Language & Identity in the Balkans

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 (1918-41) 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. • 1850 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. • 1878 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. • 1918-29 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. • 1954 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 (1809-72) and Serb Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864) overlapped

2.2.1 The Literary Agreement (1850), cont’d. • Croat Ljudevit Gaj (1809-72) • 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 (1787-1864) • 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. • 1960 joint Pravopis published in both Zagreb & Novi Sad • 1967 first volume of joint dictionary, but in competition with controversial 1966 1-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 -- 1971 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: • 1836-99 Štokavian-ijekavian standard for W and S Štokavian areas • 1913-39 promotion of Eastern Štokavian-ekavian (Serbian) at expense of Štokavian-ijekavian • 1954-74 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 • 1850-1920s: unified language evolved with little controversy • 1930-41: breakdown of ethnic relations • 1941-45: Fascist Croatia opens up a divide • 1945-60: 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

Language & Identity in the Balkans