Tokyo 2014
MILORAD RADOVANOVIĆ(Professor of General Linguistics)
University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Philosophy
Deparment of Serbian Language and Linguistics
Dr Zorana Đinđića 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
milard@eunet.rs

SERBIAN LANGUAGE TODAY: THE MAIN ISSUES
The goal of this presentation is to examine the situation in the Serbianlanguage and around it – having in mind “the questionnaire” for the study ofsociolinguistically relevant topics in the Slavic languages in related countries.
The inventory/questionnaire which here serves as a starting point represents
mostly the externally, extralinguistically, sociolinguistically oriented list ofphenomena and relations for which it was estimated that they could be significant
for the general picture of the circumstances and changes in the Slavic languages,
around them and among them, in the past half-century (as “a picture-frame” of thecircumstances and changes).
Primarily “the inventory/questionnaire” was the basis for the text publishedinternally in Poland, University of Opole, during the work on the international
project about the changes in the Slavic languages in the second half of the 20thcentury (as a reminder for the sociolinguistic part of the theme):
As a series of publications of The Opole University in Poland, the following
official monographs from the project have been published: Najnowsze dzieje
jezyków slowiańskich, 1-14, Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski – Instytut Filologii
Polskiej, 1996-2004 (general editor Stanisław Gajda):
Serbian (ed. M. Radovanović, 1996),
Bulgarian (ed. S. Dimitrova, 1997),
Ruissian (ed. E. Širjajev, 1997),
Sorbian (ed. H. Faska, 1998),
Czech (ed. J. Kořenský, 1998),
Slovenian (ed. A. Vidovič-Muha, 1998),
Slovak (ed. J. Bosák, 1998),
Croatian (ed. M. Lončarić, 1998),
Byelorussian (ed. A. Lukašanec, M. Prigodzič, L. Sjameška, 1998),1Macedonian (ed. L. Minova-G’urkova, 1998),
Ukrainian (ed. S. Ermolenko, 1999),
Polish (ed. S. Gajda, 2001),
Cassubian (ed. E. Breza, 2001),
Ruthenian (ed. P.R. Magocsi, 2004).

(1) The Language Situation: (a) genetically proximate/distant languages; (b)typologically similar/distinct languages; (c) intelligibility between languages; (d)alphabets, orthography, the level of literacy; (e) ethnic (and confessional)
proportions and processes; (f) autochthonous position and position of thediaspora type; (g) compact/non-compact linguistic (speech) communities; (h)bilingualism and multilingualism; (i) migrations of the population; (j) minority vs.
majority languages.
(2) Language Policy (“status planning”): (a) language/languages in public use(mass media, education, publishing etc); (b) language/languages in the officialuse; (c) constitutional/legal/judicial solutions and language practice; (d) lingua
communis and similar phenomena; (e) diglossia; (f) conflict (crisis) regions andsituations.
(3) Language Planning (“corpus planning”) – normative (prescriptive) instruments
for the planning of standard languages (which implies): (a) orthographic norm;(b) orthoepic norm; (c) grammatical (phonological, morphological, syntacticsemantic) norm; (d) word-formation norm; (e) lexical norm; (f) textual norm
(organization of text, discourse, speech event); (g) stylistic (genre) norm; (h)pragmatic (interaction) norm. In te case of Serbian – without “language engineering”.
(2-3) Is language planning being carried out as a continuous process, or only as a
gradual one, with interruptions, changes in succession and so on? Have any ofthe planning phases been omitted, and some of them done simultaneously?
[Inventory of Phases:] (a) selection; (b) description; (c) prescription(codification); (d) elaboration; (e) acceptance ([“official”] recognition); (f)implementation ([“real”, “practical”] acceptance, that is application); (g)2expansion ([“horizontal” and “vertical”] extension); (h) cultivation; (i)evaluation; (j) reconstruction.
FIGURE 1
 selection  description  prescription  elaboration  acceptance●       reconstruction  evaluation  cultivation  expansion  implementation FIGURE 2●integration

 variation

promotion

 disintegration  polarization FIGURE 3
Integration  Inauguration of the Neoštokavian standard (first half of thenineteenth century)
Variation  Inauguration of urban-regional usage to the rank of the prestigious
standards (second half of the nineteenth century)
Polarization  Inauguration of territorial / national variants of the standard (thetwentieth century to the end of the1960s)
Disintegration  Inauguration of the variants to the rank of the prestigious
standards (1970s and 1980s)
Promotion  Inauguration of the separate standard languages (1990s)

3

FIGURE 4
The level ofStandard language
XXYY

 Promotion  Polarization  Promotion XYThe level ofVariants(of the Standard language)
X = “Serbian”; Y = “Croatian”; XY = “Serbo-Croatian”

(4) Language Stratification: (a) in a functional perspective (written and spoken
language, functional styles/registers: thematic, situational, professional etc); (b)in a social (“vertical”) perspective (sociolect, jargon, slang, vernacular etc); (c) in
the territorial (“horizontal”) perspective (rural/urban dialects, variants of thestandard language, their urban-regional realizations and versions, and their interrelations).
(5) Languages in Contact: (a) contacts with the so-called “major world” languages;(b) contacts with the languages in the surroundings (“neighbouring languages”);(c) contacts with the language of the lingua communis type; (d) contacts in thesituations of diglossia, diaspora etc; (e) specific contact topics: lexical borrowings
loanwords, syntactic calques from current international culture and language
corpus, from current European (“Western”) culture and language corpus, fromBalkan, Carpathian, Middle-European, Oriental and Mediterranean culture andlanguage corpus, from Church-Slavonic, from modern English, French, German,Russian, Turkish (Arabic, Persian), from old Greek and Latin, (and others); (f)attitude to “purism” (versus “internationalism”).

4(6) Speech (Language) Interaction: (a) the choice of language and (or) variety; (b)attitudes to languages and their varieties; (c) language prestige; (d) prestige ofstandard language; (e) principles of code-switching and speech strategies; (f)types of interaction choices and patterns.
To conclude: the conclusion is that in the (standard) Serbian language and around it(within the selected parameters), the situation characteristic for its(socio)linguistic picture before the political, cultural, ethnic and linguistic
disintegration of (SFR)Yugoslavia has been preserved in a relatively stablemanner.
On the external level (the level of status planning) the most distinctive (and relativelyturbulent!) has been the glottopolitical promotion of already existing variants ofstandard Serbo-Croatian into separate standard language entities.
On the internal level (the level of corpus planning) the most distinctive (but not turbulent;
without so-called “language engineering”) have been changes resulting from the factthat standard Serbian is simultaneously exposed to the influence of cultural andlanguage Balkanisation and Europeanisation (especially to the influence of English
language and American culture).
Both in the field of grammar and lexicon, these processes at times coincide and at others
diverge, as they do in the corpus of culture in general.
References
Greenberg, Robert D. Jezik i identitet na Balkanu. Raspad srpsko-hrvatskoga (Language and Identity
in the Balkans. The disintegration of Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 2005 (=Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004).
Gustavsson, Sven. Standard Language Differentiation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Grammars,
Language Textbooks, Readers. Uppsala: Centre for Multiethnic Research – Uppsala University,2009, 312 (Uppsala Multiethnic Papers, 52).
Jaroszewicz, Henryk. Nowe tendencje normatywne w standardowych językach chorwackim i serbskim(New normative tendencies in Cratian and Serbian standard langiages). Opole: Uniwersytet
Opolski, 2004 (1.3 “Standaryzacja”, 1.4. “Etapy standaryzacji”).
Lubaś, Władysław. Polityka językowa. (Komparacja systemów i funkcjonowania współczesnychjęzyków słowiańskich. 4) (Language policy. Comparison and functioning contemporary Slavic
language systems). Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski – Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 2009.
Neweklowsky, Gerhard. Die Südslawischen Standardsprachen (South-Slavic standard languages).
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010 (PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Schriften der Balkan-Kommission, 51).

5

Okuka, Miloš. Eine Sprache viele Erben. Sprachpolitik als Nationalisierungsinstrument in ExJugoslawien (One Language – Many Successors. Language Policy and National Policy in exYugoslavia). Klagenfurt – Wien – Ljubljana – Sarajevo: Wieser Verlag, 1998.
Radovanović, Milorad (red.). Najnowsze dzieje jezyków slowiańskich: Српски језик (Recent Changesin Slavic Languages: The Serbian Language). Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski – Instytut FilologiiPolskiej, 1996.
Milorad Radovanović, “Planiranje jezika i jezička politika: Principi i tendencije (Na primeru srpskohrvatske relacije)” (“Language Planning and Language Policy: Principles and Tendencies /With
the Example of the Serbo-Croatian Relation/”). In: Jazykovedný časopis 49/1-2 [=Venovane XII,
medzinárodnému zjazdu slavistov (Krakov 27. 8.-2. 9. 1998)]. Bratislava, 1998, 57-74.
Radovanović, Milorad. “From Serbo-Croatian to Serbian”. In: Multilingua 19/1-2 [= Special double
issue Language Contact in East-Central Europe, ed. Miklós Kontra]. Berlin – New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 2000, 21-35.
Radovanović, Milorad. “An Inventory of the Important Themes in the Presentation of theSocilionguistic Situation in the (South)Slavic Countries”. In: Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute.
Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Hrsg. Barbara Kunzmann-Müller. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
2000, 209-212 (Berliner slawistische Beitrage, Band 12).
Radovanović, Milorad and Randall A. Major (eds.). Serbian Sociolinguistics [= International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 151]. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.
Radovanović, Milorad and Nataša Bugarski. “Serbian Language at the End of the Century”. In: Lexical
Norm and National Language. Lexicography and Language Policy in South-Slavic Languages
after 1989, ed. Radovan Lučić. München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2002, 164-172 (Die Welt derSlaven, Sammelbände – Сборники, Band 14).
Radovanović, Milorad. Sociolingvistika. Treće izdanje (Sociolinguistics. Third Edition). Sremski
Karlovci – Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića, 2003 (Series Theoria, 63)[second edition: 1986].
Radovanović, Milorad. “Srpski jezik na početku milenijuma: Inventar eksternih i internih pitanja”(“Serbian Language at the Beginning of the Millennium: An Inventory of External and InternalIssues”). In: Bosanski – hrvatski – srpski. Bosnisch – Kroatisch – Serbisch, ed. Gerhard
Neweklowsky. Wien: Wiener slawistischer Almanach 57, 2003, 245-253.
Radovanović, Milorad. Planiranje jezika: i drugi spisi (Language Planning and Other Essays). Sremski
Karlovci – Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića, 2004 (Series Elementi, 56).
Radovanović, Milorad. “From Serbo-Croatian to Serbian: External and Internal LanguageDevelopments”. In: Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands, eds. Ranko Bugarski and Celia
Hawkesworth. Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publishers, 2004, 15-23.
Тошович, Бранко. “Особенности боснийского/бошняцкого языка по отношению к сербскому ихорватскому” (“Characteristics of Bosniak/Bosnian Language in Comparison to Serbian andCroatian”). In: Slavica Islamica. Language, Religion and Identity, еds. Robert D. Greenberg andMotoki Nomachi. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center – Hokkkaido University, 2012, 9-64 (SlavicEurasian Studies, 25).

6