A contemporary sociolinguistic
look at former Yugoslavia

Prof. Vesna Požgaj Hadži, Ph. D.
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana

Presentation overview
aim



to present sociolinguistic turmoil in newly-formed countries
following the disintegration of Serbo-Croatian into new
standard languages

how?




historical standpoint without emotion, with the issue ofobjectivity and balance
personal ideas + literature + discussing the issue withlinguists
theoretical framework on linguistic identity + situation
descriptions + open question

Theoretical framework (1)questions

who we are, where do we come from,what we are?

identity : linguistic identity (LI)different among languages
complex phenomenon composed of ethnic,cultural, regional… identity

Theoretical framework (2)determining LIdiscussing LIvehement discussions because ofunacceptance of linguistic arguments andbecause of prevailing political interests
a combination of structural, genetic andsociolinguistic identity

types of LI

singular (e. g. Mongolian, Albanian)complex (e. g. Dutch, German)

Identity of the S-C language (1)LI and imprecise name of the S-C
language a matter of disputesupranational name would have probably
survived the disintegration of Yugoslavia!

frequent question in the 1990sis S-C one language or two?
answer:

from a linguistic point of view: one
from a sociolinguistic point of view: two

Identity of the S-C language (2)Serbo-CroatianNew Štokavian dialect from Herzegovina
various official and unofficial names
native to 73% of population (SFRY census
from 1981)
considered as one language of:

2 variants:
 eastern (Serbian) and western (Croatian)
2 standard expressions: Bosnian and Herzegovinian and Montenegrin

Identity of the S-C language (3)the disintegration of Yugoslavia
administrative death of the prestigeous SC language
 variants became standard languages in
newly-formed countries:

1990−93: Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian
2007: Montenegrin

S-C in the last decade of the20th century (1)linguistic engineeringCroatiafrom 1970s tendency to move away from S-C“there came a wave of purification andCroatisation, and public language wascleansed of all that even resembled Serbian
or was reminiscent of Yugoslavia, andsubstitute words were found by reviving
archaisms, institutionalising regionalisms andcreating neologisms” (Bugarski 2009)
S-C in the last decade of the20th century (2)linguistic engineeringBosnia and HerzegovinaMontenegroemphasis on Near Eastern features and linguistic andcultural tradition
Looking for identity in Montenegrin dialectal base,history and folkloreSerbia


no need to emphasise and prove its identity“Serbian was standing still and observing as its related
languages took leave.” (Bugarski 2009)

“Same Serbo-Croatian salad withvarious national dressing”
S-C in relation to the Theory of Markedness (Bugarski 2005)


S-C: widest unmarked base; S: less specific, neutral; B: more
specific in pronunciation, orthography and lexis; C: most marked
no clear borders; pouring into each other

Language policy and linguistic
reality after 1990
sociolinguistic situations in newlyformed countries

conceptually different
intention: present what is typical andparticular for a given standard⇒ CroatiaCroatia (1)how to regard the relationship between
Croatian and Serbian?
from a structural, genetic, sociolinguistic, contrastive…
standpoint, but with POLITICAL aspect dominatingdiscussion

⇓
why?

⇓

public disinterested in linguistic issues

Croatia(2)

the relationship between the language of Croatsand the language of Serbs was reflected in thegeneral public as“the relationship between the nations, between unitarianism andso-called separatism, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism,
between Latin and Cyrillic script, between Ustashas andChetniks, between east and west, and so on. That was thecase especially because in the first and second Yugoslavia it
was not allowed to openly discuss national issues, particularly
Croatian issues, so language, as so many times before (inCroatian history the word language was used to mean people)
gained greater significance and a more important role than it
actually has”
(Pranjković 2008)

Croatia (3)more important events:
1960s – the Declaration on the Name and Status of CroatianStandard Language

1970s – the time of the Croatian Spring when the agreement
form Novi Sad was abandoned

1980s – the fight against nationalism in the language oftextbooks



1990s


discussion about Croatian which most often proves its
independence and identity in relation to Serbian

negative type of LI which took the form of agressive
linguistic engineeringCroatia (4)the model of Croatian purist language
planning

reinforcing national identity, highlighting
symbolic function of language, introducing
archaisms, attacking quasi-Serbian words…
proscribed nationally appropriate use of
Croatian = “pure” Croatian
lexical stereotypes
“without competition Croatia, Croat, Croatian...” (Tafra2005)

Croatia (5)Croatisms
lexemes of high symbolic charge: illustrate
Croatia’s independence (Škarić 2005):glede, u svezi, nazočno, zamolba, preslika,
nadnevak...

intervention in military, legal andadministrative terminology
media helped spread the trend

people’s speech labelled them politically ⇒fear of native language

Croatia (6)neologisms, i. e. New Croatianneologisms by Babić (1994)


kopnica for AIDS; mamutnjak for jumbo jet; mondenci
for the rich, and so on.

Competition for the best Croatian word byjournal Jezik

2007, 500 entries, 47 shortlisteduspornik for speed bump or sleeping policeman“amateur individual making up of new lexical items,
which is often unsystematic and without purpose, isbad folklore” (Kovačec 2006)

Croatia (7) stance toward Serbian words“they represent the enemy who poses a risk not only to
manifesting national identity but also to the nationitself” (Lučić 2007)
 dictionaries of differences, handbooks onlanguage use, dictionaries of redundant words...
Brodnjak + dilettante dictionaries with lists of“forbidden” words
praise vs criticism
caused many misunderstandings

Croatia (8)orthographic issues
Language Committee of CCCPS requested in
1992 institutions to support:

etymological or phonological orthography
fight for creating as many differences as possible
between Croatian and Serbian (see Sučeljavanja byPranjković)today

fight for an official orthography handbook


Babić, Finka and Moguš:“promote actual Croatian orthography tradition”
Anić and Silić; Badurina, Marković and Mićanović:“followers and advocates of orthography based on theNovi Sad Agreement” (Badurina, Pranjković 2009)

Serbia (1)Serbiantied to Croatian: structurally, genetically andsociolinguistically; periods of common
standardisation, almost completely mutually
intelligible
official in Serbia and Republika Srpska and,until 2007, Montenegro + lingua communis
name change justified unlike script changestatus of Latin script diminished in the Serbian
Constitution from 2006 – opposes linguistic reality

Serbia (2)unlike Croatian, it was not changed fromwithout“it is on its turf, a basis of former Serbo-Croatian...”(Bugarski 2009)

did not need to justify its single-word name by moving
lexically and structurally away from Croatian

popular ideas by individuals and informalgroups on defending endangered Serbianaim: return Serbian to its Orthodox tradition by writing,for example, menus in imitation of medieval scriptSerbia (3)Serbian linguistic nationalism

A word on Serbian“a linguistic law of the Serbian people”
published in 6 languages and in 300 000
copies (!)
an outrageous thesis that all speakers ofŠtokavian are Serbs, just of different religion,and that their languages are variants ofSerbianlanguage bureaucratisation, language ofwar, hate speech...

Serbia (4)Serbian linguistic nationalismthe relationship between Cyrillic and Latin scriptSerbian digraphia makes it unique in the worldfrom 1970s Latin script increasingly used
research by Klajn in 2002

39.8% Latin script; 21.9% Cyrillic; 38.3% bothfolklore rendering
FOR Cyrillic script: patriots“it is the most beautiful script, a national treasure whichmust be defended at all cost... its extinction would
mean the extinction of Serbian...” (Bugarski 2009)
AGAINST Cyrillic script: traitors

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)rather complex linguistic situation
language policy has been/is lead fromwithoutBosnian and Herzegovinian standard language
expression
magazine Oslobođenje: articles in Latin andCyrillic script

today


three standards (Constitution of the Federationof Bosnia and Herzegovina 2002)

Bosnia and Herzegovina (2)discussion on the name Bosnian lang.
Charter on the Bosnian Language, 2002.
terms: Bosnian, Bosniak (politicallyinfluenced) and Bosnian/Bosniak

communication in realitycommon standard norm is “alive”
problem not seen by experts and politicians
but by language users who have to learn thenorm of their language AGAIN
General Bosnian Language? (Mønnesland 2005)

Bosnia and Herzegovina (3)

the issue of standardisation

centres for Croatian and Serbian are abroad,they have no influence on language policy
standardisation of Bosnian – result ofenthusiasts
 three approachesradical: non-functional revival of archaisms
moderate: middle course between Croatian andSerbian norm
conformist: Bosnian just a new name for Bosnianand Herzegovinian standard language expression

Bosnia and Herzegovina (4)three standards in reality

education:classes in Croatian, classes in Serbian, butalso two schools under one roof (nationallydivided classes)
Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo:
Department of Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian


without and: one three-standard language

Bosnia and Herzegovina (5)nobody pleased with linguistic situation






policy creators beacuse norms are not upheld
users can not seem to speak their language
community deals with the inability to function in any
common way

speakers more afraid of influence

“of the neighbouring standard (“their” language and “our”language) than of the influence of the geographicallyremoved but powerful English language” (Katnić-Bakaršić,2009)

Montenegro (1)language name

not discussed during the time of S-Cin 1992: Serbian language of ijekavijan typefrom 1990s on – fight for Montenegrin
political debates gain heat in 2004


subject Serbian language renamed to native language(Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, Bosnian)

deciding on language name left to parents and children

Montenegro (2)Montenegrin Constitution (2007)

Montenegrin official, Latin and Cyrillic script
equal; Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian andCroatian in official use

Montenegrinijekavijan features make it similar to Bosnian
and Croatian; lexis brings it closer to Serbianand Bosnian
the issue of standardisation?

Montenegro (3)Committee for the Standardisation of
the Montenegrin Language (2008)
First, literary streamSecond, linguistic stream

return to the language of Njegoš; archaisms
introduce ś and ź
take S-C as the basis for Montenegrin

disagreement between streams brought
the work of the Committee to a haltMontenegro (4)orthographythree authors, two from abroad – strange!
grammar book

co-authored by Croatian experts


Perović, Silić, Vasiljevna: Orthography handbook of theMontenegrin language and Dictionary of the Montenegrin
language (spelling dictionary), 2009Ćirgić, Silić, Pranjković: Grammar of the Montenegrin
Language, 2010

criticism:
archaisms, reliance on Croatian grammar

Montenegro (5)establishing the Montenegrin norm
should be based on linguistic principles, notemotion and patriotism

Montenegrin is just beginning toresolve important issues ofstandardisation

In place of a conclusion (1)questionwhat is the right way to present suchcomplicated sociolinguistic situation atuniversities abroad?

answermonograph Between politics and reality,
Linguistic situation in newly-formed countries offormer Yugoslavia (Ljubljana, 2009)
title points to the connection between language
and politics


language standardisation is never just a linguistic
issue, even more so, it is a political one

In place of a conclusion (2)Between politics and reality

content
 1st part: descriptions of sociolinguistic
situations in newly-formed countries,including Slovenia and Macedonia
 2nd part: status of linguistic variants within L1
 3rd part: status of foreign languages

In place of a conclusion (3)Between politics and reality
 intended for use by

those teaching Slavic Studies, especiallyabroadrepresents

scientific and professional basis for mutual
understanding
helps develop cultural tolerance
tolerance important in overcoming prejudiceand stereotypes among languages and cultures

A contemporary sociolinguistic
look at former Yugoslavia

Vesna Požgaj Hadži
Fakulty of Arts, University of Ljubljana