Language & Identity in the Balkans Chapter 2: Serbo-Croatian: United or not we fall

2.0 Introduction:The precarious language union Joint language for Serbs, Croats, and Montenegrins created in mid-19th c 1st Yugoslavia ( ) ethnic animosity between Serbs & Croats 1941 Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia proclaimed a ”pure” (non-Serbian) Croatian language Socialist Yugoslavia -- unified language was recreated as foundation for ethnic unity

2.0 Introduction:The precarious language union, cont’d. The language union of Serbo-Croatian endured –Centripetal forces: on the level of Yugoslav federation, reinforced by objective linguistic facts –Centrifugal forces: on the level of Yugoslav republics seeking autonomy and sharpening ethnic divisions

2.0 Introduction:The precarious language union, cont’d. External identity (as seen from without) as a single language was strong Internal identity (as seen by rival ethnic groups) was precarious Attempts to fortify linguistic identity have consistently failed The various ethnic groups were never able to consistently promote a single dialect Unity was undermined by compromises that did not satisfy all language planners

2.1 Models for unified languages Weak internal identity made it possible for language planners from rival groups to contest the norms, dialect base, and sociolinguistic structure of the language Pluricentricity -- when there are competing standard norms for a language (Norwegian, Chinese, English, Hindi/Urdu, Dutch/Flemish, Armenian)

2.1 Models for unified languages, cont’d. Contrastive self-identification -- rival groups seek to differentiate themselves –Bosnians declared the exsitence of a Bosnian language –Croats emphasized unique Croatian features –Serbs tried to prove that Serbs living in Croatia spoke differently from their Croat neighbors

2.1 Models for unified languages, cont’d. Three language unity models –Centrally monitored unity –Government imposed unity –Pluricentric unity

2.1.1 Centrally monitored unity A language academy, state-sponsored institute, or government ministry bears responsibility for unity of standard language, and also produces official grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks (e.g., France)

2.1.1 Centrally monitored unity, cont’d Vienna Literary Agreement established joint literary language for Serbs and Croats, based on Southern dialect (neo-stokavian ijekavian -- the one dialect shared by all ethnic groups) 1867 Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (Zagreb) promoted unification of Yugoslav peoples by language By 1901 Academy had produced grammar, dicitonaries, orthographic manual

2.1.1 Centrally monitored unity, cont’d Serbian state gains independence 1886 Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts sanctioned Belgrade-Novi Sad dialect, competing with Zagreb norm Unity was possible when Serbia was weak and divided, but once it gained independence, pluricentrism and competition arose

2.1.2 Government-imposed unity In totalitarian systems the head of state or a state ministry assumes direct control over language policy (e.g., Stalin in USSR, Franco in Spain)

2.1.2 Government-imposed unity, cont’d Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes suffered constant crises 1929 King Alexander renamed it Kingdom of Yugoslavia and attempted to do away with traditional ethnic identifications to create unity -- Croats feared that this meant they would be absorbed by Serbs, for them Yugoslavism = Serbian agenda

2.1.2 Government-imposed unity, cont’d. New regime sought to enforce language unity 1930 Belic’s orthographic manual decreed by Kingdom’s Ministry of Education King was assassinated and Croatian orthographic manual was permitted Language policies imposed in both Fascist Independent State of Croatia and Tito’s Yugoslavia Tito’s Yugoslavia is pluricentric with two standards

2.1.3 Pluricentric unity States with more than one cultural center with a literature and/or language norm (e.g., Dano-Norwegian & New Norwegian, also language equal rights in Spain, varieties of German, and Chinese) Serbo-Croatian -- initial standardization reversed centuries of natural Abstand development for Orthodox vs. Catholics

2.1.3 Pluricentric unity, cont’d Novi Sad Agreement -- attempt to formalize linguistic brotherhood & unity -- agreed on compromise and tolerance of local varieties 1974 Federal Constitution allowed local varieties to gain official status in constituent republics: Croatian (Western variant), Serbian (Eastern variant), Bosnia-Herzegovinian, Montenegrin BUT every step towards unity aroused controversy and ethnic rivalry

2.2 Controversies connected with Serb/Croat language accords Two significant (& controversial) language conferences –1850 Vienna Literary Agreement Dedicated largely to status planning, not specific linguistic points Promoted unified standard for Serbs and Croats despite fact that there was no precedent for normative works –1954 Nov Sad Agreement Revision of 1850 Agreement Considered many specific points

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850) Prior to 1850 the Croatian and Serbian literary languages had been diverging: –Croats used a variety of dialects –Serbs wrote in artificial Slaveno-Serbian Literary Agreement came about as a historical coincidence, because the agendas of language reformers Croat Ljudevit Gaj ( ) and Serb Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic ( ) overlapped

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. Croat Ljudevit Gaj ( ) –Leader of Illyrian Movement to preserve Croatian rights within Hungary, lay basis for Croatian and pan-South Slavic unity –Illyrian = South Slavic –Sought to unify Croatian Latin orthography and elevate Dubrovnik Stokavian dialect

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. Serb Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic ( ) –Independently proposed a reform of Serbian based on essentially the same SW dialect as Gaj –Collected folk songs, wrote grammar and dictionary (1818) –Believed that literary language should be based on vernacular –Introduced simplified orthography

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. Contents of Agreement: –Better to elevate a dialect to literary status than have an artificial standard –Southern dialect is the literary standard –Velar fricative h is always written (a compromise for Vuk, since his usage omits it) –Velar fricative h is not used in Gpl of nouns –Syllabic r is written simply as r (prst)

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. The Agreement was not a binding document Vuk (and others on both sides) signed it, but Gaj did not and was lukewarm about it Serb and Croat linguists (”vukovci”) worked at Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb to create joint literary language

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. The Agreement did not specify the name for the language –1861 Croatian Sabor suggested ”Yugoslav” –Vienna authorities suggested ”Serbian-Illyrian (Cyrillic)” and ”Serbian-Illyrian (Latin)” –Other suggestions: ”Croatian or Serbian”, ”Serbian”, ”Illyrian” –They never did agree on a name, all the way up to the abandonment of a joint language in 1991

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. More problems: –Vojvodina Serbs (those attached to the Slaveno-Serbian) opposed Vuk’s efforts –Croat nationalists considered cooperation with Vuk to be a surrender of Croatian identity –Some Croat linguists rejected the selection of a Southern dialect as standard and suggested an artificial standard that would combine elements from various dialects

2.2.2 The Novi Sad Agreement (1954) Some background: Serbs adapted Vuk’s reforms to their urban dialects of Belgrade and Novi Sad (the “Eastern dialect”) 1913 Jovan Skerlic suggested –A single standard with elements from Zagreb and Belgrade –Serbs switch completely to Latin script –Croats adopt Eastern, rather than Southern dialect –A more ambiguous compromise was basis of Novi Sad Agreement

2.2.2 The Novi Sad Agreement (1954), cont’d. Conclusions of Novi Sad Agreement: –There is one language with Zagreb (Western; ijekavian; Latin) and Belgrade (Eastern; ekavian; Cyrillic) variants of equal status (hrvatosrpski & srpskohrvatski) –Name of language must refer to both “Serb” and “Croat” –Matica srpska & Matica hrvatska will produce new dictionary –Collaboration on common terminology and orthography by universities & academies –Croato-Serbian will be allowed natural development, no texts will be converted from one variant to the other

2.2.2 The Novi Sad Agreement (1954), cont’d joint Pravopis published in both Zagreb & Novi Sad 1967 first volume of joint dictionary, but in competition with controversial vol Serbian dictionary (with clear Serbian nationalist agenda) and Croatian declaration of a Croatian literary language Joint dictionary project fell apart, books with ethnic agendas were burned, and people were imprisoned

2.2.2 The Novi Sad Agreement (1954), cont’d. Croats sought greater independence from Belgrade Croatian spring movement Muslim Slavs given status of constituent nation, thus equating religious and ethnic identity and creating forerunner to Bosniac identity

2.2.2 The Novi Sad Agreement (1954), cont’d. Novi Sad Agreement failed because it did not resolve: –Choice of an appropriate standard dialect –Agreement concerning alphabets and writing systems –Issues of vocabulary

2.3 The power of competing dialects Diverse dialects make it hard to choose a standard Mutually intelligible, divided into three main groups according to the word for ‘what’: –Štokavian (što) - the largest group, continues to grow Ekavian - large W group including Belgrade Ijekavian - large E group (Sarajevo), used by most Muslim Slavs, Montenegrins, Serbs West of Drina, and most Croats Ikavian - smaller group in NW and NE –Kajkavian (kaj) - small Northern area around Zagreb –Čakavian (ča) - extreme NW and islands off coast

The Štokavian dialects and ethnicity: An overview Ekavian, Ijekavian, and Ikavian variants had been formed prior to Ottoman invasions in 14th-15th c, which spurred mass migrations, causing a mixing of dialectal affiliations across ethnic and religious lines By the time of the Literary Agreement and Novi Sad Agreement, ethnic, religious and dialect types had become blurred

2.3.2 Dilemmas of dialects: Ownership and citizenship? 1850 Literary Agreement promoted Štokavian-ijekavian Eastern Herzegovina (“Southern”) dialect of Dubrovnik’s medieval literature and Serbia’s epic poetry Gaj & Karadzic agreed on use of Štokavian-ijekavian standard with variations

2.3.2 Dilemmas of dialects: Ownership and citizenship? Four critical periods: – Štokavian-ijekavian standard for W and S Štokavian areas – promotion of Eastern Štokavian-ekavian (Serbian) at expense of Štokavian-ijekavian – Southern dialect becomes synonymous with Western (Croato-Serbian) variant of joint language and boundaries between E and W are disputed –1991-present four successor languages have all claimed ownership of Štokavian-ijekavian

2.3.3 Standard pronunciations, variants, or idioms Serbian (eastern) and Croatian (western) written languages were each associated with two ”standard” pronunciations: both could be spoken as either ijekavian or ekavian, but Croats opposed giving ekavian an official status for the Croatian variant, since they perceived this as a Serbian intrusion Montenegrin and Bosnian-Herzegovinian (Muslim Slav) standard written and spoken variants were asserted also in 1974

2.4 The writing on the wall: Alphabets and writing systems 1850 Literary Agreement did not specify the alphabet to be used, implying both would be used 1954 Novi Sad Agreement specified that both alphabets would be used Still, alphabets have been a sore point, along with political implications of orthography

2.4.1 A multiplicity of alphabets Croatian has used Glagolitic, Cyrillic, Latin, and even Arabic (Bosnian), but strongest association is with Latin (modified by Gaj) Serbs use Cyrillic (modified by Vuk, though his use of j was initially controversial) Alphabet issue viewed as conflict Catholic (Croatian) vs. Orthodox (Serbian) churches In Yugoslavia, Serbs were competent in both scripts, but Croats knew only Latin Lack of agreement on alphabet was impediment to unifed language

2.4.2 Spell-bound: Clashes over spelling rules The spelling of a language can be shaped by various ideologies: –Etymological (archaic, links to historical texts) –Morphological (clarity of roots, suffixes, etc.) –Phonological (spelled as pronounced) Although Serbs and Croats used phonological orthography, they were not unified on how to carry it out

2.4.2 Spell-bound: Clashes over spelling rules, cont’d. Croatian spelling had been chaotic, Serbian had been etymological Both Vuk and Gaj wanted to ”write the way you speak” Vuk was accused of attacking Orthodoxy, but his efforts were appreciated abroad and he was a hero in Yugoslavia Discrepancies between Croatian and Serbian spellings persisted

2.5 Vocabulary: A reflection of divergent aproaches to identity Lexical differences are central to distinguishing the Western vs. Eastern variants –Croatian -- policy of purism Use of archaic or newly-coined Croatian words –Serbian -- policy of integrating words from vernacular Rejection of bookish or artificial words

2.5.1 Croatian purism Croats tried to protect their ethnic core in the lexicon –Reaction to German borrowings in spoken Kajkavian –Emulation of Czech/Slovene language revival –Introduction of neutral new words –Elimination of Serbian elements

2.5.2 The supremacy of the vernacular for the Serbs Serbian lexicon is based on an oral literature, incorporating words from the popular language

Divergent attitudes towards foreign borrowings Croats under foreign (German & Hungarian- speaking) rule 800 years, Serbs under Ottoman (Turkish) rule 500 years Catholic Croats borrowed from Latin; Orthodox Serbs borrowed from Greek, Russian, Church Slavonic; Muslim Slavs borrowed from Turkish, Arabic Some words from ALL of these sources are present in BOTH variants

2.6 The turbulent history of the language union: A chronology s: unified language evolved with little controversy : breakdown of ethnic relations : Fascist Croatia opens up a divide : Pursuit of brotherhood & unity 1960s: Yugoslav federation & language begin to disintegrate

2.6 The turbulent history … A chronology, cont’d. Croatians claim that unity was imposed, artificial, and never existed By 1974 Serbs negotiated unified language out of existence But Yugoslav expats STILL believe their native language is Serbo-Croatian, and outside observers continued to recognize a Serbo-Croatian language

Conclusions Prior to 1850 Serbs and Croats had radically different literary traditions Both sides refused to compromise on dialects, alphabets, orthography, and lexicon Montenegrins & Muslim Slavs emerge as groups with own identity, linking language to ethnicity Four successor languages emerged from nearly identical dialects (stokavian/ijekavian): Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin