|
Reprinted from: http://camel.conncoll.edu/ccacad/rees/conference/papers/hackett.html (no longer online) |
|
by Michael Hackett, Connecticut College, Class of 2000, CISLA GraduateNOTES ON TERMINOLOGY For the purposes of this study and for clarity, several linguistic terms should be defined in the context that they will be used for the remainder of this paper. Language in this study will refer either to a "single linguistic or to a group of related norms", for instance, Serbo-Croatian, which was considered the language of one nation, despite the fact that it had several significant dialects (24) . Standard language, or literary language, refers to a variant of a language that has been codified, generally through the development of grammars, orthographies, dictionaries, and literature. "This variant frequently becomes the idealized norm for the entire language, which speakers of the languages are encouraged to aspire to rather than one which actually accords with their observed behavior" (29-30). An example of this is Serbo-Croatian, which favored the ekavian variant, despite the considerably different speech tendencies of the ijekavian (not to mention kajkavian and cakavian) speech communities within Serbo-Croatian. Dialect will refer to one of those "norms" of a language, in this study, stokavian, kajkavian, and cakavian. Dialectal variants will also be mentioned, these are variants within the dialects themselves, dialects of dialects. In this study sub-dialects include those variants of stokavian: ijekavian, ikavian, and ekavian. Vernacular refers to that "relaxed, spoken style in which the least conscious attention is paid to speech" (19). A diasystem is a language which has two recognized official standardized dialects, for instance, the eastern and western variants of Serbo-Croatian, or the British and American variants of standard English. In 1991, Yugoslavia broke apart as tensions between Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians and Albanians became manifest in struggles for independence from Serbia-led Yugoslavia. Ethnic tensions did not appear overnight. Ethnicity refers to a group which shares a common identity but do not yet aspire to become a nation state, while a nationality indicates that the group in question shares not only a culture and history, but political aspirations to live in or create a nation state. The nations that came together to compose Yugoslavia had significantly different literary traditions and histories. The Communists after WWII attempted to discourage discussion of differences between the ethnicities in order that a new nationality, a "Yugoslav" nationality, may be construed and domesticated. The differences between the languages (or dialects, as some argue) of Yugoslavia, however, were an acceptable topic of discourse, and it became a metaphor for the differences (and later, the conflict) between the cultures. Therefore, the struggle of the regional variants to "survive" the imposition of a "common" language represents the struggle of Yugoslavia's nationalities to assert their own culture and way of life. One very rough and imprecise way to distinguish the languages of the former Yugoslavia is the alphabet; Slovenes, Croats, and most Bosnians use the Latin script, while Macedonians, Montenegrins, and Serbs use the Cyrillic script, though less and less frequently and not exclusively‹globalism has its price. Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are close linguistic variants and comprehension between the nationalities is generally not a problem. Serbian and Bosnian are particularly close, and the declaration of Bosnian as a language independent from Serbian was a political decision made in 1993, after the breakup of Yugoslavia. The linguistic similarity of the languages allowed several attempts to be made to assimilate them into one language (from Karadzic and the Illyrians in the nineteenth century to the latest attempt, which is Serbo-Croatian), with Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian considered as three variants of one language. The dialects of the "unified" language have been identified as
all of which are named after different articulations of the interrogative "what" (sto, kaj, ca). Serbian and Bosnian languages utilize only the stokavian dialect; Croatian, on the other hand, is three-dialectal, and contains the kajkavian, cakavian, and stokavian dialects. Stokavian is the most commonly spoken dialect, and therefore it is unsurprising that it has several dialectical variants.
These variants are differentiated by different reflexes of the Church Slavonic jat' internal morpheme, (seen for instance in the word for milk, mleko, mlijeko,and mliko) which means that the reflex in the verb in ekavian is e, in ijekavian is ije/je, and in ikavian is i. Stokavian/ekavian is spoken almost exclusively by Serbs, and the ijekavian dialect exists in the speech of all four main ethnic groups. Besides morphological differences, Croatian and Serbian standard languages are in particular differentiated by a large lexical gap; some studies claim that the number of differing lexical terms range anywhere between 2000 and 10,000 items. The Croatian Variant The Croatian variant (a.k.a as "Illyrian," "Slovinski," i.e Kajkavski, "Slavonski," "Slavo-Illyricski," "Horvatczki," "Horvatsko-Slavenski,") to mention but a few names of the language) got its first Dictionary in 1595 (F. Vrancic), its first grammar in 1604 (B. Kasic), and its first modern translation of the Bible in 1815 (M. Katancic). Due to a variety of historical circumstances, Croatian literary corpus after the Middle Ages contained three bodies of literature: the rich Dalmatian Renaissance literature of Dubrovnik, Hvar, Split, and Zadar, the Ikavian literature of Vitezovic, Kacic-Miosic and Kanizlic, and the Kajkavian Counter-Reformation literature of Belostenec and Brezovecki. On the other hand, when Vuk Karadzic began his pioneering work on a Serbian grammar, he had to break with the long tradition of Russian Church Slavonic and Church-Slavonic Serbian and rely only on the vernacular to form the basis of the standard Serbian language. In 1815, Karadzic wrote the first grammar of the Serbian language, Pismenica, in which he divided the language into three dialectal variants, "Hercegovacko," "Sremsko," and "Slavonsko," which would become ijekavian, ekavian, and ikavian. However, his grammar paid no attention to local differences in morphology or lexicon; he claimed that the case when "some call a Œdevojka' a Œcura,' and others call a Œlozica' a Œkasica,' is a small difference in dialect." The Croatian literature written in the 1820's and 1830's during the "Illyrian Renaissance" was increasingly written in the stokavian rather than kajkavian or cakavian variants, and by 1830 stokavian began to be viewed as the literary basis for new Croatian because stokavian was accessible not only to Croats but to Serbs as well. Because the newly developing literary Croatian was similar to the Serbian vernacular, the possibility of uniting Croats and Serbs by means of a common language encouraged a few prominent Croatian and Serbian men of letters to meet in Vienna, discuss the issue and sign an informal "Literary Agreement" in 1850. The Agreement was a logical outcome of the Illyrian movement whose leader, Ljudevit Gaj, encouraged the idea of unity‹and in particular, a "unified" language--among Southern Slavs to offset the threat of cultural assimilation from Vienna and Budapest. The "Illyrians" preferred a language which, in addition to stokavian, included elements of kajkavian and cakavian, they therefore thought that Karadzic's project was too narrowly Serbian. Nevertheless, the stokavian-ijekavian dialect was chosen by the Karadzic-led participants of the Vienna Literary Agreement (who included Croat representatives such as Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski, Dimitrje Demeter, and Ivan Mazuranic, all who later disavowed it in practice) as the standard of Serbo-Croatian, or Croato-Serbian. The new language was codified in the second half of the century. Tomislav Maretic, a professor of Slavic philology at the University of Zagreb and also a deputy of the Unionist allegiance (linguist followers of Karadzic), proposed that linguistic change in favor of a completely new beginning‹a complete adoption of Karadzic's standards‹was in order for Croatia and Serbia. His history of Croat scriptory practices (1889) contended that the literary traditions of Croatia were not worth continuing if the price meant sacrificing possible Balkan unity. In 1899, he published a grammar of this "unified" language (Gramatika I stilistika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga knijiznevnog jezika) which strongly favored the Serbian variant by excluding morphological traits of the kajkavian and cakavian dialects found in Croatian. The opposition to this language policy was led by Croat nationalists who argued that the new "literary" language was not literary at all; it was based only upon the vernacular of some Croats and most Serbs and Bosnians and Montenegrins. Furthermore, this "common" language completely ignored the rich literary tradition of Croatia. Therefore, despite the fact that Croatian had been, and remains, three-dialectical (containing kajkavian, cakavian, and stokavian), the new "unified" language was based solely upon stokavian, which was accessible to the Serbs. Grammars continued to be published, and despite Croat opposition, the idea (however illusory, considering the reluctance on the part of the Croats to adopt the Karadzic/Maretic standards) of a linguistic union endured, and in 1918, political developments reinforced its position. The Yugoslav State Language With the political unification of Serbs and Croats in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918, later to become the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the stokavian/ekavian variant (the Serbian variant) became, in effect, the "state language." The language of the military and government was this new "common" language, and the Serbs preferred their own variant as the basis for a literary language centered on Belgrade. Furthermore, ekavian was the closest dialectal variant to Macedonian and had the largest potential to be understood by most of the people in the new state. The Royal Ministry of Education published a grammar for use in schools in the new "common" language. Croatian was still taught in schools, although Serbo-Croatian was always a mandatory course, as it was everywhere in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. The imposition of a new "common language" had begun. Despite the discouragement of ethnic nationalism in post-WWII Yugoslavia in the interests of the supra-national state which had come into being as the result of a national liberation war against the Nazis, there was not an immediate demand for linguistic unification in the new nation. During the war, bulletins of the General Staff of the National Liberation Army were published in four languages, Croatian, Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian. However, there certainly was clear reliance upon the Serbian variant instead of the Croatian variant in the central party, and government agencies, in federal media, and the military. But it was only when a new edition of Belic's orthography was published in 1952 that the drive for a "common" language resumed, this time led by the Serbian literary foundation Matica Srpska. Serbo-Croatian was stressed in education more strongly than ever before the war. Even Slovenes and Macedonians, for whom Serbo-Croatian is non-native, were required to study the language in schools. The renewed efforts to create a "Yugoslav common language" gathered strength when Matica Srpska published an inquiry in its journal Letopis about the state of linguistic unity in Yugoslavia and possible adjustments that should be made to the "national" language. Writers, linguists, and public figures responded, and the debate led to a meeting where the fate of a unified language would be decided. In 1954, noted Serbian and Croatian intellectuals and writers reached a somewhat vague Agreement at Novi Sad; all variants of the language were combined into a diasystem known as Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Croatian, or Serbian, which had two variants, eastern and western. The Novi Sad agreement was clearly inspired by the Ideological Commission of the CPJ, who selected reliable Party members to participate. As Banac notes, "even if the nine Croat participants (including Josip Hamm, Mate Hraste, and Ljudevit Jonke, three leading Zagreb linguists) could have agreed to oppose the meeting's premises, the outcome would probably not have been different. Political unitarism was increasingly in official favorŠthe Serbian literary language in Latin scriptŠincreasingly became the "state language," while aversion to the Cyrillic script became standard within the federal administration and Belgrade's cosmopolitan society." The Croatian Initiative The preference given to the Eastern (Serbian) variant became more and more obvious in the years after the Novi Sad Agreement. Finally, when the first two volumes of the joint Dictionary were published in 1967, and the fruits of the Agreement were offered for inspection, the tension that had been building over the issue of linguistic unitarism manifested itself in the immediate response of the Zagreb Linguistic Circle. The Zagreb Linguistic Circle (a society of linguists founded at the University of Zagreb) met and summoned the prominent artists, writers, intellectuals, linguists, and educational or publishing institutions (such as Matica Hrvatska) to respond to the joint Dictionary in the form of a "Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language," in 1967. The Linguistic Circle provided evidence that the Serbian variant was favored in many official texts as well as in the joint Dictionary. The Declaration demanded that the Croatian language be recognized as the fourth language of the Federation (Slovene and Macedonian had been recognized in the Constitution of 1963). The portion that caused the greatest stir (particularly in the Party) was the conclusion; the Declaration concluded with a demand for constitutional amendments and freedom to let the Croatian language develop as a separate language. The 1967 Declaration surprised many of Croatia's political leaders, particularly since so many of the signatories were Party members (and often high-ranking) who defied the Party line on this sensitive issue. The gesture was officially denounced by the federal government as the work of a "dangerous underground," and reprisals were demanded by a large number of outspoken Party members in Belgrade and Zagreb against those who signed it. A number of members of the Zagreb Linguistic Circle and Matica Hrvatska (among them Ljudevit Jonke, Dalibor Brozovic, Petar Segedin, Jaksa Ravlic, Slavko Mihalic, Ivo Franges and Miroslav Brandt) were expelled from the Party. Miroslav Krleza, one of the most respected literary figures in Yugoslavia, resigned from the Central Committee (of the LCH). President Tito declared the Declaration the work of anti-social and bourgeois elements who wanted to disrupt national unity, but, at the time, strongly opposed the use of "draconian measures" against them. In Belgrade, measures were taken to oppose the Croatian initiative. In response to the Declaration, about fifty members of the Serbian Writers Association announced that "if there was to be an official divorce between Serbian and Croatian, they would insist on separate schools for the several hundred thousand Serbs in Croatia and the exclusive use of the Cyrillic script in Serbia itself." The publicity raised by the Declaration provided reformers in Croatia an opportunity to publicly state their complaints against the unitarist policies of Belgrade, namely, that there were too many Serbs in the army (in Croatia Serbs comprised twelve percent of the population but 60-70% of the officer corps of the JNA), the police and the Party. Furthermore, they argued, too much hard currency earned in Croatia was sent to Belgrade. The debate over language was the beginning of a much greater debate about the economic and political inequality between Serbs and Croats; the Yugoslav government, which was created with the idea of unifying several nations through equal treatment for all, did not live up to that promise. This realization was made public by the Declaration, which in turn was the spark that set the fire of the Croatian Spring. The movements, both the one for affirmation of the Croatian language and culture and the one that advocated continued centralization in Yugoslavia, quickly became militant. Tensions between Serbs and Croats at football matches erupted into violent riots. Many signs in Croatia that were written in the Cyrillic were publicly defaced or destroyed, and angry articles appeared in the newspapers about the language issue. Croatia's Serb population grew understandably nervous, and the lack of governmental intervention to suppress the nationalist movement did not soothe their worries. More and more national and regional publications adopted the reformist view, including Dubrovnik, Kolo, Glas Slavonije (Osijek), Vjesnik (the principal Croat daily), and Zagreb Television. It was almost a foreshadowing of the media surge that would occur 20 years later. Dalibor Brozovic, a renowned Croatian linguist, continued the argument for a separate Croatian language by circulating his "Ten Theses on the Croatian Language" during his keynote address at a conference of high-school teachers of Croatian in Sibenik in 1971. In his address he contended that for users of the standard Croatian language, "the fact thatŠthe Western stokavian dialects are inseparable from the kajkavian and cakavian dialects, is more essential than their relationship with other stokavian dialects." In the fall of 1971, there was a mass student strike in Zagreb. The protest began as a series of discussions about the reform of the university (Za reformu hrvatskog sveucilista), but quickly arguments were made for a restructuring of the educational system as a whole. While students protested in an organized fashion on the streets, Zagreb police warned the students that the police from outside of Zagreb, largely Serbs, were called in to intervene. Savka Dabcevic-Kucar, the leader of the LCH, urged the students to halt the strike. Nevertheless, the strike became violent as detachments of police from the predominantly Serbian areas of Bihac and Krajina entered the city and suppressed the strike. Tito called a session of the Croatian and Yugoslav Central Committees at Karajordjevo where he made it clear that the Croatian leadership should resign their posts. In the second half of December, the reform leaders of the LCH, Savka Dabcevic-Kucar, Miko Tripalo, and Pero Pirker resigned and were expelled from the Party. 352 students were arrested and the student leaders, Cicak and Budisa, were imprisoned. Matica Hrvatska, and Hrvatski Tjednik were shut down, and the other newspapers, Radio Zagreb, Vjesnik and the judiciary and local government were purged of reformers on every level. The Orthography (Pravopis) of the Croatian language written by foremost Zagreb linguists was pulped and destroyed in the overture to Tito's suppression of the Croatian Spring and purge of the Party. Tito would suffer neither the political aspirations nor the linguistic secessionism of the Croatian Spring. The New Federal Constitution However, in 1974, a new constitution was established for Yugoslavia and a provision for republican "standard linguistic idioms" was accepted for certain republics. Slovenian and Macedonian were still considered separate languages, and the name of the "common" language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro was Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Croatian or Serbian. This was based on a controversial amendment adopted in 1972 that established the official language of Croatia as "the standard form of the national language of the Croats and Serbs in Croatia that is called Croatian or Serbian." The new federal constitution was worded to reflect this change, and it gave each republic the right to designate which language would be considered official on its territory. The right of children to be educated in their language was under the new Constitution guaranteed in every republic and province, and Serbo-Croatian lost much of its strength as a unifying element in education. The language of the armed forces, however, remained Serbo-Croatian. Serbian nationalism, meanwhile, flourished in the early 1980's, and demands for the "protection" of rights of Serbs outside of Serbia became more and more insistent. Then, in 1986, the bomb was set off that would catalyze the worsening ethnic situation among the republics of Yugoslavia. The "Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and the Arts," while blaming federal Yugoslavia for the economic and political damage to Serbian interests, stated that the tolerance of nationalism in the republics was the reason that "the (Serbian) language is being displaced and the Cyrillic script is being lost." Arguing against the changes proposed in the 1974 Constitution, the writers of the Memorandum contended that "a constitutional provision has made this language (Croatian) obligatory for the Serbs in Croatia, and nationalistically inclined Croatian linguists are distancing it systematically from the language used in the other republics of the Serbo-Croatian language area, and this is helping to weaken the ties binding the Serbs in Croatia to other Serbs." Also, the issue of the alphabet became once again a subject of debate. Whether to use Cyrillic or Latin orthography had been a topic of argument since a common language was proposed in the middle of the 19th century and returned again and again throughout the history of the language. The Serbs argued against "cultural genocide;" a colorful term that shows the degree of passion involved. According to the Memorandum, Croatian, a language that bears the name of another nation was imposed upon the Serbs in Croatia. Both Croatian and Serbian nationalists wanted the preservation of the culture and language of the representative majority, while still protecting the rights of members of their nationality who lived in other republics. The problem is that this is almost impossible to do without either sacrificing the interests of either the republic or the members of its ethnicity in other parts of Yugoslavia. Thus, when Slovenia and Croatia broke away in 1991, and Bosnia in 1992, Milosevic no longer used the excuse of preservation of a unified Yugoslavia to intervene militarily in the newly independent republics. Instead, the protection of the interests of Serb minority groups in Croatia and Bosnia was his justification for intervention, and the issue was contentious enough to stall foreign intervention in what otherwise would be seen (particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovina) as a breach of international law. The Collapse In 1991, the pretense that the languages of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians could be artificially unified into one common "language" became moot with the collapse of Yugoslavia and the beginning of the war. As Yugoslavia divided politically into its constituent republics, it divided culturally and linguistically as well. In Croatia, linguists and politicians alike are examining the Croatian language. Some are proposing language change for purely political reasons; for instance, suggestions by members of the HDZ to remove Serbianisms from the language to make it distinct from Serbian reflect the desire to separate the Croatian culture from that of the Serbs. In Serbia, all writing continues in the eastern (ekavian/stokavian) variant, and generally in the Cyrillic type. With the fragmentation of the Yugoslav "nation" came the official division of the languages. Until the very end, the struggle for linguistic recognition coincided with the struggle for the autonomy of nationalities in Yugoslavia. Bibliography:
For questions or further information, please e-mail Andrea Lanoux Last Modified: Tuesday, April 02, 2002, 04:52:09 PM EST
|
|
|