gordon.ska home page 2001

© 2001 – Copyright by Elaine Skaljak. All rights reserved.
Copyright Information . - E-mail

Giles and Coupland (1991), in examining issues of language, ethnicity and inter-group communication, suggest that there is often a close link between language and ethnicity. This is illustrated by the views of the Catalonian Cultural Committee (cited in Fishman 1972:46: see Giles et al. 1991 for reference) who see language as a cultural linchpin and believe that 'A people without a language of its own is only half a nation'. Giles et al (1991) suggest that throughout history there have been many instances where efforts at linguistic and political change have coincided and, in examining the importance of language to ethnic relations, they developed a social psychological perspective of this issue. They argue (p 96) that language is important in ethnic relations because language is: often an essential attribute of group membership; an important cue for ethnic categorisation; an emotional dimension of identity and, a means of facilitating group cohesion. Additionally, they argue that having a distinct language or dialect is often considered necessary for full and 'legitimate' membership of an ethnic group. Giles (1979: cited in Giles et al 1991) presented a 2 x 2 model of ethnic boundaries (see diagram 2. below) in which perceived linguistic boundaries ('hard' v 'soft' i.e. distinctive language and mild accent respectively) intersected with hard-soft non-linguistic ethnic boundaries (e.g. distinctive religion). He argued that ethnic groups would accentuate their in-group (i.e. their own group) communicative markers in an interethnic encounter where they felt either of their boundaries were soft. He suggested that this would enable them to differentiate more clearly on valued dimensions between their own group and outgroups (i.e. an ethnic group other than their own), thus achieving a positive social identity. The model schematises degrees of ethnic language accentuation accordingly, contend Giles et al. (p.97, 1991), and it suggests that the most linguistic differentiation occurs with the very groups (in the lower right hand quadrant) which have the softest perceived overall ethnic boundaries and the most similarity with the outgroup.. Giles et al (1991) argue that, because ethnic verbal markers are often an obvious expression of social differentiation in interethnic interaction, the linguistic boundary may become hardened. They also contend, (providing examples to back up their theory), that sometimes, group members not confirming their ethnic affiliation linguistically may be seen as cultural traitors and their language use regarded as improper or insulting. They additionally provide examples of how some groups may accentuate the features of their ethnolinguistic varieties, even creating new forms.

'Ethnolinguistic Identity theory' was introduced by Giles and Johnson (1987: cited in Giles et al 1991). The theory contends that knowledge of our membership in certain social categories together with the values attached to them can be defined as our social identity which has meaning only in social comparison with other relevant groups. In addition, it proposes that when ethnic group identity becomes important for individuals, they may try to make themselves favourably different from other groups on dimensions such as language, by accentuating ethnic speech markers e.g. vocabulary or accent, which can consequently bring about a process termed 'psycholinguistic distinctiveness'. 'Social creativity' (Tajfel and Turner 1979, cited in Giles et al 1991) was proposed as those strategies adopted by a group which try to redefine different elements of comparison between themselves and other ethnic groups, for example comparison on some new dimensions. (Tajfel et al provided as an example the resurrection of Hebrew from virtual extinction to the status of a national language). 'Social competition' was proposed by Tajfel et al. as the strategy adopted by an ethnic group who wish to reverse the perceived status of that group on valued dimensions. The processes described above can create an environment where 'Language becomes not merely the means of communication but a priceless heritage of group culture' (Fishman 1968:40, cited in Giles et al 1991). This essay hopes to show that the theories outlined in Giles et al (1991) are relevant to current linguistic issues that affect the status of

Serbo-Croatian - A profile of the language is outlined below

A comprehensive profile is given of the Serbo-Croatian language in an internet article entitled 'Serbo-Croatian Profile' provided by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Database (see internet address below). It suggests that Serbo-Croatian is currently spoken as a mother tongue by approximately 14 million people in present day Yugoslavia (i.e.. Serbia and Montenegro), 5.5 million in Croatia (by Croats and the Serbian minority) and approximately 1.5 million in Bosnia (by Croats, Serbs and Muslims). This article does not, however, make it clear where these figures where obtained and it is important to bear in mind that any demographic statistics can only be approximate in such a politically volatile region. Four ethnic groups - Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Montenegrians speak Serbo-Croatian natively. The UCLA article describes Serbo-Croatian as a member of the Slavic branch of Indo-European languages, being part of the south Slavic sub group along with Bulgarian, Macedonian and Slovene. The article relates that only the Cyrillic alphabet was used before the 14th Century, but after this time, this alphabet was replaced in western Catholic areas by the Roman alphabet but continued to be used in Eastern Orthodox areas. (As there is an almost exact correspondence between symbols in the Cyrillic and Roman alphabets, written material could be easily transliterated). In Eastern Orthodox areas, until the war in 1991, both alphabets were used, almost interchangeably. The UCLA article goes on to describe the 3 major dialects of Serbo-Croatian: Cakavian, Kajkavian and Stokavian (which has three variants: Ekavian, Ikavian and Ijekavian). The most widely spoken dialects, it suggests, are Ekavian (Serbia) and Ijekavian (parts of Croatia, the western part of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina) whilst the dialect widely spoken in Bosnia is a combination of Eastern and Western features. The article suggests that Cakavian is now only spoken along the Dalmatian coast, the Adriatic islands and part of northern Croatia whilst Kajkavian is spoken only around Zagreb. Radovanovic (1992) relates that, in addition, there are several urban and local variants of the language which are often more widely used, and considered more prestigious than standard Serbo-Croatian or its more widely spoken dialects. (In his article he cites previous research undertaken by himself which backs up his theory). For example, he suggests, the linguistic features of a Croat from Zagorje, or Vojvodina or a Central Serbia resident are more easily recognisable than the main variants of standard Serbo-Croatian. Sucic (1996) suggests that the differences in the spoken variants of Serbo-Croatian make up no more than 3 - 7 percent of total lexicon, (although this is a somewhat vague statistic) and Ivic (1992) proposes that this concerns mostly vocabulary, especially in the terminological layer, and not so much the phonology and grammar. Nevertheless, and, as this essay will endeavour to show, since the war, increasing importance is placed on the different dialects as the different ethnic groups try to accentuate their ethnolinguistic markers to make themselves favourably distinct from the 'outgroup'. This would seem to support the theories of Giles et al (1991) regarding 'social creativity'. Before discussing these issues however, a brief outline of the historical and political background of this region will be given, to better understand the ethnic tensions that have formed a part of this region's history.

The history of the former Yugoslavia before the 20th Century is one of domination by the Turkish Ottoman Empire from 1463 to 1878 (during which time many Slavs, particularly in Bosnia, were 'islamised'), and the Austro-Hungarian empire from 1878 to 1918 (Bougarel 1996). In terms of the theories of Giles et al (1991) therefore, for many centuries, the South Slavs were dominated by a powerful 'outgroup'. After World War I (initiated by the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, by a Bosnian Serb in Sarajevo), The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed in 1918, following the demise of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires (Vejvoda 1996). The Kingdom emerged, suggests Vejvoda, as a result of the interaction between several national Slav elites, all wishing to create a new common state where they could find shelter from the surrounding largely nations and thus, strength in togetherness. Vejvoda contends that the Slovenes and Croats greatly improved on their previous status by entering the new country, while the Serbs were able to unite ethnically within one state, having previously been scattered and divided. The 23-year life span of the first Yugoslavia was, however, marked by assassinations and failed attempts to create a parliament which successfully merged the three main constituent nations (Vejvoda 1996). In addition, contends Vejvoda, there were many problems concerning the mutual relations and the aspirations of ethnic groups. The Croatian writer Christopher Cviic (1996), refers, for instance, to the Croats quest for territorial independence at this time and also formal recognition of a Croatian identity. Cviic argues that behind this lay a sense of insecurity about what Croats saw as the threat of assimilation by the Serbs disguised as campaigns for unity ('Yugovslavism'). In terms of the theories of Giles and Coupland (1991), the Croats wished to retain a positive and separate social identity. It was in this light, suggests Cviic, that the Croats viewed King Alexander's ban after 1929 of all national symbols, including flags. The first Yugoslavia ended when the institutionally centralised monarchist construction of the state collapsed at the time of World War II, during which time a national liberation war and a concurrent civil war occurred in the region (Vejvoda, p 11, 1996)

A federal communist reconstruction of the state (1944 - 91), with Marshal Tito at its head, replaced the first Yugoslavia, and republic status was given to Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia (Vejvoda 1996). Bugarski (1992) describes the new Yugoslavia as a voluntary union of nations with the status of equal partners, (i.e.. supposedly no 'in' or 'out' group - see Giles et al. (1991)) regardless of difference in size, and Tito promised that full political, national and cultural rights would be recognised for the many minority groups. In essence, asserts Bennet (1995), 'Titoism' actually amounted to a system of checks and balances designed to ensure that all ethnic groups were treated equally. Bugarski (1992) states that consistent with this general idea, a policy of equality among languages was adopted, to be made operational through various language planning activities. Bugarski argues, however, that linguistic differences were inevitably seen as symbols of different national sentiments, social values and political orientations. This lends support to the theory of Giles (1979) presented in his 2 x 2 model, i.e. linguistic boundaries remained 'hard' although Tito wished to treat all the dialects as equal. Vejvoda (1996) describes how the Constitution of 1974 gave more power to the republics of Yugoslavia and they became 'sovereign' states by its provisions. In addition, the Constitution gave equal status to the languages of all the nationalities in Yugoslavia, making them all 'administrative' (Naylor 1992). A clause in the Constitution defined six constituent nations of Yugoslavia: Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, ethnic Muslims (the Muslims constituted a 'nation' according to the categories of the Yugoslav census (Naylor p. 88 1992)), Montenegrins and Macedonians (Vejvoda 1996). This produced, suggests Vejvoda, a congruence, between republic and majority nation in all the republics except Bosnia where there was a delicate balance of three nations (Muslims, Serbs and Croats). Vejvoda contends that Bosnia was, in fact, a type of mini-Yugoslavia which functioned politically, on a strict parity basis, with a rotation of representatives of the main nations in the leading seats of political power. It might be argued that the greater emphasis placed on nationality by the Constitution of 1974, and the resultant 'hardening' of non-linguistic ethnic boundaries (Giles 1979) paved the way for the chaos that was to envelop the region nearly two decades later.

Vejvoda (1996) contends that the National question was a constant political issue throughout the history of Yugoslavia and that ethnic and national groups had already had distinct identities before the creation of Yugoslavia (see Giles et al. 1991). He further suggests that these groups had all been touched by some form of nation building process which had been reinforced in the first and second Yugoslavias and this process was consolidated even more by the socialist 'statehood' given to the republics in the 1974 Constitution. A pattern of growing ethnic homogenisation around the majority nation of each republic emerged, Vejvoda suggests, with progressive redefinition of other nationalities within the republics as minorities with respect to the majority nation. According to the theorising of Giles et al. (1991) this would have constituted an 'in-group' and 'outgroup' situation once more i.e.. a powerful majority in each republic and a subordinate minority. For Bosnia, with its ethnic patchwork, this process was potentially dangerous for the future suggests Vejvoda. With the death of Marshal Tito in 1980, the uncontested arbitrator of the Yugoslav political system had gone suggests Bougarel 1996). He continues that as communist ideology increasingly lost its credibility, nationalism took a stronger hold and Vejvoda (1996) argues that the obvious political tool for the regional political leaderships as they strove to win support was national sentiment. Vejvoda further contends that the new certainty offered to Yugoslavs at this time was that of national homogeneity with the blame for economic hardship being cast at the door of the neighbouring republic. He alleges (p. 20) that nationalist intellectuals who had been 'waiting in the wings' told stories of the suffering of their peoples and explained why a parting of the ways was better for everyone. The media played a major part in conveying these messages to listeners and viewers, he argues. The early 1990's saw the disintegration of Yugoslavia as the ideology of nationalism took hold. Nationalism in terms of the theories of Giles et al (1991) constitutes the existence of 'in' and 'outgrips' and the hardening of non-linguistic and (as this essay hopes to show) linguistic ethnic boundaries. Slovenia was the first republic to declare its independence followed closely by Croatia. Bosnia having no overall ethnic majority proved to be the biggest victim of the war which ensued, as Bosnian Croats, Serbs and Muslims fought for their share of territory. The war resulted in vast numbers of people who had lived as ethnic minorities in the republics, having to leave the areas where they had lived all their lives, and numerous atrocities took place in the attempt to achieve ethnic purity.

PART II - PRE WAR LINGUISTIC ISSUES

It is important to point out that from the beginning of the 19^th Century, language issues were of concern in this region of the Balkans. An informative article is provided on the YU Landscape website (see Internet address below) regarding the 19^th Century linguistic reformer, Vuk Karadzic. Karadzic, the article relates, was a Serb who standardised literary Serbo-Croatian, producing a grammar of the language and reducing in size the complex Slavo-Serbian alphabet. He defined as Serbs all those who spoke the Stokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, among them many Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Cviic, who is Croatian, contends (1996) that Croats noted the widespread acceptance among the Serbs of Karadzic's views. The theories of Giles et al (1991) are relevant here as the Croats perhaps saw Karadzic's views as an attempt to 'soften' their linguistic ethnic boundaries. Serbo-Croatian was officially established as the common language of the region's Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Montenegrians in the late 19th century (Sucic 1996). Sucic asserts that the elites of each nation had different reasons for accepting one common language, but all shared a desire for unification under one political roof, having been by the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. She contends that Croatian and Serbian linguists agreed that standard Serbo-Croatian should be based on the Stokavian dialect (which was widely spoken in Serbia !) and that each of the parties gave up specific language features preserved in its literature (effectively agreeing to 'soften' their ethnolinguistic boundaries' - see Giles 1979). For example, the Croats replaced the elite Kajkavian dialect of Zagreb with the Stokavian dialect. Sucic continues, however, that although standard Serbo-Croatian was the result of an agreement between Serbs and Croats, that the two groups have never held the same views on the language issue as Serbs did not want to give up the Cyrillic Script and Croats were not happy about having to accept the Stokavian dialect. Cviic (1996) contends, in fact, that the very linguistic closeness of the Southern Slavs which had been seen as a good basis for harmony, turned out to be a divisive factor because it brought the prospect of assimilation closer. That is to say that, although the differences between the dialects was small, in terms of the theories outlined in Giles et al (1991) both ethnic groups wanted to retain the linguistic markers of their dialects thus preserving their linguistic distinctiveness and achieving a positive social identity. Sucic (1996) contends that Croats were unhappy with the first Yugoslav state which they considered to be dominated by Serbs and where official documents were written in the Stokavian dialect. Cviic (1996) also argues that an increasing number of Croats began to see Vuk Karadzic's ideology as a back door to the 'Serbianisation' of the country's non-Serb Slavs. (From a social psychological perspective (Giles et al. 1991), Croats perhaps saw themselves as the 'in-group', threatened with losing their ethnic group identity due to the acceptance of Karadzic's ideology. Croatian language policy went through radical changes between 1941 and 1945 during the Independent State of Croatia, created by the Nazis when, for example, the Government office for Propaganda issued a list of forbidden words to cleanse the Croatian dialect of 'Serbian' words (Sucic 1996).

During the Tito regime, the official Communist party daily 'Borba' was published in the Ekavian dialect, but in Croatian Latin Script suggests Cviic (1996). Ekavian was a variant of the Stokavian dialect and was spoken only in Serbia. From the perspective of Giles et al. (1991) this would have given Serbs a positive sense of social identity with regard to valued dimensions such as power and political resources and created the opposite effect for the Croats. In addition, contends Cviic, Ekavian was the official language of command in the Yugoslav Peoples Army. (However, G. Skaljak (1998: personal communication) who served in the Yugoslav People's army in Croatia for one year in 1981 and who is of mixed Croatian and Serbian origin, asserts that elements from both dialects were used by army officers, during his national service). As such, in the 1960's, a group of Croats revived the memory of Tito's promise of freedom for people to use their own language and name it accordingly (Sucic 1996). They thus lobbied to change the official name of their language in their republic's Constitution from Serbo-Croatian to Croatian (thereby hoping to draw a distinction between their language and that of other ethnic groups). However, contends Sucic (1996), they were labelled as 'nationalists' and traitors to communist ideology, despite the fact that in the Constitutions of Serbia and Montenegro the official name of the language was stated as Serbian. Sucic (1996) argues that national determination of language in multi-ethnic Bosnia was a very sensitive issue and language separatism was not welcome there. Cviic (1996) describes how in 1967 a 'Language Declaration' was signed on behalf of 18 Croatian cultural Institutions demanding the return to the language situation of the immediate post World War II period when full constitutional recognition was given (even on bank notes) to the Croatian dialect (as well as Serbian, Macedonian and Slovene). It also demanded the use of the standard Croatian dialect (instead of Serbo-Croatian which was rejected by many Croats as a 'political language') in schools and the mass media in Croatia. Again, the theories outlined in Giles et al. (1991) are relevant here. It can be argued that Croats felt themselves in a position of powerlessness due to the widespread use of the Serbian dialect and sought to address this by asserting their linguistic distinctiveness. Cviic (1996) relates an incident in 1971 when 40,000 copies of an orthographic handbook produced by three Croat linguists were banned as they were considered to be 'separatist' and were ordered to be burnt by the Communist Party.

The 1980's saw an ever-increasing number of language issues arising, following the death of Tito in 1980. In 1982, lively discussions took place in Belgrade and other cultural centres in Serbia to consider establishing a commission for language to try and create a 'Serbian' norm to compete with those of Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro which were already established (Naylor 1992). Naylor relates however, that the proposal was voted down by staff at the University of Belgrade and elsewhere, leaving Serbia without a designated norm. It might be argued that Serbia's position of relative power made it less important for Serbs living in Serbia to assert their linguistic distinctiveness which would support the theories outlined in Giles et al. (1991). In 1986, however, Pavle Ivic, a Serbian linguist outlined a program stipulating that the Serb minority in Croatia must establish the Serbian dialect as their language and introduce it into the education system, administration and culture (Sucic 1996). As a minority in Croatia, it was more important for Serbs to make themselves linguistically distinct and thus retain their positive social identity. In 1989 the Croatian declaration of a separate 'Croatian' language was called unconstitutional in a Yugoslav Federal court (Naylor 1992). Naylor contends that the objection was to the Croatian dialect being used for official purposes in Croatia, thus denying those who were not Croats (such as the Serb minority in Croatia), the right to use their own dialect. Ivic (1992) proposed two directions for language planners in Yugoslavia shortly before the war in 1991. The first was to foster the individuality of different dialects of Serbo-Croatian, which, he suggested, implied increasing the linguistic markers of different dialects e.g. reviving linguistic features from the literary heritage of a region, which had become obsolete. According to the theorising of Giles et al (1991) this would involve the hardening of linguistic boundaries. Ivic contended that this process implied a hostility towards the dialects of other ethnic groups.

The second direction Ivic proposed was fostering togetherness i.e.. refraining from accentuating dialectal differences (i.e.. allowing linguistic boundaries to remain 'soft'). He suggested that this allowed more freedom of individual expression and proposed that using the compound name of Serbo-Croatian was favourable as it indicated that the language was used by more than one ethnic group. However Naylor (p 86, 1992) in examining the socio-linguistic situation of Serbo-Croatian shortly before the war, contended that this language was considered by many of the Yugoslavs who speak it as the sign of their ethnic identity and he suggested that it had become important for them to develop a form of the language which could be seen as 'marking' and setting their particular ethnic group apart from another. It would seem therefore that many ethnic group members have favoured Ivic's first proposal in the post-war climate, as will be outlined below.

PART III - THE POST WAR STATUS OF THE SERBO-CROATIAN LANGUAGE

The different dialects of Serbo-Croatian and the ethnic groups who spoke this language, co-existed within the boundaries of Yugoslavia before the war and Ivic (1992) suggests that approximately three million people (including speakers of Serbo-Croatian) lived as minorities in republics other than that of their own ethnic group. Bugarski (1992) provides the following statistics taken from the 1981 Cenus, concerning the distribution of ethnic groups in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia. (He does however, comment on the 'frequently limited reliability of census data' (p 16)):

Serbia: Serbs 66.4%, Croats 5.4%, Montenegrins 2.1%, Muslims 2.7%;

Croatia: Croats 75.1%, Serbs 11.6%;

Bosnia: Muslims 35.9%, Serbs 32%, Croats 18.4%.

Sucic (1996) argues that often, when countries split apart, the presence of separate languages is one of the reasons. But, she suggests, because the main language in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro was Serbo-Croatian, the new nation states have tried to enforce language fragmentation along ethnic lines by promoting new language identities. This supports the theories outlined in Giles et al. (1991) concerning ethnolinguistic identity theory which suggests that when ethnic group identity becomes important for individuals, they may try to make themselves favourably different on dimensions such as language by accentuating ethnic speech markers to achieve 'psycholinguistic distinctiveness'. Today, Serbo-Croatian speakers of different dialects have no problem understanding each other, nevertheless, when asked what language they are speaking, Sucic (1996) asserts they will usually reply Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian instead of Serbo-Croatian (although she does not supply any survey data to back this up). She feels, in fact, that the symbolic function of the language has emerged victorious over the communicative function, and she suggests that new language identities have become essential to the respective national identities. Bennet (1995) contends, however, that linguistic frontiers are less clear cut than international ones in this region and that different dialects are to be found in each state. He further argues that what people actually speak very often depends on geography and not on national origins. For example, Serbs who live in Croatia speak the same dialect as their Croat neighbours and vice versa. As such, Ivic

(1992) argues that replacing the compound name of the language (i.e. Serbo-Croatian) with 'Serbian' or 'Croatian' would imply putting minorities in each state in a position of inequality because imposing the language name of one ethnic group upon the population of another would effectively mean depriving them of the right to their own language. In terms of the theories presented in Giles et al. (1991) this would constitute an 'in-group' and 'outgroup' situation. Some of the language issues regarding the status of the Serbo-Croatian language that have arisen since the war will be discussed below, focusing firstly on Croatian issues, then Serbian and to conclude, Bosnian.

An article found on the web site 'Serbia Bulletin' (see internet address below) and therefore presumably written by Serbs relates the experiences of Olinka Djigas, a Croat working in Hungary who visits her family in Croatia, several times a year. The article alleges that Olinka finds that more words have been changed in the language every time she visits and although she tries to keep up with language changes, people realise that she does not live there. Her experience seems to confirm the theories of Giles et al. (1991) concerning 'social creativity', where an ethnic group endeavours to develop a new ethno-linguistic identity in order to achieve a positive social identity. The article goes on to suggest that a shopkeeper would not sell vegetables to her mother because she used an invalid word. Additionally, it contends that in Croatia teachers are encouraged to accept pupils' answers as correct only if they are given in new Croatian words (although the article does not make clear who stipulates this). Again the work of Giles et al (1991) is relevant here i.e.. their contention that where an ethnic group is trying to 'harden' their linguistic boundaries, members not confirming their ethnic affiliation linguistically may be deemed to be using improper language. Extremists in Parliament have proposed (unsuccessfully), the article suggests, to sanction the usage of foreign words. It also alleges that in television and publishing houses, new terminology is insisted upon. The article quotes the opinion of Victor Friedman of the Department of Slavic languages at the University of Chicago, who compares this cleaning of the language to trying to clean English by expelling all the words of French origin and introducing words from Beowulf. Sucic (1996) reports that in August 1995, Vice Vokojevic, a parliamentary deputy from the ruling Croatian Democratic Community in Croatia proposed two draft bills on language. The first required that the phonetic alphabet be replaced by an etymological one and that 30,000 of the existing 80,000 words be purged from the Croatian language as 'non-Croatian'. If passed, Sucic suggests, the bill would have required Croats to practically learn a new language from scratch. The other bill suggested creating a Government Office for the Croatian Language which would have had a police function and anyone breaking the new language rules would be fined (Sucic 1996). Sucic reports however, that both draft bills were rejected by Parliament and many Croatian linguists as outrageous. Even so, Sucic alleges, prominent linguists are given special columns in state-run papers to teach the public which words are 'Croatian' or not. (The reference she gives for this is 'Vjesnik's Language Advisor'). Additionally, she alleges that Croats who have moved back to Croatia from Serbia have to pass a proficiency exam in the Croatian language and culture to obtain Croatian citizenship and that many of them fail because it is impossible to learn the new Croatian words as quickly as they are invented.

An informative internet article features on the website 'Scientific Research in Croatia' (see internet address below). Reporting on current activity in the field of Croatian linguistics, it outlines the work of principal centres of linguistic research. These are the Croatian Philological Institute, the Linguistic Research Institute of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Institute of Linguistics at the University of Zagreb's Faculty of Philosophy. The Croatian Philological Institute is the largest institution for research on the 'Croatian' language (effectively the Croatian dialect of Serbo-Croatian). The research is divided into five projects, dealing with all levels of 'Croatian', present and past. These include historical research of literary and general 'Croatian' texts as a preparation for a historical grammar of 'Croatian', research on Croatian dialects at home and abroad, contemporary standard 'Croatian' - including work on a 'Croatian' grammar and a 'Croatian' usage manual. The article reports that preparations are also underway for work on a large dictionary of contemporary 'Croatian'. The Linguistic Research Institute concentrates on lexicographic research as a basis for work on several dictionaries including a dictionary of standard 'Croatian'. The research at the Institute of Linguistics falls into three categories including: the compilation of a reference corpus of standard 'Croatian' and a frequency dictionary of contemporary written 'Croatian'; dialectological studies and a history of the 'Croatian language'. The fact that work is only now underway on a 'Croatian' grammar and, more significantly on a 'Croatian' usage manual, would seem to support Sucic's (1996) suggestions that Croats are trying to develop a new language to achieve a distinct ethnolinguistic identity and lends weight to the theories in Giles et al. (1991) concerning 'social creativity'. Croats, however, are not the only ethnic group wishing to attain 'psycholinguistic distinctiveness', as will be discussed below.

Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia have also been increasingly preoccupied with language issues since the break-up of Yugoslavia (Sucic 1996). An article entitled 'The Serbian Language and alphabet should enter official use' (Tanjug, 13 September 1997, see internet address below) reports on the discussions held by the Serbian National Council Presidency in Croatia, concerning the return of Serb refugees to Croatia (i.e. Serbs who had formerly lived in Croatia but were forced to leave as a result of the war) and also concerning the Serbian media in Croatia. The article reports that Presidency members unanimously adopted the proposal of the President of the Serb Cultural Society, Slobodan Uzelac, to make known to Croatia's President Tudjman and to the public, their document about the educational and cultural autonomy of Serbs in Croatia, especially the recently-signed agreement on the education of Serb children in the region under UNTAES administration. UNTAES is the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia (in Croatia) whose function is to facilitate and supervise the implementation of the agreement signed by Croatia and the local Serb leaders, intended to lead to the peaceful reintegration of the region into Croatia (see UNTAES web site address below.). It was considered that the agreement on the education of Serb children in Croatia had not been put into practice. Uzelac characterised the actions of the Croatian representatives of education authorities in Croatia as "deliberate and organised obstruction of the declared right of the Serb community to cultural and educational autonomy". He suggested that the Croatian authorities reviewed their actions and started acting in accordance with the Constitution and the signed documents. In conclusion, the Presidency called on Serbian parents to send their children to Serb schools in the region despite the possible risks involved. Discussing the right to use what they considered the official 'Serbian' language anywhere in Croatia where Serbs form the majority of the population, the Presidency adopted an Act on the public use of the Serbian dialect and the Cyrillic alphabet, namely, that official documents be issued in both dialects and alphabets (i.e. Roman and Cyrillic). It was also stressed that the Act was important for enabling the Serb media in the region to use their language and alphabet. The public use of Cyrillic in the region was considered important for the purposes of signposting of towns, street names and other public institutions. Sucic (1996) argues that with the rise of Serbian nationalism, the Cyrillic script has became one of the most important symbols of Serbian national identity and in Serbia itself, Cyrillic is now the only script officially used despite the fact that the Latin alphabet had always had widespread use in the region, especially in the multiethnic province of Vojvodina.

The article from 'Serbia Bulletin' (see below for internet reference) alleges that Serbs who live in the Krajina region of Croatia have always spoken the same dialect as their Muslim and Croat neighbours, but that now this language is called 'Croatian' by the Croats who live there. The article also suggests that Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia now feel pressurised to prove their identity by abandoning the dialects that they have always spoken in favour of the Serbian or Eastern version of Serbo-Croatian which is unfamiliar to them. The work of Giles et al. (1991) is relevant here i.e.. their contention that in interethnic situations, those ethnic group members not confirming their ethnic affiliation linguistically may be seen as cultural traitors and their language regarded as improper or insulting. In the case of Serbo-Croatian, this makes for a somewhat complicated situation, as it is a matter of different dialects (which share one grammar) rather than different languages. The article contends that Serbian radio broadcasters in the Krajina region of Croatia have had many problems trying to get used to using unfamiliar words from the Serbian dialect and trying to adopt the accent of this dialect in their broadcasts. Politicians on government run television have also attempted this, the article alleges, often without success, as they struggle with a dialect that is strange to them. In addition, Sucic (1996) suggests, in Bosnia there is a considerable lack of Bosnian Serb teachers qualified to teach the Serbian dialect.

Since the war began, Bosnia, which has since been partitioned between three militarised, ethnically based political movements (Dyker 1996), has experienced numerous problems with regard to language issues, as this region is inhabited by Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Whilst part of former Yugoslavia Bosnia occupied a unique situation among the Yugoslav republics as it did not correspond to a specific national community (Bougarel 1996). At the end of the 1980's, contends Bougarel, the League of Communists of Bosnia (LCB) remained, on account of Bosnia's multiethnic composition, the strictest in its continued support for the Titoist dogma of 'Unity and Brotherhood'. With the onset of war however, the lack of congruence among the three components of nation, language and territory in Bosnia was addressed through ethnic cleansing (Sucic 1996). Today it remains the most multi-ethnic state of former Yugoslavia, although the ethnic groups i.e.. Serbs, Croats and Muslims live in separate areas. Sucic (1996) asserts that Bosnia is also divided linguistically, with Bosnians (whether Serb, Croat or Muslim) wishing to show that their national identity stems from their language identity. The idea of one language for each national group has proved problematic to implement in this region however, as most Bosnian Croats, Serbs and Muslims have always spoken the same Bosnian dialect (Sucic 1996). Sucic argues that nobody could distinguish a Bosnian Serb from a Bosnian Muslim from a Bosnian Croat by their speech alone as the language spoken by Bosnian Serbs, for example, was much closer to that of their Muslim and Croat neighbours in Bosnia than to that of Serbs from Serbia. Nevertheless, asserts Sucic, along with the forcible creation of artificial ethnic boundaries, nationalists on all sides have tried to create language boundaries too. For example, due to the centuries of Ottoman rule in Bosnia, many Turkish words have become an integral part of the dialects of the region, but with the current emphasis on linguistic purity, Bosnian Serbs are endeavouring to 'cleanse' their language of all Turkish words. Again, the theories of Giles et al. (1991) with regard to the process of 'social creativity' are relevant here. i.e.. attempts by an ethnic group to consciously change their language to distinguish themselves from other groups. However, Sucic (1996) suggests, without words borrowed from Turkish, Bosnian Serbs would not be able to name such basics as socks, sugar, soap, steel, pocket, box, lemon and monkey. Furthermore, since the war, the Bosnian Serb parliament have adopted the legislation that only the eastern dialect of Serbo-Croatian and the Cyrillic script can be used for official purposes by Bosnian Serbs..

During the 1991 census many Bosnian Muslims declared 'Bosnian' to be the name of their language suggests Sucic (1996), although the accuracy of data taken at this time must be questioned. They were advised to do so, Sucic (1996) contends, by the Muslim Party of Democratic Action. She claims that Muslim linguists began to argue at the beginning of the war that 'Bosnian' was the language of Bosnian Muslims exclusively. Muslim linguistic reformers attempted to transform their language into an ancient Bosnian language by putting back the voiced 'h' wherever it was thought one might have existed in the past. Muslims have also implemented the extensive use of borrowed Turkish words (whilst the Bosnian Serbs are trying to cut them out !) and revived many Arabic and Persian words from the 19th Century (Serbia Bulletin 1996). Sucic (1996) contends that the Turkish greeting is now used more often than the usual Slavic one. In addition, Muslim, Croatian and Serbian teachers of the Bosnian dialect claim they speak different languages yet they still teach one grammar (Sucic 1996). Sucic (1996) reports that a language Bill passed in 1993 gave a new official name to the language in Bosnia-Herzegovina: "Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian". The authors of the language policy came from the mostly Muslim government-held part of Bosnia. Sucic (1996) suggests that they were trying, in this way, to grant each national group the right to call the language spoken by each ethnic group by their own national name.

Thomas, (pg 176, 1992) defines an attitude he calls 'lexical purism' as 'an attitude to language which seeks to affirm what is truly native by labelling certain words as alien'. He suggests that it thereby fulfills both the separating and the solidarity functions necessary for protecting a language's prestige and legitimacy as an autonomous code. Its motivation, he argues, can be found in such factors as national consciousness. He continues that the behavioural response to this attitude often involves censorship, eradication and replacement of 'alien' words. Thomas's theory holds many truths with regard to the complex linguistic situations that have occurred in the successor states of the Former Yugoslavia where it seems that language has played a very important role in helping ethnic groups in the region to develop their national identities and set themselves apart from others. As Naylor (p. 83 1992) poignantly suggests 'In one sense we must assume that language serves as the 'flag' by which a group declares its independence, especially in Yugoslavia'. Additionally, the article from 'Serbia Bulletin' proposes that as the successor states of Yugoslavia wage linguistic battles and consult their dictionaries to point out the differences in their languages and hence their nations, perhaps the same fate awaits the Serbo-Croatian language as the country of Yugoslavia. It is perhaps too late to undertake any research which could help the different ethnic groups of this former country to appreciate the diversity of the different dialects of Serbo-Croatian but not to see these differences as a means of encouraging intolerance of different ethnic groups. It would seem that having a distinct linguistic identity has become too important for these groups. However perhaps lessons could be learned from the experience of Yugoslavia and, if nothing else, there is much scope in this region for research, which can further explore the intricate relationship between language and ethnic identity.

Bibliography

Bennett C (1995), 'Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse' C Hurst & Co (Publishers) Ltd, London

Bougarel X. (1996), 'Bosnia and Herzegovina - State and Communitarianism', in: Dyker D.A. and Vejvoda I. (eds.), 'Yugoslavia and after', Longman, London and New York

Bugarski, R. (1992), 'Language in Yugoslavia: Situation, Policy, Planning' in:

R Bugarski and C Hawkesworth (eds.), 'Language Planning in Yugoslavia', Slavica Publishers Inc, Ohio

Cviic C. (1996), 'Croatia', in: Dyker D.A. and Vejvoda I. (eds.), 'Yugoslavia and after', Longman, London and New York

Dyker D.A. (1996), 'Introduction', to: Dyker D.A. and Vejvoda I. (eds.), 'Yugoslavia and after', Longman, London and New York

Giles H. & Coupland N. (1991) 'Language: Contexts and Consequences', OUP, Buckingham

(Please also see Giles and Coupland for the following references)

Fishman 1972

Giles 1979

Tajfel and Turner 1979

Ivic, P. (1992), 'Language Planning in Serbia Today' in: Bugarski R. and

Hawkesworth C (eds.), 'Language Planning in Yugoslavia', Slavica Publishers Inc, Ohio

Naylor, K. E., (1992), 'The Sociolinguistic Situation in Yugoslavia, with Special Emphasis on Serbo-Croatian' in: Bugarski R. and Hawkesworth C. (eds.), 'Language Planning in Yugoslavia', Slavica Publishers Inc, Ohio

Radovanovic, M. (1992), 'Standard Serbo-Croatian and the Theory of Language Planning'

in: Bugarski R. and Hawkesworth C. (eds.), 'Language Planning in Yugoslavia', Slavica Publishers Inc, Ohio

Thomas, G. (1992), 'Lexical Purism as an Aspect of Language Cultivation in Yugoslavia' in: Bugarski R. and Hawkesworth C. (eds.), 'Language Planning in Yugoslavia', Slavica Publishers Inc, Ohio

Vejvoda I. (1996), 'Yugoslavia 1945 - 1991- from Decentralisation Without Democracy to Dissolution', in: Dyker D.A. and Vejvoda I. (eds.), 'Yugoslavia and after', Longman, London and New York

Articles from Internet

Serbia Bulletin (1996) 'Once they had their common language......', //www.yugoslavia.com/Bulletin/96/9609/960920/htm

Sucic D.S. (1996), 'The Fragmentation of Serbo-Croatian into three new languages' in:

'Transition' Vol. 2, No. 24, November 1996

http://www.omri.cz/Publications/Transition/Features/Feature.VO2N24.html

'Serbo-Croatian Profile', (from UCLA language materials database)

http://www.Imp.ucla.edu/profiles/profs01.htm

'Scientific Research in Croatia - Linguistics'

http://www.mzt.hr/mzt/eng/book/linguist.html

'The Serbian Language and alphabet should enter official use'

Tanjug (the official Yugoslav news agency) 13 September 1997-

archive of the Tanjug bulletins is at "http://www.suc.org/news/tanjug"

'Vuk Stefanovich Karadzic' at YU Landscape website

http://www.yugoslavia.com/Culture/HTML/vuk.html

UNTAES - web site of Netherlands permanent mission to UN www.undp.org/missions/netherlands

Personal Communication

Skaljak G. (1998)

© 2001 – Copyright by Elaine Skaljak. All rights reserved. - Copyright Information

~~~~~~~~~~~~~