> language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: In which country is Czech the official language?

Answer: Czech Republic

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic . <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the <hl> Czech Republic <hl>. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the <hl> Czech Republic <hl> .


Question: Which language is closest to Czech?

Answer: Slovak

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak , with which it is mutually intelligible. <hl> It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is <hl> Slovak <hl>, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech's closest relative is <hl> Slovak <hl> , with which it is mutually intelligible.


Question: What name was the Czech language formerly known as?

Answer: Bohemian

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as <hl> Bohemian <hl> (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: What was Czech formerly known as?

Answer: Bohemian

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as <hl> Bohemian <hl> (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: What languages strongly influenced Czech?

Answer: Latin and German

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by <hl> Latin and German <hl> language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: Over how many million people speak Czech?

Answer: 10

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over <hl> 10 <hl> million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: What vocabulary associated with higher classed culture have been adopted over the years?

Answer: loanwords

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. <hl> Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years. <hl>

Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many <hl> loanwords <hl> (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: What is the official language of the Czech republic?

Answer: Czech

<hl> Czech (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. <hl> Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.

<hl> Czech <hl> (/ˈtʃɛk/; čeština Czech pronunciation: [ˈt͡ʃɛʃcɪna]), formerly known as Bohemian (/boʊˈhiːmiən, bə-/; lingua Bohemica in Latin), is a West Slavic language strongly influenced by Latin and German language, spoken by over 10 million people and it is the official language of the Czech Republic. Czech's closest relative is Slovak, with which it is mutually intelligible. It is closely related to other West Slavic languages, such as Silesian and Polish. Although most Czech vocabulary is based on shared roots with Slavic, Romance, and Germanic languages, many loanwords (most associated with high culture) have been adopted in recent years.


Question: When did the Soviet Union occupy Czechoslovakia?

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

Answer: 1968

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968 ). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in <hl> 1968 <hl>). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in <hl> 1968 <hl> ).


Question: What language forms a dialect continuum with Czech?

Answer: Slovak

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. <hl> (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and <hl> Slovak <hl> form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: Name three Serbo-Croatian languages that have made a point of establishing their own unique linguistic identities.

Answer: Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian

<hl> The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the <hl> Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian <hl> standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: Why have many Slavic languages sought to separate themselves from Russian influence?

Answer: widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of <hl> widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union <hl> (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: What deliberate action has been done to some languages in the name of nationalism?

Answer: highlighting of minor linguistic differences

<hl> The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate <hl> highlighting of minor linguistic differences <hl> in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: What language family is Czech?

Answer: Slavic

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most <hl> Slavic <hl> languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: Why did many Slavic languages distance themselves from Russian influences?

Answer: resentment against the former Soviet Union

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public <hl> resentment against the former Soviet Union <hl> (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: When did the Soviet Union occupy Czechoslovakia?

Answer: 1968

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. <hl> However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968 ). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in <hl> 1968 <hl>). Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)

However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in <hl> 1968 <hl> ).


Question: What language does Czech form a dialect continuum with?

Answer: Slovak

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). <hl> Czech and Slovak form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. <hl> (See "Dialects" below.)

The languages have not undergone the deliberate highlighting of minor linguistic differences in the name of nationalism as has occurred in the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standards of Serbo-Croatian. However, most Slavic languages (including Czech) have been distanced in this way from Russian influences because of widespread public resentment against the former Soviet Union (which occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968). Czech and <hl> Slovak <hl> form a dialect continuum, with great similarity between neighboring Czech and Slovak dialects. (See "Dialects" below.)


Question: How much do the lexicons of Czech and Slovak differ, according to on study?

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

Answer: by 80 percent

<hl> One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent , but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). <hl> The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed <hl> by 80 percent <hl>, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed <hl> by 80 percent <hl> , but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak).


Question: What was the high percentage of differing lexicons found to derive from?

Answer: differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation

<hl> One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation ; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). <hl> The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from <hl> differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation <hl>; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from <hl> differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation <hl> ; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak).


Question: When is Slovak morphology more regular than Czech?

Answer: when changing from the nominative to the locative case

<hl> One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular ( when changing from the nominative to the locative case , Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). <hl> The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (<hl> when changing from the nominative to the locative case <hl>, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular ( <hl> when changing from the nominative to the locative case <hl> , Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak).


Question: The most differences between Czech and Slovak can be found in colloquial vocabulary as well as what?

Answer: some scientific terminology

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). <hl> The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology . <hl> Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and <hl> some scientific terminology <hl>. Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech.

The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and <hl> some scientific terminology <hl> .


Question: What does Slovak have slightly more of than Czech?

Answer: borrowed words

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. <hl> Slovak has slightly more borrowed words than Czech. <hl>

One study showed that Czech and Slovak lexicons differed by 80 percent, but this high percentage was found to stem primarily from differing orthographies and slight inconsistencies in morphological formation; Slovak morphology is more regular (when changing from the nominative to the locative case, Praha becomes Praze in Czech and Prahe in Slovak). The two lexicons are generally considered similar, with most differences in colloquial vocabulary and some scientific terminology. Slovak has slightly more <hl> borrowed words <hl> than Czech.


Question: Who called themselves "Czechoslavs"?

The similarities between Czech and Slovak led to the languages being considered a single language by a group of 19th-century scholars who called themselves "Czechoslavs" (Čechoslováci), believing that the peoples were connected in a way which excluded German Bohemians and (to a lesser extent) Hungarians and other Slavs. During the First Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), although "Czechoslovak" was designated as the republic's official language both Czech and Slovak written standards were used. Standard written Slovak was partially modeled on literary Czech, and Czech was preferred for some official functions in the Slovak half of the republic. Czech influence on Slovak was protested by Slovak scholars, and when Slovakia broke off from Czechoslovakia in 1938 as the Slovak State (which then aligned with Nazi Germany in World War II) literary Slovak was deliberately distanced from Czech. When the Axis powers lost the war and Czechoslovakia reformed, Slovak developed somewhat on its own (with Czech influence); during the Prague Spring of 1968, Slovak gained independence from (and equality with) Czech. Since then, "Czechoslovak" refers to improvised pidgins of the languages which have arisen from the decrease in mutual intelligibility.

Answer: a group of 19th-century scholars

<hl> The similarities between Czech and Slovak led to the languages being considered a single language by a group of 19th-century scholars who called themselves "Czechoslavs" (Čechoslováci), believing that the peoples were connected in a way which excluded German Bohemians and (to a lesser extent) Hungarians and other Slavs. <hl> During the First Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), although "Czechoslovak" was designated as the republic's official language both Czech and Slovak written standards were used. Standard written Slovak was partially modeled on literary Czech, and Czech was preferred for some official functions in the Slovak half of the republic. Czech influence on Slovak was protested by Slovak scholars, and when Slovakia broke off from Czechoslovakia in 1938 as the Slovak State (which then aligned with Nazi Germany in World War II) literary Slovak was deliberately distanced from Czech. When the Axis powers lost the war and Czechoslovakia reformed, Slovak developed somewhat on its own (with Czech influence); during the Prague Spring of 1968, Slovak gained independence from (and equality with) Czech. Since then, "Czechoslovak" refers to improvised pidgins of the languages which have arisen from the decrease in mutual intelligibility.

The similarities between Czech and Slovak led to the languages being considered a single language by <hl> a group of 19th-century scholars <hl> who called themselves "Czechoslavs" (Čechoslováci), believing that the peoples were connected in a way which excluded German Bohemians and (to a lesser extent) Hungarians and other Slavs. During the First Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), although "Czechoslovak" was designated as the republic's official language both Czech and Slovak written standards were used. Standard written Slovak was partially modeled on literary Czech, and Czech was preferred for some official functions in the Slovak half of the republic. Czech influence on Slovak was protested by Slovak scholars, and when Slovakia broke off from Czechoslovakia in 1938 as the Slovak State (which then aligned with Nazi Germany in World War II) literary Slovak was deliberately distanced from Czech. When the Axis powers lost the war and Czechoslovakia reformed, Slovak developed somewhat on its own (with Czech influence); during the Prague Spring of 1968, Slovak gained independence from (and equality with) Czech. Since then, "Czechoslovak" refers to improvised pidgins of the languages which have arisen from the decrease in mutual intelligibility.