WHAT’S IN A LANGUAGE NAME?
THE CASE OF BOSNIAN, CROATIAN, MONTENEGRIN, AND SERBIAN
Bojan Belić
University of Washington
bojan@uw.edu
The kind of significance attributed to language in this context
has little to do with its value as an instrument of thought and persuasion.
It is primarily symbolic.
- Haugen 1972a:252

1. INTRO
1.1. THE FOUR LANGUAGES (based on Lewis et al. 2013)(1) Indo-European>Slavic>South>Western: Bosnian (B), Croatian (C), Montenegrin (M), and Serbian (S)1.2. PRIMARY LOCUS OF THE FOUR LANGUAGES (based on Lewis et al. 2013)(2) Southeastern European Four Nation States: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia
1.3. AREA AND POPULATION(3) Area – ≈210,124 km2 (slightly smaller than the area of the island of Honshu)(4) Population – ≈16,000,000 (slightly less than two times the population of the 23 wards)
1.4. THE QUERY: WHAT’S IN A LANGUAGE (NAME)?
(5) Naylor 1980:7
Language, for the peoples of Southeastern Europe, has played a vital part in their history and also inthe present day understanding of their national identity. This situation is one which is not unique;language for others, including Americans, plays a role in the identification process. … Language forthe peoples of the Balkans has been one of the most important criteria for establishing andmaintaining national identity.
(6) Friedman 1999:1[Naylor’s] last proposed research project, entitled “Language as Flag,” was to be a study of postWorld War Two development in language and identity in what was then not yet former Yugoslavia.
The use of language as a source of identity and identification is attested at least as far back asbiblical times.

1

2. ESTABLISHING THE FOUR LANGUAGES
2.1. LEWIS ET AL. 2013(7) Statutory National Languages – recognized in constitutions
2.2. PRESENT-DAY CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITIONS
2.2.1. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA(8) Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
(9) Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina‘BACKGROUND ON BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Official languages: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian.’(10) Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
I. USPOSTAVLJANJE FEDERACIJE
Član 6.
(1) Službeni jezici Federacije su bosanski jezik i hrvatski jezik. Službeno pismo je latinica.
‘I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERATION
Article 6.
(1) The official languages of the Federation are the Bosnian language and the Croatian language. The
Latin alphabet is the official alphabet.

(11) Constitution of the Republic of Srpska
I OSNOVNE ODREDBEČlan 7.
Službeni jezici Republike Srpske su: jezik srpskog naroda, jezik bošnjačkog naroda i jezik
hrvatskog naroda. Službena pisma su ćirilica i latinica.
‘BASIC PRINCIPLESArticle 7.
The official languages in the Republic of Srpska are: the language of the Serbian people, thelanguage of the Bosniak people and the language of the Croatian people. The official alphabets are
Cyrillic and Latin.’
2.2.2. CROATIA(12) Constitution of the Republic of Croatia
II. TEMELJNE ODREDBEČlanak 12.
U Republici Hrvatskoj u službenoj je uporabi hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo.
‘BASIC PRINCIPLESArticle 12.
In the Republic of Croatia, the Croatian language and the Latin alphabet are in the official use.’
2.2.3. MONTENEGRO(13) Constitution of Montenegro
DIO PRVIOSNOVNE ODREDBE
Jezik i pismoČlan 13Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik.
Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni.
‘PART ONEBASIC PRINCIPLES
Language and alphabet
Article 13
The official language in Montenegro is the Montenegrin language.
The Cyrillic and Latin alphabets are equal.’
2.2.4. SERBIA(14) Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
PRVI DEONAČELA USTAVA
Jezik i pismoČlan 10.
U Republici Srbiji u službenoj upotrebi su srpski jezik i ćiriličko pismo.
‘PART ONEPRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION
Language and alphabet
Article 10.
In the Republic of Serbia, the Serbian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are in the official use.’

2

2.3.

BEFORE THE FOUR NATION STATES OF TODAY
2.3.1. ONE LANGUAGE?
(15) Serbo-Croatian (SC) (Bugarski 2004:3)[T]he largest language of the multiethnic and multilingual Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia…
spoken, according to the 1981 census, as their native tongue by 73% of the population and widelyacquired as a second language by the rest. Serbo-Croatian was thus the principal linguistic agent andsymbol of the federation’s precarious unity and subsequent fragmentation.
2.3.2. PRIMARY LOCUS(16) Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
2.3.3. SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OF THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
2.3.3.1.
Bosnia and Herzegovina(17) 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
DIO PRVISOCIJALISTIČKA REPUBLIKA BOSNA I HERCEGOVINAČlan 4.
U Socijalističkoj Republici Bosni i Hercegovini u službenoj upotrebi je srpskohrvatski odnosno
hrvatskosrpski jezik ijekavskog izgovora.
Oba pisma (ćirilica i latinica) su ravnopravna.
‘P A R T O N E
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAArticle 4.
In the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbo-Croatian, that is, Croato-Serbian
language of the ijekavian pronunciation is in the official use.
Both alphabets (Cyrillic and Latin) are equal.’
2.3.3.2.
Croatia(18) 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia
G L A V A III
DRUŠTVENO-POLITIČKO UREĐENJE
1. Položaj radnih ljudi u društveno-političkom sistemuČlan 138.
U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik – standardni
oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski.
‘CHAPTER III
THE SOCIO-POLITICAL SYSTEM
1. The Status of Working People in the Socio-Political System
Article 138.
In the Socialist Republic of Croatia, the Croatian literary language – the standard form of the popular
language of the Croats and the Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian or Serbian, is in the public use.’
2.3.3.3.
Montenegro(19) 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Montenegro
DIO DRUGIDRUŠTVENO UREĐENJE
G l a v a II
DRUŠTVENO-POLITIČKI SISTEM
8. Načela o upotrebi jezika i pisma i izražavanju kulture pripadnika naroda i narodnosti
Jugoslavije

3Član 172.
U Socijalističkoj Republici Crnoj Gori u službenoj upotrebi je srpskohrvatski jezik ijekavskog
izgovora. Ravnopravna su oba pisma – ćirilica i latinica.
‘P A R T T W O
THE SOCIAL SYSTEM
C h a p t e r II
THE SOCIO-POLITICAL SYSTEM
8. Principles about the use of language and alphabet and the cultural expression of the nations andnationalities of Yugoslavia
Article 172.
In the Socialist Republic of Montenegro, the Serbo-Croatian language of the ijekavian pronunciation isin the official use. Both alphabets – Cyrillic and Latin – are equal.’
2.3.3.4.
Serbia(20) 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Serbia
DEO DRUGIDRUŠTVENO UREĐENJE
G l a v a IV
USTAVNOST I ZAKONITOSTČlan 240.
Državni organi i organizacije koje vrše javna ovlašćenja vode postupak na srpskohrvatskom
jeziku.
‘P A R T T W O
THE SOCIAL SYSTEM
C h a p t e r IV
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY
Article 240.
States agencies and organizations, which exercise public powers, conduct proceedings in the SerboCroatian language.’
2.4. LANGUAGE NAMES IN CONSTITUTIONS(21) Comparison of Language Names
1974 CONSTITUTIONSPRESENT-DAY CONSTITUTIONS
Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian
language of the Serbian people,
language of the Bosniak people,
language of the Croatian people
Croatian (literary language)
Croatian
CROATIA
Serbo-CroatianMontenegrin
MONTENEGRO
Serbo-Croatian
SerbianSERBIA

4

3. LANGUAGE DEATH AND LANGUAGE BIRTH?
3.1. SC AND B, C, M, S(22) Alexander 2013:341[T]he cultural base which made a unified Yugoslavia possible was the sense … that most of themknew they spoke the same language … known by several names … most commonly known outside
Yugoslavia as Serbo-Croatian. … The current post-Yugoslav language situation is one of several
distinct but closely related languages: Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian have been internationally (andby all the actors themselves) recognized as distinct languages; and although Montenegrin is on theway to such recognition, its status is not yet fully accepted.
3.2. SC VS. B, C, M, S(23) Bugarski 2004:7

(24)

S

C

B

M
5

Based on Belić 2010 and Belić 2011

◦ constitutional recognitions◦ distribution of the da+present
vs. infinitive complements

C◦ Latin vs. Cyrillic alphabetsC◦ Ekavian vs. Ijekavian (vs.
Ikavian)

3.3.

S◦ Neoštokavian vs.
Oldštokavian

S

B

M

◦ other dialectal differences

NOMINAL LANGUAGE DEATH (NLD) AND NOMINAL LANGUAGE BIRTH (NLB)
3.3.1. LANGUAGE DEATH AND LANGUAGE BIRTH(25) Crystal 2000:1-2
A language dies when nobody speaks it any more. … If you are the last speaker of a language, yourlanguage – viewed as a tool of communication – is already dead. For a language is really alive only as
long as there is someone to speak it to.

(26) Hagège 2009:75-76
It would seem that there are three ways for a language to disappear. The first is transformation: alanguage is greatly altered over the course of a process that can take a very long time, so that, at a
certain moment, a new language can be said to have appeared. … We can say that an exterior
language is substituted for another, previously the only one attested in a human group, when thelatter ends up being absorbed into the former after having coexisted with the new language for someperiod of time. … The notion of extinction … is a total retreat from the scene, by definition
concomitant with that of its last speakers, who pass away without descendants.
(27) Mufwene 2004:203-204
Languages are unlike organisms in the way they are born or die. … The relevant processes are
protracted, spanning several generations. … The birth involves no pregnancy and delivery stages,
and the term refers to a stage (not a point in time!) in a divergence process during which a variety is
acknowledged post facto as structurally different from its ancestor. … Likewise, language death is a
protracted change of state. Used to describe community-level loss of competence in a language, it
denotes a process that does not affect all speakers at the same time nor to the same extent.
3.3.2. LINGUONYM CHANGE
3.3.2.1.
The Philippines(28) Sibayan 1974:225f7
On August 13, 1959, the Secretary of Education issued a department order that henceforth thenational language was to be known as Pilipino. This change was presumably designated to eliminate
the regional connotation of the term Tagalog.
(29) Gonzalez 1998:487
In l959, Tagalog, which was renamed Wikang Pambansa (National Language) by President Manuel L.
Quezon in l939, was renamed by the Secretary of Education, Jose Romero, as Pilipino to give it anational rather than ethnic label and connotation. The changing of the name did not, however, result
in better acceptance at the conscious level among non-Tagalogs. … The opposition continued.
3.3.2.2.
Russia(30) Kamusella 2012:88[D]uring the second half of the eighteenth century, a consensus was reached. The state was dubbed
Rossiia, its population, Rossiiane, and the language, Rossiiskii. This consensus began to unravel in the
1830s and 1840s, and was definitively broken by the 1850s. It was replaced with Russkii for theempire’s population and its language, while the polity’s name remained the same as before, Rossiia.
(31) Ostapchuk 2012:102
В то же время – и здесь мы совершенно согласны с автором статьи – нельзя отрицать влияние
общего социально-политического контекста на сферу именования этнических атрибутов, втом числе языка.
‘At the same time – here, we are in a perfect agreement with the author of the article (Kamusella 2012, B. B.) –one should not deny the impact of the overall socio-political context on the sphere of the naming of ethnic
attributes, including language.’6

3.3.3. NLD AND NLBComparison of Language Names, repeated1974 CONSTITUTIONSBOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian(32)

Croatian (literary language)
Serbo-Croatian
MONTENEGRO
Serbo-Croatian
SERBIA
Comparison of the 2011 Censuses Results
CROATIA(33)

PRESENT-DAY CONSTITUTIONS
Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian
language of the Serbian people,
language of the Bosniak people,
language of the Croatian people
CroatianMontenegrin
Serbian2011 CENSUSLANGUAGE
PERCENTAGE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS
N/A (2013 Census – awaiting results)
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Croatian95.60
4,096,305
CROATIA
Serbian
1.23
52,879Bosnian
0.39
16,856
Serbo-Croatian
0.18
7,822
Croato-Serbian
0.07
3,059
Montenegrin
0.02
876
Serbian
42.88
265,895
MONTENEGRO
Montenegrin
36.97
229,251
Bosnian
5.33
33,077
Serbo-Croatian
2.03
12,559Bosniak
0.59
3,662
Mother tongue
0.54
3,318
Croatian
0.45
2,791
Serbo-Montenegrin
0.10618Montenegro-Serbian
0.06
369
Croato-Serbian
0.04
224
Serbian, Serbo-Croatian
88.09
6,330,919
SERBIA
Bosnian
1.93
138,871
Croatian, Croato-Serbian
0.27
19,223Montenegrin
0.04
2,519
3.4. LONG LIVE THE LANGUAGE NAME!
(34) Declaration 1967:1
Načelo nacionalnog suvereniteta i potpune ravnopravnosti obuhvaća i pravo svakoga od naših
naroda da čuva sve atribute svoga nacionalnog postojanja i da maksimalno razvija ne samo svoju
privrednu, nego i kulturnu djelatnost. Među tim atributima odsudno važnu ulogu ima vlastito
nacionalno ime jezika kojim se hrvatski narod služi, jer je neotuđivo pravo svakoga naroda da svoj
jezik naziva vlastitim imenom.
‘The principle of national sovereignty and full equality also includes the right of each one of our peoples topreserve all attributes of its own national existence and to develop to the utmost not only its economic activity,
but its cultural activity, as well. The own national name of the language used by the Croatian people is in adecisive position among these attributes, because the right of each people to call its language by its own name isan inalienable one.’

7

(35)

Ivić 1971:227-228
Остаје нам да се осврнемо на најделикатније питање, оно о називу нашег језика. Он је уисти мах и српски, зато што њиме говоре Срби, и српскохрватски, зато што њиме говоре идруги. …
Подесност српскохрватског језичког имена је донекле смањена чином издвајања једногод партнера у тој сложеници, али научна оправданост имена тиме није нарушена будући да јетемељна истоветност српског и хрватског језика објективна датост, а не субјективна опција.
Осим тога то име и даље задржава своју вредност најбољег засад постојећег неутралног назива
који подсећа на то да се овим језиком служи више од једне нације. … [А]ко би се показало да сејезичко заједништво не може одржати, остало би нам да се вратимо српском имену језика којеби у случају такве деобе било једини могући излаз за све Србе.
‘What remains for us to do is to turn our attention to the most delicate question of all, that of the name of ourlanguage. It is, simultaneously, Serbian, because all Serbs speak it, as well as Serbo-Croatian, because others
speak it also.
The appropriateness of the name Serbo-Croatian for the language is somewhat diminished by the factthat one partner mentioned in the compound name has opted out. However, the scientific justification for thename has not been nullified, since the basic sameness of the Serbian language and the Croatian language is
objective, rather than subjective. In addition, the name still retains its value as the best neutral name for now,which helps one bear in mind that this language is used by more than one nation. … If it eventually turned outthat linguistic unity cannot be sustained, we would have to return to the Serbian name for the language, which
would be the only possible solution for all Serbs in case of such a division.’(36) 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of CroatiaČlan 137.
... zajamčeno je svakom narodu i narodnosti i pravo da ... slobodno i ravnopravno upotrebljava svoj
jezik i pismo, da jezik naziva svojim imenom, da razvija svoju kulturu, odgoj i obrazovanje na svojem
jeziku i da uživa druga ustavom utvrđena prava.
‘To each nation and nationality the rights to use their own language and alphabet, to call their language by its
own name, to develop its culture, upbringing, and education in their own language are guaranteed, as well as
to enjoy other rights determined by the Constitution.’(37) Brozović and Ivić 1988:4
Nacionalni sastav govorne zajednice hs. (hrvatskosrpskog, B. B.) jezika uvjetovao je i njegovo ime,koje još nema ustaljena oblika. U stranoj je jezičnoj znanosti najuobičajeniji naziv srpskohrvatski jezik.
… Taj se naziv upotrebljava i u dobrom dijelu domaće jezične znanosti. Manje je čest naziv sobratnim rasporedom, tj. hrvatskosrpski jezik. Ta su dva naziva posve sinonimna i oba obuhvaćaju
cjelinu hs. jezika. U praksi dolazi i dvostruko dvojni naziv, srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski jezik, i opet s
istim značenjem. … U hrvatskoj se filološkoj tradiciji upotrebljava i drugi složeni naziv, hrvatski ili
srpski jezik, koji je značenjski još dvosmisleniji. … Obratan poredak, tj. srpski ili hrvatski jezik, danas se
rijetko sreće.
‘The national composition of the Croato-Serbian speech community caused its name as well, a name which still
does not have an established form. In the international scholarship, the most common name is Serbo-Croatian.
… This name is also used among a good portion of the local linguists. The name in reverse order, that is,
Croato-Serbian, is much less frequent. These two names are completely synonymous and both encompass the
Croato-Serbian language as a whole. In praxis, one finds a doubly twofold name, Serbo-Croatian/CroatoSerbian, again with the same meaning as well. … In the Croatian philological tradition yet another complex
name is used, the Croatian or Serbian language, whose meaning is even more ambiguous. … A reverse order,that is, the Serbian or Croatian language, is rarely seen today.’8

(38) Committee 1998Кад је реч о називу трећег језика у Босни и Херцеговини, … у српскоме језичком стандарду, заименовање тог идиома, може се препоручити само атрибут бошњачки (Bosniac).
Очигледно, назив језика неопходно је ускладити с именом новопризнатог народа
(Бошњаци/Bosniacs), јер нема разлога да у српском језику име тог народа и назив његовог
језика буду у раскораку, који уноси забуну и изазива оправдану забринутост.
Муслиманима/Бошњацима не може се, и кад би се хтело, забранити да свој језик, у своме
језику, зову како хоће, дакле (и) босански.
‘Speaking of the name for a third language in Bosnia and Herzegovina, … we recommend Bosniak, in the
Serbian linguistic standard, as the only attribute for naming that idiom.
Clearly, it is necessary to coordinate the name of the language with the name of the newly recognizedpeople, the Bosniaks, because there is no reason for those two names to be in an apparent discrepancy in the
Serbian language, which causes confusion and justified concern.
One cannot, even if one wanted to, deny the Muslims/Bosniaks the right to call their language, in theirown language, as they want, thus, (also) Bosnian.’(39) Brozović 1999:13[S]vaki narod ima pravo na vlastiti jezik ako hoće svoj jezik, bez obzira na sve druge moguće
okolnosti. ... Svaki narod ujedno ima pravo da svoj jezik naziva kako hoće. Prema tome, Bošnjaci
imaju pravo nazivati svoj jezik bosanskim ako im to iz bilo kakva razloga odgovara. Ali i mi imamo
pravo da mi sami u svojoj društvenoj i znanstvenoj praksi ne prihvatimo takav naziv za objekt koji
inače priznajemo. ... Jer svatko ima pravo željeti što mu se sviđa, ograničenja postoje samo u pogledu
sredstava i metoda za ostvarivanje pojedinih želja. Ali Hrvati imaju pravo ne pristajati na reperkusije
takvih želja. ... Srbi su desetljećima zabranjivali hrvatsko ime jezika i zahtijevali da se jezik zove
srpskohrvatskim (ili, kao tobožnji ustupak, hrvatskosrpskim).
‘Every people has the right to have their own language if they want their own language, all other circumstancesnotwithstanding. … Every people also has the right to call their language as they want. Thus the Bosniaks havethe right to call their language Bosnian if that suits them for any reason. But, then, we, indeed, have the rightnot to accept such a name in our own social and scientific praxis, for an entity which we otherwise
acknowledge. … Because everybody has the right to desire what they like. The only limitations to those desires
exist in the means and methods used to achieve them. But the Croats have the right not to obey theconsequences of those desires. … For decades, the Serbs have forbidden the use of the Croatian name for the
language and demanded that the language be called Serbo-Croatian (or, as an apparent concession, CroatoSerbian).’(40) Charter 2002
1. Bosanski jezik jeste jezik Bošnjaka i svih onih koji ga pod tim imenom osjećaju svojim.
2. Korišćenjem naziva bosanski jezik Bošnjaci slijede nominaciju svoga jezika čiji se kontinuitet možepratiti od bosanskog srednjovjekovlja do danas.
3. [S]matramo da je u svakom od narodnosnih tokova riječ o jeziku koji Srbi odvajkada nazivaju
srpskim, Hrvati hrvatskim, a Bošnjaci bosanskim.
4. Manipuliranja nazivom bosanski jezik u političke svrhe … kao ni upotreba ove sintagme uregionalnom značenju, ne dovode u pitanje vjerodostojnost korišćenja ovog naziva kod Bošnjaka unarodnosnom smislu.
5. [K]orišćenje naziva bosanski jezik ne uključuje nikakvu težnju ka unifikaciji i unitarizaciji na
prostoru Bosne i Hercegovine.
6. Pokušaji da se Bošnjacima … nametne bošnjačka nominacija jezika predstavljaju politiziranje.
7. Ističući legitimno pravo da svoj jezik nazivaju njegovim historijskim i u narodu ukorijenjenim
imenom, Bošnjaci podržavaju jednaka prava drugih naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini i šire.

9‘1. The Bosnian language is the language of the Bosniaks and all those who feel it as their own under that name.
2. By using the name, the Bosnian language, the Bosniaks follow the naming of their own language, whose
continuity can be traced as far back as the Bosnian middle ages.
3. Regarding each one of the three peoples, we maintain that there is a language which the Serbs from time
immemorial have called Serbian, the Croats – Croatian, and the Bosniaks – Bosnian.
4. Manipulating the name, the Bosnian language, for political purposes … as well as the use of the phrase in
the regional sense, does not demean the validity of the use of this name among the Bosniaks in a popular sense.
5. Using the name, the Bosnian language, does not reflect any desire for unification and unitarization in the
territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6. Attempts to impose on the Bosniaks the Bosniak naming of the language are but politicizing it.
7. By emphasizing the legitimate right to call their own language by its historic name, the name rooted in thepeople, the Bosniaks in fact support the equal rights of other peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina and beyond.’(41) Vujanović 2007
Vujanović je rekao da bi voleo da se u novom ustavu službeni jezik nazove crnogorski, po imenudržave, ali da procenjuje da to nije moguće, pa preferira kompromisno rešenje.
Vujanović smatra da se radi o jedinstvenom jeziku, koji ima četiri naziva na prostoru bivše
Jugoslavije i podsetio da su sve bivše jugoslovenske republike koje su proglasile nezavisnost službeni
jezik nazvale imenom države.
Crnogorski predsednik je kazao da je za kompromis, koji bi bio nastavak višedecenijskog
kompromisa o jeziku koji je postojao u vreme bivše Jugoslavije i ocenio da su upravo lingvisti dali“zeleno svetlo” da se tada službeni jezik zove srpsko-hrvatski.
“Srpsko-hrvatski je dugo bio jezik koji se tako označavao i ne vidim zašto se sada na prostoru
Crne Gore ne bi mogla upotrebiti kompromisna formulacija crnogorsko-srpski.”On je rekao da taj naziv uvažava i one koji svoj jezik doživljavaju kao srpski, kao i one koji ga
zovu crnogorskim.
‘Vujanović said that he would like for the new constitution to call the official language Montenegrin, after thename of the state, but that he thought that that was not possible, which was why he preferred a compromise
solution.
Vujanović maintains that it is one language that is in question, which has four names in the territory of
the Former Yugoslavia, and points out that all former Yugoslav republics, which declared independence, named
their official languages after the name of the state.
The Montenegrin president said that he was for a compromise, which would be a continuation of acompromise about language, which lasted for several decades during the days of the Former Yugoslavia. He
suggested that it was, indeed, the linguists who gave the “green light” to call the official language at the time –Serbo-Croatian.
“For a long time, Serbo-Croatian was the language with that name. I see no reason why now, in the
territory of Montenegro, we could not use a compromise formulation – Montenegro-Serbian.”He said that such a name would take into consideration both those who think of their language as
Serbian, as well as those who call it Montenegrin.’
4. LINGUISTIFICATION OF THE PHRASE ‘X LANGUAGE’
4.1. LINGUISTIFICATION(42) Bach 2013:87
Think of linguistification by analogy with personification: attributing linguistic properties tononlinguistic phenomena. For my purposes, it also includes attributing nonlinguistic properties tolinguistic items, treating these properties as if they were linguistic.

10

(43) Bach 1981:371
Nominal Description Theory (NDT): [A] name N means ‘the bearer of N’. [T]he description deemedsemantically equivalent to a name mentions that very name and provides no information about thebearer of the name beyond the fact that it bears the name.
(44) Briggs 2011:491[L]inguistification separates out particular areas of social life, draws boundaries around them, defines
forms of expertise that can legitimately interpret them, and then continually extends their power bydrawing more and more objects and subjects within their purview. Forms of linguistic distinction …
become valuable as forms of symbolic capital. … Dimensions of social life could be converted into
“information” or “communication” and then quantified, standardized, transmitted, and received.
4.2. LINGUISTIFICATION OF LANGUAGE NAMES(45) What is Meant by Language Names
a. national existence
b. inalienable rightc. the most delicate question
d. appropriateness – diminishede. scientific justification
f. value … neutral
g. guaranteed righth. established form
i. encompass language
j. necessary to coordinate with name of people
k. cause confusion and justified concern
l. right not to accept
m. forbidden use
n. naming … continuity … middle ageso. manipulating … for political purposes
p. validity
q. politicizing
r. rooted in peoples. after the name of the state
t. a compromise solution/formulation
u. linguists give green lightv. take into consideration thinking about language(46) Bach 2013:90
Instrumental fallacy: If speakers use an expression to do something, then the expression doesthat thing (or something similar).
Some of us use chopsticks to eat sushi, but chopsticks don’t eat sushi. …
[I]f we use an expression to mean something, we shouldn’t infer that the expression itself means what
we mean in using it. … [This is] ‘meaning fallacy’ …
4.3. FURTHER SUPPORT FOR LINGUISTIFICATION OF LANGUAGE NAMES(47) Comparison of Constitutional Articles’ Numbers
1974 CONSTITUTIONSPRESENT-DAY CONSTITUTIONS
4
6 and 7BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
13812CROATIA
172
13
MONTENEGRO
240
10SERBIA11

5. GLOTTOCOMMUNICABILITY
5.1. COMMUNICABILITY(48) Briggs 2011:468[T]he dominant view pictured biomedical and public health knowledge as constructed in specializedsites (such as laboratories, teaching hospitals, and epidemiologists’ offices), initially transmitted
through publication in leading journals, transformed into popular discourse by health educators,
reporters, and clinicians, and finally received by ignorant but self-interested lay populations. I refer tosuch constructions of how knowledge is produced, circulated, and received as communicability and,
when cast as metapragmatic maps of biomedical knowledge, as biocommunicability.
5.2. COMMUNICABILITY AND LANGUAGE NAMES(49) Additional Examples of Emerging Communicability around Language Namesa. Montenegro – Political Agreement 2008
- August 26, 2008:Član 4
Polazeći od Ustava Crne Gore, koncepta građanske države a imajući u vidu istu lingvističku osnovu
crnogorskog i srpskog jezika, nastavnim planom i programom obezbjeđuje se nastava iz
crnogorskog/maternjeg jezika i književnosti.
‘Article 4
Based on the Constitution of Montenegro, the concept of a secular state, and keeping in mind the same
linguistic basis of the Montenegrin language and the Serbian language, the educational curriculum provides
classes in the subject of Montenegrin/mother tongue and literature.’- September 8, 2008:Član 4
Polazeći od Ustava Crne Gore, koncepta građanske države, a imajući u vidu istu lingvističku osnovu
crnogorskog i srpskog jezika, nastavnim planom i programom obezbjeđuje se nastava iz predmeta snazivom: crnogorski-srpski, bosanski, hrvatski jezik i književnost iz kog se u tom nazivu i dobija
ocjena.
‘Article 4
Based on the Constitution of Montenegro, the concept of a secular state, and keeping in mind the same
linguistic basis of the Montenegrin language and the Serbian language, the educational curriculum provides
classes in the subject of Montenegrin-Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian language and literature, for which – underthat name – a grade is given.’b. Serbia – 2011 Census- Укупан број лица која су изјавила да им је матерњи језик српски, односно
српскохрватски.
‘Total number of persons who declared that their mother tongue is Serbian or [sic]Serbo-Croatian.’- 1981. и 1991. године постојала је јединствена шифра за „Српски, српскохрватски,хрватскосрпски, хрватски“, па није било могуће посебно раздвојити ове модалитете.
‘In 1981 and 1991, there was a unique code for “Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Croatian” and it
was therefore not possible to separate these modalities.’- Укупан број лица која су изјавила да им је матерњи језик хрватски, односно
хрватскосрпски.
‘Total number of persons who declared that their mother tongue is Croatian or [sic] Croato-Serbian.’c. Montenegro – Socialist People’s Party 2013
- U Socijalističkoj narodnoj partiji smatraju da i srpski jezik, kao istorijski, tradicionalno i naučno
utemeljen na ovim prostorima, treba da bude službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori, navodeći da će utome istrajavati i ubuduće.

12‘In the Socialist People’s Party they think that the Serbian language should be an official language inMontenegro as well, as one both historically and scientifically rooted here; the party will continue to ask for thisin the future.’d. Alexander 2013:48,52- Whatever the Bosnian language was in substance, its formal and legal existence was now
indisputably established by the inclusion of its name into the Dayton agreement that ended thewar in Bosnia.
- This (the fact that many inhabitants of Montenegro consider their language to be Serbian, evenas they are clear that their ethnic identity is Montenegrin, B.B.), plus the fact that very few
linguists accept the arguments Nikčević uses to justify the existence of Montenegrin as aseparate language, renders the status of Montenegrin as a real and functioning literarystandard less firm, despite the fact that in 2008 [sic] Montenegrin was proclaimed (andrecognized, at the political level) as the official language of Montenegro.
e. Hassel 2014
- Balkanfans … könnten glauben, dass in diesen Ländern immer noch die gleiche Sprache
gesprochen wird: Serbokroatisch.
‘Fans of the Balkans could believe that in these countries, still the same language is spoken: Serbo-Croatian.’- Auf dem Balkan tobt ein erbitterter Kampf um die Sprache.
‘In the Balkans, a fierce battle for the language rages on.’
- Die Montenegriner sind weiter, aber nur auf dem Papier. Nach der Unabhängigkeit desZwergstaats schrieb 2007 eine neue Verfassung „Montenegrinisch“ als Staatssprache fest.
‘The Montenegrins are further along, but only on paper. After the independence of the dwarf state, the new2007 constitution declares “Montenegrin” as the state language.’- Wie es weitergeht, ist unklar: Sprachverwirrung allerorten.
‘It is unclear what happens next: confusion of tongues everywhere.’
5.3. GLOTTOCOMMUNICABILITY(50) Toward a Definitiona. (following Briggs and Hallin 2007:45) – everyday ideological constructions of how information
about linguistic knowledge is purportedly produced, circulated, and received, howindividuals and institutions participate in this process, and how statements are infused withauthority and valueb. (following Briggs and Hallin 2007:45) – discursive acts and practices that focus on linguisticknowledgec. (following Briggs 2011:468) – constructions of how knowledge is produced, circulated, andreceived with respect to linguistic knowledge
6. OUTRO(51) Bach 1981:384[A]nything one knows by name one thinks of in some other way than as the bearer of the name. A
hearer who does not know an individual by name or is not even familiar with the name (imagine
being told, ‘Throckmorton Kropotkin is bald’) can still think of the individual being referred to as theindividual the speaker has in mind. Indeed, one could proceed to use the name oneself, intending to
be talking about the individual one’s source of the name had referred to. Chains of reference could beforged in this way, link by link.

13

REFERENCES:
ALEXANDER, RONELLE. 2013. Language and Identity: The Fate of Serbo-Croatian. Entangled Histories of
the Balkans – Volume One, ed. by Roumen Dontchev Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov, 341-417.
Brill.
BACH, KENT. 2013. The Lure of Linguistification. What is Said and What is Not, ed. by Carlo Penco andFilippo Domaneschi, 87-97. CSLI Publications.
BACH, KENT. 1981. What’s In a Name? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59.4.371-386.
BELIĆ, BOJAN. 2010. Are Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian Standards Splitting Infinitives?
Paper presented at the EX UNO PLURES: POST-YUGOSLAV CULTURAL SPACES AND
EUROPE conference, Columbia University, New York, NY.
BELIĆ, BOJAN. 2011. Are Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian Standards Splitting Infinitives(or Anything Else for That Matter)? Skype guest talk in L601 Sociolinguistic Issues in(Post-)Yugoslavia, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
BRIGGS, CHARLES L. 2011. Biocommunicability. A Companion to Medical Anthropology, ed. by Merrill
Singer and Pamela I. Erickson, 459-476. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
BRIGGS, CHARLES L. and DANIEL C. HALLIN. 2007. Biocommunicability The Neoliberal Subject and Its
Contradictions in News Coverage of Health Issues. Social Text 93.25.4.43-66.
BROZOVIĆ, DALIBOR. 1999. Odnos hrvatskoga i bosanskoga odnosno bošnjačkoga jezika. Jezik 47.1:1316.
BROZOVIĆ, DALIBOR and PAVLE IVIĆ. 1988. Jezik, srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski.
Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod “Miroslav Krleža”.
BUGARSKI, RANKO. 2004. Overview of the Linguistic Aspects of the Disintegration of Former
Yugoslavia. Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands, ed. by Ranko Bugarski and Celia
Hawkesworth, 3-11. Slavica Publishers.
CHARTER. 2002. The Charter on the Bosnian Language. Web. January 12, 2014.
<http://ebookbrowsee.net/povelja-o-bosanskom-jeziku-pdf-d326070231>.
COMMITTEE. 1998. The Committee on Standardization of the Serbian Language. Web. January 12, 2014.
<http://www.rastko.rs/filologija/odbor/odluka001_c.html>.
CRYSTAL, DAVID. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge University Press.
DECLARATION. 1967. The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language
Telegram 359.1.
FRIEDMAN, VICTOR A. 1999. Linguistic Emblems and Emblematic Languages: On Language as Flag in the
Balkans. The Kenneth E. Naylor Memorial Lecture Series in South Slavic Linguistics, No. 1.
Columbus: Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio
State University.
GONZALEZ, ANDREW. 1998. The Language Planning Situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingualand Multicultural Development 19.5.487-525.
HAGÈGE, CLAUDE. 2009. On the Death and Life of Languages. Yale University Press.
HASSEL, FLORIAN. 2014. Sterbende Sprache. Web. January 14, 2014.
<http://jetzt.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/583518/Sterbende-Sprache>.
HAUGEN, EINAR. 1972a. Dialect, Language, Nation. The Ecology of Language Essays by Einar Haugen, ed.
by Anwar S. Dill, 237-254. Stanford University Press.
HAUGEN, EINAR. 1972b. The Ecology of Language. The Ecology of Language Essays by Einar Haugen, ed.
by Anwar S. Dill, 325-339. Stanford University Press.
IVIĆ, PAVLE. 1971. Српски народ и његов језик. Српска књижевна задруга.
KAMUSELLA, TOMASZ. 2012. The Change of the Name of the Russian Language in Russian from
Rossiiskii to Russkii: Did Politics Have Anything to Do with It? Acta Slavica Iaponica 32.73-96.

14

LEWIS, M. PAUL, GARY F. SIMONS, and CHARLES D. FENNIG, eds. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of theWorld, Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version:
http://www.ethnologue.com.
MUFWENE, SALIKOKO S. 2004. Language Birth and Death. Annual Review of Anthropology. 33:201-222.
NAYLOR, KENNETH E. 1980. Some Problems for the Study of Balkan Sociolinguistics. Zbornik Maticesrpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 23.2.7-14.
OSTAPCHUK, OKSANA. 2012. Русский versus российский: исторический и социокультурный
контекст функционирования лингвонимов Acta Slavica Iaponica 32.97-104.
POLITICAL AGREEMENT. 2008. Politički dogovor o pojedinim pitanjima koja se tiču evropskih
integracija Crne Gore. Web. January 14, 2014. < http://www.gov.me/vijesti/107929/Politickidogovor-o-pojedinim-pitanjima-koja-se-ticu-evropskih-integracija-CrneGore.html?alphabet=lat>.
SIBAYAN, BONIFACIO P. 1974. Language Policy, Language Engineering and Literacy in the Philippines.
Advances in Language Planning, ed. by Joshua Fishman, 221-254. Mouton.
SOCIALIST PEOPLE’S PARTY. 2013. SNP: Srpski da bude službeni. Web. January 20, 2014.
<http://www.rtcg.me/vijesti/politika/26433/snp-srpski-da-bude-sluzbeni-.html>
VUJANOVIĆ, FILIP. 2007. Za srpsko-crnogorski jezik. Web. January 12, 2014.
<http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2007&mm=03&dd=17&nav_id=236957>.
DOCUMENTS:
2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia
Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in Montenegro 2011
Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Constitution of Montenegro
Constitution of the Republic of Croatia
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
Constitution of the Republic of Srpska
Constitutions of the Socialist Republics (SOFRONIĆ, ZLATOMIR. 1974. Ustav SFRJ, ustavi socijalističkih
republika i pokrajina, ustavni zakoni, registar pojmova. Prosveta.)
Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina<http://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/osnovne_informacije_o_bih/default.aspx?id=95&langT
ag=en-US>
Croatian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2011, Population by
Citizenship, Ethnicity, Religion and Mother Tongue

15