CROATIAN LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION AND THE

Full text

Turn on search term navigation

Andrew Hodges

Center for Advanced Studies - Southeast Europe (CAS SEE), University of Rijeka

Keywords: language policy, activism, linguistic anthropology, Croatia

Introduction

During and following what is commonly referred to in Croatia as the Homeland War (1991-5), linguists and language activists1 have engaged in extensive language planning and policy making with the aim of "emancipating" the standard - previously understood as part of a single Serbo-Croatian language - from a perceived Serbian influence and successfully garnering international support, including from the European Union, for the recognition of Croatian as a "language".2 These activities have had a pronounced amount of popular support and debates concerning orthography, spelling rules, grammar and standard vocabulary have taken place in various public arenas in which concerns have been aired over the "correct" (pravilno) use of language, with "experts" often prescribing correct language use and discussions of common "mistakes" made by various publics a regular feature in the mainstream press.3 These reforms have reinforced a "monoglot standard" model (Silverstein 1996), historically common in Europe, in which languages are understood as "organised systems with centrally defined norms, each language ideally expressing the spirit of a nation and the territory it occupies" (Gal 2006a: 163). From the perspective of many Croatian language activists (e.g. Babic, Finka and Mogus 1984; Gluhak 1990) and members of the public advocating such policies, this has resulted in the production of a linguistic hierarchy between standard and non-standard forms, in which many non-standard lexical items and forms, particularly those closer to standard Serbian in what is a South-Slavic dialect continuum, are understood to be less "cultured" (kulturni).4 To give one example, an emphasis on kultura as shaping imaginaries concerning standardisation is visible in the statement made by a Croatian language activist from Vojvodina, Serbia. This is a location in which I conducted linguistic anthropological fieldwork analysing the social, political and linguistic consequences of introducing teaching in Croatian in Serbia, and I will occasionally draw on field observations during this debate. Vukovic starts his article, named "How can we care for the Croatian language in Vojvodina?" ("Kako skrbiti za hrvatski jezik u Vojvodini?"), with a discussion of processes surrounding the Czech standard and Prague School (understood as both more "Western" and "Central European") :

(...) Praia ni isticu da je za odredivanje norme standardnoga jezika relevantna u prvom redu uporaba obrazovanih i kultiviranih govornika.

(...) The Prague School emphasises that, when defining standard language norms, one of the most relevant features is language use by educated and cultivated (kultiviranih) speakers. (Vukovic 2010a: 80, my translation)

What is of interest here is the choice of comparison made with Czech, and the importance of education and kultura, when choosing standard language norms.

Amongst certain language activists, standard forms are frequently demanded of pupils in the classroom (including in less formal, creative classroom tasks) and are sometimes demanded of others even in spoken interaction in everyday situations, resulting in a continuous "auto-correcting" of speech, which the linguist Kordic (2010) criticised in her book Language and Nationalism. To give another example, several friends who attended school in Zagreb during the nineties recounted how written homework tasks were marked heavily down when they used the "da li" question form - understood by some nationalist oriented language activists as more "Serbian", instead of preferred "more Croatian" alternatives.

An unintended consequence of a strong insistence on purist and prescriptivist practices is a lack of linguistic confidence amongst some teachers in using standard language in the classroom, who fear that their use of standard language is not good enough. For example, at the end of the Croatian course I attended at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb, we went for a coffee on an icy day, where the teacher described the pavement as slippery using the word klizavo. One student then asked if sklisko, which isn't used in Serbia, is the preferred standard form. The teacher was unsure and then mentioned that one of her worries with the classes is over making mistakes surrounding which forms to use when teaching.

Such linguistic hierarchies asserted directly relate to a social hierarchy asserted, whereby a more Eastern "Other" (such as Serbs) is viewed as lower down in a civilizational hierarchy, as described extensively in terms of Balkanism (Todorova 2009) and in Bakic-Hayden's (1995) concept of "nesting orientalisms". These processes have included extremes of linguistic purism - referred to as ciscenjejezika (language purification) and prescriptivism. New "Croatian" words were sometimes invented, whilst archaic words were incorporated into standard language (justified by referring to the standard as knjiievni jezik - the literary language) with new lexical items being used in media discourses in order to avoid "internationalisms", many of which were associated with standard Serbian, such as the word for aeroplane: avion or airport: aerodrom, compared to the standard Croatian zrakoplov and zracna luka. This has included the minimization of borrowings (tudice), particularly from language varieties viewed as undesirable in an inscribed Balkanist cultural hierarchy (such as Turkish, with the words Turkism and Serbism used by some activists as near synonyms). Many of these linguistic practices have had substantial popular appeal as well.

Upon arriving in Zagreb for the first time in 2008, my use of everyday lexical items commonly identified as Serbian (kesa/kesica (bag), pecurke (mushroom), dopuniti mobilni (top up a mobile phone), instead of the Croatian vrecica, gljive, nadoplatiti mobitel) were "corrected" frequently by people on the street in everyday situations such as ordering food or paying at the till. Importantly, not all of these "correcting" practices relate to prescriptivism. Some (e.g.pecurke) concern variants which had never been used in Zagreb, and which could therefore reasonably constitute the contents of a useful phrasebook translating standard/colloquial Serbian-Croatian phrases. Others (e.g. dopuniti mobilini) relate to lexical items which became widespread following the start of the war, a period when there was relatively less language contact. Some, such as vrecica, reference prescriptivist interventions.

What is clear here, and which also holds for the classroom context in which I conducted fieldwork following teaching in Croatian in Serbia, is that standard language ideology (Milroy 2001) and standard language practices persist and have significant popular currency. Th ese policy changes directly relate to national discursive hegemonies (Roseberry 1994) established following the recent war, in a context where citizenship is understood as tightly connected with national (Croatian) belonging. Th e linguist and Marxist activist Mate Kapovic (2013) described purism as nationalism expressed through language, and prescriptivism as conservatism in the language. Th ese linguistic practices accompanied social practices, including a rise in nationalist, conservative political options and ethnic cleansing which resulted in hundreds of thousands of forced population movements and thousands of deaths.5 Clearly social and linguistic practices closely relate to one another,6 but the link between linguistic and social orders is not always obvious or direct: for example, Kapovic (2011a: 85) describes how a "free linguistic market" does not have negative consequences on society, but as a Marxist, he does not advocate free markets as a social, economic option. To give another example, in the case of language standardization on the island of Corsica, the linguistic anthropologist Alexandra Jafire (1999) describes how significant linguistic variation is permitted in what is termed a "polynomial standard", designed to directly oppose the "French" language ideology of the monoglot standard in a situation where two nationalist causes (Corsican and French) advocate substantially different language ideologies.

Given the close relationship between changing linguistic and social orders, I find it surprising therefore, that social scientists have made few interventions in these debates. Before making an intervention, I wish to clarify my self-positioning in the academic field. As a social anthropologist from the UK living and working in Croatia, I am positioned somewhere between being an insider and outsider, given that I have lived the majority of my adult life in Croatia/Serbia and worked there for several years, yet without any prior childhood connection with the region. In focusing on nationalism as expressed through language, I am open to criticism - often attributed to "Western" commentators and academics - that they excessively focus on and critique nationalism in the European semi-periphery, a move which can have an orientalizing effect. This is particularly the case if no stance is taken on "nationalism at home" (i.e. in Western states) as problematic or if they use a national frame to describe events, whilst simultaneously critiquing political nationalism. My commitment here is to academic consistency - I believe nationalism of all varieties to be potentially dangerous, and understand it as present in similar intensity in both the UK and the post-Yugoslav states, where rights attributed to national categories are used to justify military interventions in wars outside of the UK, or play a role in consolidating racism between individuals who identify with different national groupings, e.g. English and Scottish, for example.7

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. I first briefly describe the historical background to debates over standard language for readers unfamiliar with the context. I then discuss in what sense language standardization may be considered to be a social process. Following this, I move to examine the wider political background in which the changes took place, suggesting that the legal framework of minority language rights promoted by the EU has consolidated the national order of things (Malkki 1992) and that the uncritical endorsement of or promotion of linguistic diversity can be dangerous, for it can legitimate and reinforce national divisions and associated social hierarchies. Finally, in an activist-anthropological vein, I discuss possible reasons why academics trained in the social sciences and humanities did not participate in sociolinguistic debates concerning the new Croatian standard.

Some Notes on Recent Croatian Language Standardization Processes

During the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), Serbo-Croatian was understood as a single language with Eastern and Western variants. There were frequent demands made by some Croatian linguists for autonomy and a perceived Serbian influence on the Croatian variant, given extensive political centralization in Belgrade. These demands led to the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Standard Language in 1967 and the publication of a Croatian Orthography in 1971. Th is was perceived "by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Croatia as a 'nationalist act of sabotage' challenging the state of Yugoslavia" (Babic, Finka and Mogus 1984: iv, op. cit. Pupavac 2003: 142). Follow ing this, in 1974 the socialist leadership granted increased decentralization and powers for each of the respective republics, accompanied by a move in language planning to "standard language idioms" defined at the republican level (Greenberg 2004: 23). The period or economic liberalization following this led, during the eighties, to a political and economic crisis, while the nineties brought the "Homeland War", and the disintegration of the SFRY, amidst demands for national, linguistic and cultural autonomy. The national framing of these demands, resulted in assertions made that Croatian was a separate "language" from Serbian, with extensive reforms made to the standard language to increase its divergence from Serbian, with a particular focus on reviving many archaisms. All of this is a continuation, perhaps acceleration, of processes which took place during the mid-late socialist period with the grounds for the recent changes being consolidated during this period. During the SFRY national categories were consolidated and elaborated amidst a multicultural logic of a variety of national (and other) cultures held together in part via the socialist logic of "unity and brotherhood". The pace of change increased with the move to defining "standard language idioms" in Serbian and Croatian in 1974, with claims made to define Croatian as a separate language from Serbian during and after the nineties wars. This was accompanied by excesses of linguistic purism and prescriptivism in an attempt to reconfigure the standard to be as distinct as possible from Serbian, and more recently, challenging the importation of anglicisms as part of a fight against the globalization of (primarily) American culture. Certain concepts and forms are being globalized through media - when conducting fieldwork for example, an academic colleague described how, in an emergency, the first number she could think of to ring was 911, i.e. the emergency code for the USA. What is at stake here, I assert, is not a "bounded cultural whole" such as "American culture" imposing itself on other cultures such as "Croatian culture", but the effects on language and the transmission of concepts relating to hierarchical power relations maintained through the global world system and capitalist political economy. It is these which ought to be challenged rather than simply a "symbolic" domination, for a focus on the symbolic takes us away from social process and material relations of production through which inequalities and hierarchies form.

The public nature of these debates also reflects a strong tradition of public intellectuals in the region, a tradition almost certainly strengthened during the socialist period (19451991), given the affinity certain Marxist traditions have with the academy (Graeber 2003). These processes and debates go back further, however, to the nineteenth century and the influence of German romanticism in the region. The work of individuals involved in the standardization process at that time, including Ljudevit Gaj (Croatia) and Vuk Karadzic (Serbia), and the arguments/debates they were involved in which resulted in standardization taking the course it did, are taught in schools as part of the secondary school curriculum, including in secondary school level Croatian teaching in Serbia which I observed when completing linguistic anthropological fieldwork.

Is Language Standardization a Social Process? Self-positioning

The linguist Snjezana Kordic (2010, 2009) has famously argued in the post-Yugoslav mainstream media and a series of articles and books that Serbo-Croatian is a language, based on the "scientific" criterion of mutual intelligibility. She has suggested that linguists ought to be objective in their assessments of what counts as a language and that the debate surrounding recent standardization processes in Croatia fail on that point as the participants are emotion- ally involved in the object of their study. Other linguists such as Kapovic have described prescriptivist approaches as unscientific in their approach to language, as they described what language "ought" to be rather than what language "is" (Kapovic 2011a: 14). Yet in social anthropology, a large body of literature exists critiquing not only the possibility of objectivity, but also the ideals of objectivity and a "scientific approach" in social research (see ScheperHughes 1995; Green 1997). In social anthropology, and social studies of science and technology, the complicity of these ideals with processes of colonial conquest and rule have been discussed, including debates over the role of science in colonialism (Prakash 1999). Many anthropologists writing in the Anglo-American8 tradition therefore reject objectivity as a goal, understanding social anthropological knowledge as intersubjective, situated knowledge (Haraway 1988). Similar arguments connecting claims of scientific status of linguistics with colonialist power projects have been made describing the historical development of linguistics and the relationship between certain practices - including standardisation and transcription of speech into standardised language systems, of those involved in the colonial administration and crucially missionaries, involved in the construction of "populations" and "peoples" over which colonial authorities sought to rule, and the important role language and lexical selections made in conceptualising existing traditions as bounded wholes (see Errington 2008; Bauman and Briggs 2003).

Kordic's approach, whilst politically progressive, does not contest the use of ethnicised signifiers (e.g. Serbo-Croatian) to refer to a "language", Kapovic preferring stokavian as it does not reference an "ethnic group" (Kapovic 2011b). Kordic's approach likely reflects her training in syntax, a discipline which primarily deals with language from the perspective of "internal language" (i-language), which is in the first instance cognitive and psychological.9

A kind of distanced, non-biased analysis is, I believe, possible in such linguistic subdisciplines as we are dealing primarily with "linguistic fact" aspects of language rather than primarily with "social fact" aspects of language.10 As soon as we seek to analyse what are primarily social categories (external language - e-language), such as "languages" (e.g. "English" or "Croatian") and "standards", then we are making arguments which primarily deal with social facts. Pateman ( 1983) then suggests that facts about e-language can be analysed using methods such as Bourdieu's work on linguistic markets (Bourdieu and Th ompson 1991), and language ideologies, the approach I largely take in my work.11

EU Language Policy: Promoting National Identifications?

I find two aspects of current EU minority language policy problematic: (i) its focus on promoting linguistic diversity and (ii) its individual rights approach. In this section I will argue that these sometimes render class based issues concerning language use invisible, and that they potentially consolidate asserted difference and sometimes also hierarchies between nationally defined groups. EU language policy is important as EU accession, with membership gained in July 2013, was a clear goal of Croatian post-war elites. Two domains are particularly relevant here; the designation of Croatian as an official EU language and EU policy concerning minority language rights. The la ttr particularly affects Serbian identified minorities in Croatia, and Croatian identified minorities in Serbia. The EU Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was drawn up in 1992,12 and subsequent legislation has developed its ideas since then. For example, a ratified commentary on minority language rights, linked to a minority rights framework convention stated that:

The Framework Convention requires states to promote full and effective equality for persons belonging to national minorities in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life. Th is implies the right to equal protection through law and before the law and the right to be protected against all forms of discrimination based on ethnic origin and other grounds, including language. (Advisory Committee 2012: 3)

What is crucial here is that what is spoken has the legal (political) status of being a language, rather than simply a language variety. In order for Croatian to be protected under these conventions, it must be considered a language. For those members of the minority who feel that their "culture" and "traditions" are under threat, access to certain resources will be increased if the language variety spoken is considered a language.

"Minority language" within this Commentary thus means any of the different terms used by member states such as "language of the national minority", "language used by the national minority", "language of persons belonging to national minorities", "native language" or "mother tongue". It does not imply official recognition as a "minority language" by the authorities. (ibid.: 4)

Third, the focus of the framework convention is described:

The Framework Convention is based on an individual rights approach. It is thus not focused on language itself, nor on a language community, but on the speakers. Th eir communicative repertoire, which may encompass a range of linguistic resources (standard and non-standard forms of languages, dialects, etc.) often develops throughout life as a result of interaction and mobility. (ibid.)

This is crucial as it implies self-identification is key. According to the convention, individuals who self-identify as Croatian (e.g. rather than having a surname commonly assumed to be "ethnic Croatian"), can in principle assert their "minority language rights", a clearly nonessentialist definition. Stephen May, a defender of minority language rights, argues that there is "a perceived tendency towards essentialism in articulations of minority language rights - that languages and identities are always ineluctably linked" (May 2003: 96). May's counterargument is that, whilst such essentialism is advocated by some proponents of minority language rights, essentialist approaches are also considered problematic by other proponents of minority language rights, including himself. In a more progressive minority situation, such as the Basque country (see Urla 2012), where minority language rights have a pronounced communicative (rather than primarily symbolic dimension as in the case of Croatian, see Skiljan 2000: 8), the legislation may be more appropriate. Yet I suggest, rather than an "identity" based approach - essentialist or not - as described above, a class-based approach would circumvent a number of problems created by the analytical use of "identity" as a category in social science:13

If you make ethnicity, nationality or minority status the unit of analysis, you can conclude that people would want to or have in their interest to maintain their mother tongue. If, on the contrary, you take class as the unit of analysis, their interest might dictate emphasis on access to "dominant languages"... (Brutt-Griffler2002: 225)

On this view, language policy and planning would largely focus on creating a "level playing field" for those in a disadvantaged position relating to inequalities concerning access and ability to use "dominant languages", rather than exercising an individual's "right" to express herself in a language variety named her "mother tongue".

To summarise, I find the EU Charter's blanket promotion of linguistic diversity - whereby diversity is inherently viewed as something positive and good - problematic in the post-Yugoslav context. Here, the promotion of linguistic diversity has also promoted the articulation of nationally defined collectivities over which a history and war was fought. The promotion of linguistic diversity amongst students via current language policy arguably plays an ideological role in inculcating increasing linguistic and cultural difference between Serbian and Croatian children, depending of course, on the context. When conducting fieldwork following Croatian in Serbia, apart from Serbian being taught separately as a "foreign" language, I did not find that the pupils drew strong distinctions between Serbian and Croatian, as they regularly came into contact with both standards in the classroom context. Furthermore, in Croatian classes, Serbian texts were sometimes used (including Cyrillic), when Croatian literature of the same quality was not available, for various reasons. However, some academic colleagues with young children in Zagreb have described their children's surprise upon watching television programmes in Serbian and being able to easily understand, with the expectation that this would be difficult given that Serbian was considered a different language. When cultural distance inculcated in pupils' (linguistic) habitus lends itself to Othering, there can be serious social implications, such as increased segregation, which may consolidate circulating social ideologies such as nationalism.

In addition to the problematic framing of the EU Charter, aspects of associated discourses have been creatively re-interpreted by language activists in Croatia: for instance the human rights discourse has been adapted to include claims of the "human rights" of lexical items, used in the Croatian Savjetnik to make the case for the reintroduction of certain archaic lexical items (Greenberg 2004: 124). This sensitivity relates to developing legitimacy for practices associated with a new "nation-state" and as Pupavac (2003: 8) noted, "Human rights advocates from Amnesty International, Helsinki Committee and other organisations have criticised Croatia for not respecting the language rights of its ethnic Serbian minority by not providing special language provision. Yet would one demand special language provision for ethnic Britains in the United States or vice versa?" The international legal framing of the situation has reinforced the nationalist framing of the situation following the recent wars, as "the minority rights model ironically endorses the nationalist declarations on the language question (...) the identity rights-approach of foreign diplomats, human rights advocates and conflict mediators has unfortunately tended to legitimize nationalist language claims and minority exclusions" (ibid.). Th e minority language rights framing has resulted in significant problems in Vukovar, a city in Croatia where a massacre of Croatian citizens took place during the "Homeland War". Serbian minority identified individuals live in and around this city, and in accordance with the European Charter on Minority Languages legislation, public signs were put up in Cyrillic script14 - a script often associated with the Serbian minority - which resulted in a protest by Croatian war veterans who tore the signs down with hammers in September 2013, an event which received extensive media coverage and raised tensions throughout Croatia. Whilst certain activist initiatives such as Zagreb Antifascist Network15 have tackled this theme, detailed ethnographic understandings of the changing relationship between language and political and social change on the ground have not as yet been gained, and a detailed description and interpretation of these events and the symbolic meanings attached to Vukovar necessary for further discussion is beyond the scope of this text.16

Moving the Debate Forward: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities

A training in the social sciences/humanities is useful in understanding the subtleties of the relationships between language policy - such as the EU Charter described above - and social changes affecting people in Serbia and Croatia on an everyday basis. Finally, this begs the question of why so few sociologists and social anthropologists have intervened in these debates. I restrict the focus here to "academic workers", i.e. those employed at university and research institutes and suggest a number of reasons. First, those social scientists situated on the political right were happy to focus on the cultural aspects of nationalism, leaving the linguistic aspect of nationalism to linguists. At the same time, those on the left were focused on other topics, language perhaps seeming relatively irrelevant, and difficult to contest given that even the contra-arguments had to be made in purified language (albeit to varying degrees, and with certain lexical choices used frequently leading to presumptions made about one's political orientation and/or "national" origin).17 Second, linguistics as a discipline was likely viewed as more "scientific" and less open to political influence, particularly by laypersons, than social scientific disciplines and ethnology/anthropology, therefore assuming a higher position in hierarchies of academic ("scientific") authority. Consequently, linguists (and other disciplines, including natural scientists) were often perceived as possessing the academic authority to speak about social processes and social issues, whilst social scientists and anthropologists were not authorized to speak about social processes relating to standardization and its effects, without having had some kind of training in linguistics.18 As earlier mentioned, the scientific veneer of linguistics was useful in authorizing nationalist political decisions regarding standard language as some kind of scientific intervention. Third, and relatedly, the social sciences were widely perceived as more politically sensitive, possibly making interventions in public debates over language more difficult during the nineties, especially given their historically strong associations with Marxism, a subject often taken by careerists who wished to join the Party in the SFRY. Fourth, in addition to a lack of intervention in linguistic debates, few social scientists/anthropologists have conducted empirical linguistic anthropo14 logical fieldwork. There are some exceptions: Anita Sujoldzic has conducted sociolinguistic surveys analyzing language ideologies present in Istria and Dalmatia, whilst Jadranka Grbic has conducted fieldwork with Croatian minority identified individuals in Hungary, looking at "minority group identity" (Grbic 1994). The specific lack of ethnographic work on "Serbs" in Croatia and "Croats" in Serbia almost certainly reflects the sensitivity of the situation in a context recently affected by war when conducting work critically analysing language ideologies in place, as well as the different priorities of those who have access to funds, and the high level of politicisation, which has increased significantly since the economic crisis struck, with events such as those in Vukovar (as earlier mentioned) occurring. Finally, the relative lack of linguistic anthropological work likely reflects established traditions. In the USA linguistic anthropology forms a separate specialism, often taught to undergraduates as part of a four pronged anthropological training (cultural, linguistic, biological anthropology and archaeology). In the UK there is a stronger emphasis on social relations and a lesser emphasis on "culture and identity", which in the USA is an artefact of Franz Boas' legacy. Linguistic anthropology is sometimes taught as a module within UK social anthropology as part of a student's undergraduate training, whereas sociolinguistics might form part of undergraduate training in linguistics departments. However, UK anthropological interest in linguistic themes has only been sporadic, "the links between language, culture and society hav(ing) been much more fully addressed at linguistics conferences" (Rampton 2007: 586). In Croatia, linguistic anthropology is available in a number of course options, as part of degrees in Anthropology and also Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology in Zagreb and in Ethnology and Anthropology in Zadar, the course material at present drawing heavily on the strong US tradition. Sociolinguistics, and an engagement with linguistic anthropological themes is also possible in several language departments at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb and at other Universities.

My aim here is to provoke discussion and possible future interventions into topics which are politically sensitive, yet also necessary. I suggest that, with ever increasing distance in time from the events of the nineties, conducting such detailed research on "sensitive" topics is increasingly possible and potentially, important insights gained from such research and understandings may challenge the thinking behind regional policy such as the EU Charter, moving the focus away from identity in the direction of class. In short, the post-Yugoslav context is a particularly relevant case study when considering possible dangers attached to the sometimes uncritical promotion of linguistic diversity in other contexts across Europe.

COMMMENTS

Amelia Abercrombie

Department of Social Anthropology, University of Manchester

Language Skills and Linguistic Heritage

This article takes a refreshing look at the intersection of politics, language and social science. I particularly appreciated the discussion on the political nature of the division of (former) Serbo-Croatian. While writers such as Kordic (2010) acknowledge that the secession of Croatian language was a political act, it is often not acknowledged that all language policy and standardisation is political, including defining a single former Serbo-Croatian language. Hodges draws out that the variants are different, and mutually intelligible, and delineating the boundaries of a language in such a continuum is always the outcome of policies and political processes. To argue that the difference between Serbian and Croatian is linguistic, rather than political is therefore problematic. It is not a question of an opposition between linguistic and political difference, as defining Croatian, (or indeed Serbo-Croatian) always involves decisions about which forms to include and which to exclude. To insist on the unity of Serbo-Croatian can be pluralist, decentralist and anti-nationalist in contrast to the prescriptivist, purist and nationalist insistence on Croatian as a separate language, but these are both political perspectives. The problematic distinction between political and linguistic definitions of a language, and the resulting lack of involvement of social scientists in what are deemed to be linguistic issues come through clearly in the article. A central part of the argument is questioning "the uncritical endorsement of or promotion of linguistic diversity" in particular ethnic identity-based approaches of policy makers to language rights, suggesting as a possible alternative a class based approach. Hodges argues that this would imply "access and ability to use 'dominant languages' rather than exercising an individual's 'right' to express herself in a language variety named her 'mother tongue'".

The article discusses the idea of Croatian as a "mother tongue", both as a minority language in Vojvodina, and in Croatia itself. Providing language rights based on the politics of identity recognition is problematic, as the reification of Croatian as a minority language posits it as distinct from, and indeed in opposition to Serbian. Hodges describes the differentiation of Croatian as existing within a Balkanist hierarchy, where least Serbian forms are understood as most cultured, and most Croatian. Maximal differentiation between the two variants is based on a prescriptive rather than a descriptive idea of language, which is to say that the role of linguists is to tell people how best to speak "their" variant, rather than to describe speech forms. Rather than describing existing differences, a prescriptive approach to language difference implies the creation and solidification of difference, and therefore divergence. However, as Hodges explains, there is not simply a divergence between Serbian and Croatian, but rather the production of a "linguistic hierarchy" between standard and non-standard forms within Croatian. Using certain forms in certain contexts (such as Serbian forms in Croatian school) becomes increasingly stigmatised. This argument could be taken further, by looking at the way other minority languages, especially those genetically further from the majority language, may be affected by these processes. In the context of other minority languages their recognition as minority languages means that they can be taught in schools or used in institutions, though it is likely the variant being taught or used is the standard or prestige variant. While this varies from case to case it is unlikely that minority nationalities speak the standard of their homeland or state, so again their variant will be placed in a hierarchical relationship to the standard, as well as to the language of the host state. Th e language is made a minority language with regards to the state language, while the spoken variant is compared unfavourably to the standard.

If, as Hodges suggests, we shift to a class based approach, languages can be seen as a skill rather than a symbol of identity, and as such, the relative advantages and disadvantages of teaching minority languages shifts. The implications of treating language as a necessary skill for employment are that people would need to (and ought to be given the opportunity to) learn the language most useful as a skill. In most cases this is the standard variant of the state language. For minorities this may lead to language shift in favour of the state standard. Alternatively, it may mean learning a prestige or standard variant of the minority language alongside the state language. For the Croatian minority access to standard Serbian may improve their chances of finding work in Serbia, while standard Croatian may improve their chances in Croatia. Either way comprehension is unlikely to be a problem.

Again, to apply this to languages (in Vojvodina) which are genetically further apart, knowing, for example Hungarian in addition to standard Serbian would be considered an additional skill. This assumes that the group first have access to education on the standard variant of the state language (Serbian) and then learn Hungarian additionally. Their mother tongue is an additional language, not replacing the state language. This would not be the case for groups who are not first competent and literate in the state language, and those whose mother tongue is not official in another state, and therefore less useful as a skill in the employment market. Learning for example Rusyn or Romani may be seen as being of symbolic importance, but of very little use as a skill for work. Recognition of minority languages or variants won't change their social status so long as these language features are connected to economically disadvantaged and stigmatised groups in an unequal society.

Emphasising access to the majority language over the mother tongue would mean a loss of the symbolic function of minority language recognition, in favour of a skill which would be useful in the employment market. However here I would suggest it is useful to look at the historical processes and contemporary socioeconomic structures which make one language, or one variant, a more useful skill in employment than another. Minority languages are not intrinsically less useful, but were made this way by virtue of social and economic exclusion of their speakers. Romani language, for example, has little value as a skill in many contexts, as Roma are excluded as a group. But this point is more general: minority languages are less valued in the market because their speakers are structurally disadvantaged, and in a multilingual setting it often becomes necessary for one language to become the main language of intercommunication. By learning a more valued language (along with other skills), individuals may be able to advance in the employment market, but the overall structural inequality would remain. Social inequalities go far beyond linguistic or other skills, and giving people access to skills which would allow them to rise up the hierarchy does not alter the hierarchy itself. Some will always be unable to achieve this elevation. A variety of other social economic and political factors would also affect the possibilities of such shifts. A situation where people can access language skills to be upwardly mobile may lead to a shift in the language features (whether attached to social and regional variants, or foreign accents and foreign languages) being considered appropriate for certain arenas. Blommaert (2009) describes how difference can very quickly become inequality, and features of language that are valued in one context may not be so in another. New forms may become acceptable or unacceptable, but there would always be unacceptable ways of using language. Only a shift in structural inequality, and the economic stratification of ethnic groups, would secure the future of class and ethnic minorities and their languages.

From a policy perspective, then, providing access to the dominant language may result in a shift in language use, but not in structural inequality. The conceptualisation of language as a skill, rather than as heritage is also one which can be analysed ethnographically. Hodges suggests increased intervention of social scientists in language issues, and this seems to be one area which could be especially fruitful in understanding language shift and language politics. If certain languages hold less value in the employment market in relation to others they will not only hold less prestige, but there may also be less incentive for parents to pass on the language to their children. In addition, the consequence of language being perceived of as a skill, rather than heritage, may be that there is more emphasis on the prestige variant. So Cypriot Turks in London may learn standard Turkish (see Lytra 2012), while Chinese pupils may prefer Cantonese to Hakka, or Mandarin to Cantonese (see Francis, Archer and Mau 2009). If the learning of an additional language is treated as a skill, then this skill can be quantified and standardised (in the form of testing and qualifications) and used for entry into further education, or work. Alternatively, in some circumstances, recognition can lead to a language being institutionalised, and therefore a necessary skill for those working institutions. For example, Heller (2010) finds that French language in Canada has come to be valued as a workplace skill, more than as a symbol of Francophone identity. In this case a shift in policy has eventually affected people's language attitudes.

The way people interpret what language is, and what it is for, affects people's language choices, such as the choice of which school to send children to, and whether to send them to additional school or classes to learn their mother tongue either as part of their heritage, or as a skill. In contexts where increasing areas of life are bureaucratised and marketised, people are less likely to spend time and energy on something which does not result in a marketable skill, meaning they are more likely to forego heritage languages, or low prestige variants, in favour of languages considered of more use as a skill. In a constantly shifting employment market, however, the value of languages is likely to shift in line with political changes, and it may not always be possible to predict what language will be of most use to the next generation.

Overall this article provides a compelling and original discussion of language politics in Croatia (and beyond) and opens a range of interesting questions. In this commentary I have focused on the question of majority and minority language use. Giving those from nondominant groups access to dominant languages may allow individuals to be upwardly mobile, but cannot change the systemic inequalities that lead to certain language features being privileged. On the other hand, merely protecting minority language rights without acknowledging the causes of their disadvantaged position will also not secure the future of the group or the language. What is vital is to understand how people use and relate to concepts such as mother tongue, heritage language and skill or qualification and how this affects their language use. This is one area where social scientists, in particular ethnographers can be of use.

Marina Balazev

Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb

The (De)construction of National Identity - Teaching in Croatian in Vojvodina, Serbia

One of the conclusions which Hodges reaches is that the legal framework of minority language rights in fact encourages rather than calms nationalism, or as Greenberg puts it: "In the Yugoslav successor states the contentious issue of minority language rights has had a destabilizing effect" (Greenberg 2004: 164).

Taking the example of Serbia and minority (Croatian) language teaching, I will show that the problems present go beyond the scope of the language rights framework, and that the status of Croatian being classified as a language is significant, as a condition for the existence of minority language teaching. The education system (both in the language spoken by the majority (Serbian) population, as well as in the language of a minority) (re)produces an essentialist conceptualisation of identity. As such, I consider the causes of the tensions not to be in the link made between language and national identity, as such an identification need not be present. Yet taking away the tag "national" from the name of a language or introducing the use of certain "neutral" variants won't guarantee an end to nationalist tensions as the focus of such tensions can be transferred from language to any other element, which is later established as the key referent of national identity. This new category would then be attributed national significance and given centre stage in exaggerating and/or producing Otherness.

Identity

If we view identity (personal, and partly personal and national) as a narrative (McAdams 2005) expressed in and through language, it is clear why language would often feature as its key determining component. However, it is important to note that:

a) Identity does not only lie in language but also in the wider social picture which individuals construct through their experience, as well as in the narratives which society produces and which an individual can, but does not necessarily internalise.

b) Language as connected with identity through experience is the language of a group, a part of which an individual becomes when (s)he starts to use language (on most occasions, this is one form of local speech, a mother tongue) and as such language does not always necessarily index national identity. Whether or not it does so, depends on a range of factors and also on how much an individual comes to recognise language varieties and how, through dialects, they come to attach meanings to events and human activities which (s)he considers significant. This is because dialects don't reflect linguistic or aesthetic qualities per se; they rather relate to social conventions and preferences which express an awareness of status and prestige from the perspective of a speaker of a particular language variety (Edwards 1985: 21).

c) For the standard language to index national identity, some of the narratives which society produces must be internalized. This is a form of identity which Castells names "legitimating" (Castells, op. cit. Sujoldzic 2008: 28).

Language and National Identity

When identity is understood in an essentialist manner, language (along with religion, culture etc.) is considered one of the main aspects of national identity, or as Edwards explains, the most important aspect of human language, apart from its instrumental and communicative roles, is its relationship with group identity (Edwards 1984: 3). There are many examples in which language is considered one of the key components of this inventory, i.e. a key symbol of national identity. For instance, a caption written on the internet page of the Institute for Croatian Language and Linguistics states: "The Croatian language, from its beginnings, i.e. for more than one millenium, is the fundamental guarantor of the preservation of Croatian identity" (op. cit. Peti-Stantic 2013: 29) or "The Croatian language is, along with the Croatian army, that which guarantees Croatian survival and the Croatian essence" (Kacic, op. cit. Peti-Stantic 2013: 16).

This approach is reproduced through the teaching plans and curricula for Croatian classes, which cites its main goals to be "(...) the building and deepening of the pupil's individual consciousness concerning the role of language and culture in introducing, preserving and developing one's own, and in getting to know and respect other cultural and national identities" (Peti-Stantic 2013: 207). The curriculum for the school subject Croatian language with elements of national culture and heritage, which is taught in Croatian classes abroad, as one of its more general aims cites: "Developing a positive relationship and positive affect on the part of the pupil towards the Croatian language and literature, the historico-cultural and natural heritage of Croatia as the pupil's country of origin and as a feature which determines the development of their national identitiy (Bezen and Bosnjak2012: 58).

The Croatian example is by no means an isolated case, it is rather a common one in European states. For example, in the Polish parliament, a decision was made in which it was cited that "(...) the Polish language is the basic element of Polish national identity (...)" and describes a historical experience of "struggle against the invader and occupier against the Polish language" and is considered necessary for "the protection of the national identity" and "preserving culture and its development is only possible through the protection of the Polish language" (Czerwinski 2009: 17).

"The Croatian Language" and "Croatian Standard Language"

The link between language and identity isn't as simple as it seems. The term "Croatian language", is almost always understood in teaching as referring to "Croatian standard language" In order for the narrative of the standard language as mother tongue to be internalised and for the standard language to become one of the determining features of national identity, certain external mechanisms are required, one of the most important being the educational system. On the other hand, the term "Croatian language" often also denotes the "mother tongue", which results in a false equating of standard forms (agreed conventions) with the "mother tongue" (spontaneously acquired language which individuals link to a certain community; often also one of the dialects).

It is precisely this equating of "Croatian standard language" and "the mother tongue" which is grounded in the approach taken by teaching in the Croatian language in Serbia. The legal framework of minority rights does not define which is the "mother tongue", or in other words "one's own" language within a given minority community. Through the Republic of Serbia's Constitution, those belonging to minority peoples are guaranteed the right to use "their own" language: "Those belonging to national minorities have the right: to express, preserve, care for, develop and publicly express their national, ethnic, cultural and religious specificities; to use their symbols in public places; to use their language and alphabet (...)" (Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, item 79). Yet the corpus of what counts as "one's own" is determined by the political representatives of the minority community. Through the offi- cial use (on public signs) and also through minority teaching, we see that the Croatian standard language amongst Croats in Vojvodina is officially represented as "their own" in other words, as their "mother tongue".

Yet despite the existence of teaching in the Croatian language19 and other endeavours on the part of the minority political elite, an identification with the Croatian standard as a marker of national identity is not present amongst the Croatian population in Serbia. This is demonstrated by the population (2002) census, according to which there are 56,546 Croats living in Vojvodina, yet only 21,053 people cited Croatian as their mother tongue (Vukovic 2010a: 84). What is recognised as the "mother tongue" is in fact local forms of speech (amongst the Croats this is for example the so-called "bunjevac ikavian"20 and "sokac ikavian"), which indexed national identity amongst the speakers themselves and they were also seen in this way by those belonging to other (national) communities. However, because of frequently occurring negative connotations21 (mainly linking them the rural) and also because of the prestigious status of the standard (Serbian), the younger generations tend to use the Serbian standard often and the local dialects rarely, and only in the private sphere. On this topic, Vukovic says:

The linguistic culture characteristic of the dominant Serbian language community has, however, been important, an important part of which is a relatively low tolerance towards the non-new Stokavian and non-ekavian dialects. Whilst in the Croatian linguistic culture attitudes towards dialects are dominantly positive, which is without a doubt connected with a rich tradition of respected literacy by many of them, whilst in the Serbian language culture dialects are as a rule stigmatised as rural and backward. (Vukovic 2010a: 91)

Amongst the large number of individuals who identify as Croats and speak some of the local (Croatian) dialects there is a lack of awareness that those dialects22 belong to the Croatian language because they haven't learnt this in school. The similarities between the two standard forms (Serbian and Croatian), the non-existence of obstacles to understanding one another, their exposure to the Serbian language, the dialectal heterogeneity of Croatian dialects in Vojvodina etc. all contribute to the lack of an identification with the Croatian standard.

Through my work both as a teacher and living "in the field" (I spent four years, from 2011 to 2015 in Subotica, working as a teacher for the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia teaching Croatian abroad, and as a coordinator for Croatian teaching in Vojvodina) it became obvious that the Croatian standard hadn't succeeded in establishing itself as prestigious inside the minority community and that there was no wider use outside of the minority media and press, whose audience figures were low. Th e Croatian standard rather has a symbolic role in Vojvodina - as one of the achieved minority rights and as a framework through which it is possible to carry out minority teaching.

National Identity and Education

If an identification with the standard as one of the determinants of national identity is lacking, to find the identity constructs which are present, you have to take a further look at the content which pupils learn during their education. The role of education in building national identity is clearly illustrated in the National Curriculum Framework (Nacionalni okvirni kurikulum), which considers identity to be one of its main values (alongside knowledge, solidarity and responsibility):

Upbringing and education contribute to the construction of an individual's personal, cultural and national identity. Today, in the age of globalisation, in which a powerful mixing of different cultures, worldviews and religions is taking place, people should become citizens of the world, whilst preserving their national identity, their cultural, social, moral and spiritual heritage. As such, it is particularly important to preserve and develop the Croatian language and to take care to use it correctly. Upbringing and education should awaken, encourage and develop one's personal identity whilst at the same time connect it with a respect for difference. (Various Authors 2010: 14, author's emphasis)

In Serbia, similar goals are described and prescribed in the Strategy for the Development of Education in Serbia up to 2020,23 which cites how the educational needs of the Republic of Serbia arise from a number of given assumed commitments, amongst which is "to persistently and with dedication preserve and care for national cultural heritage and identity, developing a tolerant and cooperative relationship towards other cultures" (p. 5) or "The function of primary education is to produce pupils with basic literacy in all fields of significance for life in the contemporary world, to develop a functional knowledge, know-how, motivation for learning, attitudes and values which are necessary for the formation of the national and cultural identity (...)" (p. 28).

The importance of education in this context is recognised by the minority community in Serbia which has, above all, made real efforts to secure the right to use their own language. This is because this right enables the existence of teaching in their own language, which lets them further construct and pass on narratives of their own national identity. In addition to first language teaching, school subjects which are of significance for the (re)production of national content include history, geography, art and music - precisely those subjects in which textbooks used by a minority in Serbia may insert 30% of their own national content. However, such material is lacking in the textbooks used by the Croatian minority community.24

Teaching in Croatian in Serbia and the Loss of National Identity

The law protecting the rights and freedom of national minorities from 2002 enabled the establishing of national councils in Serbia, including the founding of the Croatian National Council (HNV - Hrvatsko Nacionalno Vijece) which "represents the Croatian national minority in the areas of the official use of language, education, in and culture. It participates in the decision-making process and decides on questions from these areas and founds institu23 tions in these areas",25 whilst the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages is one of the documents (along with a range of inter-state agreements)26 which creates a framework for implementing teaching in minority languages. The interstate agreements concerning teaching in minority languages are: an agreement between the Federal Governments SR Yugoslavia and the Government of the Republic of Croatia concerning collaboration in the fields of culture and education and an agreement between Serbia, Montenegro and the Republic of Croatia concerning the protection of the rights of the Serbian and Montenegrin minorities in the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian minority in Serbia and Montenegro (Various Authors s. a.: 14). The powers and responsibilities of the national councils are prescribed in laws and rule books. Of these, those which are crucial for education are: the jurisdiction of the national councils of the national minorities, the law on textbooks, the law on the national minorities' national councils and the law on changes and amendments to the national minorities' national councils.

The importance of education in the construction of national identity, just as in the construction of images of the Other, is significant. In the (majority) Serbian education system, there are a range of textbooks with extremely problematic content in terms of the negative construction of the Other. One of these examples is the textbook Music 8 (Muzicka kultura 8), published by BIGZ, for the eighth grade of primary school,27 which completely elides the existence of a Croatian minority in Serbia, even in the section which deals with the music of national minorities (Petrov and Grujic 2013: 113-123). The content found in the Croatian translation Glazbena kultura 8 is entirely the same as in the Serbian version (Petrov and Grujic 2014: 113-123).

The Croatian National Council, in line with the powers they hold, ought to draw attention to such content in majority textbooks, but - instead of this - they introduced these same textbooks in 2014 into the Croatian teaching stream. This also occurred with the textbook The Past as Mosaic 8. History Textbooks for year 8, primary school (Mozaik proslosti 8. Udibenik iz povijesti za osmi razred osnovne skole; a translation of the textbook Mozaik proslosti 8. Udibenik istorije za osmi razred osnovne skole, Pavlovic and Bosnie 2010), published by BIGZ, which presents events from the 1990s in a very one-sided fashion, whilst texts about the Second World War portray Draza Mihailovic, the leader of the Royalist Serbian Chetnik Movement, who collaborated with the Axis powers, is portrayed as a hero (even before his public rehabilitation)28 (Pavlovic and Bosnie 2014: 115, 144-148).

In the Croatian teaching stream in Serbia, until 2014 they used textbooks imported from Croatia which had been approved by the Ministry of Education, Republic of Serbia. These textbooks were suitable in terms of content, but they didn't completely fit with the teaching plans and programmes. As the Croatian National Council insisted on the state fulfilling its commitments and ensuring the provision of textbooks for the pupils in the Croatian classes, which the Serbian government had repeatedly failed to do, in 2014 the Croatian National Council chose to resolve the textbook issue - as it turned out in a completely inadequate manner. Th e Croatian National Council had the textbooks from the majority (Serbian) stream simply translated into standard Croatian without any interventions made regarding the content. Whilst the Council (through its Committee for Education) ought to have some influence regarding the content of the textbooks "through innovating and enriching the teaching content in the textbooks which dedicate a certain amount of space to the history, art and culture of national minorities" (Various Authors s. a.: 23), they didn't remove the problematic content from the textbooks for the Croatian stream nor did they include in them the permitted 30% of their own national content. In this way, through teaching in Croatian, content is passed on which plays a role in the construction of national identity - Serbian - whilst there is a complete lack of introducing to the pupils any kind of content which relates to Croatian culture, tradition and heritage. These textbooks, which were very problematic in terms of content were, according to the words of the president of the Croatian National Council "paid for by the Croatian National Council, Croatia payed for the translation29 and the (Serbian) Ministry of Education for the printing of the textbooks". Apart from this, he cites "All possible procedures were respected, followed (...) and finally the (Serbian) Ministry of Education paid for the printing of these textbooks."30 In contrast to the statements, a whole range of errors occurred, beginning with the Croatian National Council failing to review the textbook content, up to and including the absence of appropriate national content. 31

This specific situation surrounding teaching in Croatian in Vojvodina, where it passes on a narrative constructed by "another" national identity, whilst its own is completely neglected, on the initiative of the Croatian National Council, opens up deep questions concerning the manner in which the framework of minority education, as established through language rights, is used.

James Costa

Department of Linguistics / LACITO Research Laboratory, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris

The Importance of Studying Language Standardization in Europe, from Croatia to Scotland

Andrew Hodges' text on issues of standardization in Croatia and the Balkans invites us to reflect not only upon the historical and social importance of the processes he comments upon, but also upon the importance to study them and to understand what is at stake when they occur from an anthropological perspective. Making the result of our investigations widely known is also paramount to this enterprise, although, as Hodges points out, anthropologists often find it hard to make their voices heard in public debates.

Languages, as institutions, have been a central component in the construction ofhistorical modernity, as many historians or linguistic anthropologists have pointed out. Th is association has taken different forms, which Bauman and Briggs systematized by referring to the two main positions regarding language in Modernity as Lockean or Herderian ideologies (Bauman and Briggs 2000). Both ideologies have come to fuel nationalism, but it should be borne in mind that language and nation were not so closely tied together in the initial phases of the French or American revolutionary projects (Hobsbawm 1990). In the French case, it was only after the Revolution had come under attack that dynamics of groupness involved speaking one language, as a means to achieve national cohesion and to seek to monitor citizens. In that sense, behind delusions of grandeur and national projects, language remains a very powerful shibboleth to construct groups, to decide who's in and who's out. Language is thus an essential component of the question of sameness and difference, a question which standardization processes, placing an explicit focus on language, render more acute. In other words, language processes are (or should be) at the heart of anthropological and sociological reasoning.

Andrew Hodges invites us to reflect precisely on these issues, and I would like to respond to his invitation by first framing the types of debates that he draws upon in wider sociolinguistic terms, and second by stressing the importance of anthropological approaches to language-related processes by drawing on my own fieldwork in Scotland. I hope to show that the Scottish situation is in many ways similar to the Croatian case, and that differences can perhaps shed light on what happened in Croatia.

Standardization, Nationalism and Groupness in Europe

In this first section, I would like to emphasize the ambiguous nature of standardization, and to point out some of the effects introduced by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on the very definition of what may or may not count as a language. By doing this, I hope to emphasize how standardization is intimately linked to issues of what the sociologist Rogers Brubaker calls "groupness", that is to say, "a contextually fluctuating conceptual variable" (Brubaker 2002: 167). By using the term groupness, Brubaker wishes to avoid the notion of "group" in order to emphasize the processual nature of the formation of collectives which then get called "groups", "nations", "ethnicities", or "identities". This shifts the focus from explanation to what needs to be explained: groups are thus not an explanatory variable, but precisely what we need to attend to.

Standardization has become, among many minority language movements, a scarecrow. Indeed, how could anyone be in favor of such a process when at the same time the arguments for the defense of said languages rely on a rhetoric of diversity and tolerance. This was the case until recently in Scotland, where, in his introduction to a collection of short stories in Scots,32 the acclaimed author James Robertson famously wrote:

There is a wide variety of approaches in these stories to problems of Scots orthography, and I have not sought to eliminate these. One argument against a standardisation of Scots spelling is that one of the language's very strengths lies in its flexibility and its less-thanrespectable status: writers turn to it because it offers a refuge for linguistic individualism, anarchism, nomadism and hedonism. What has often been perceived as a fatal weakness may in fact be the secret of its resilience and survival against four hundred years of creeping Anglicisation. If there are inconsistencies - to adapt Walt Whitman - very well then, there are inconsistencies: the language contains multitudes. (Robertson 1994: xiv)

Standardization thus summons images of uniformity, a goal which often appears to be incompatible with the endeavors of minority language movements. But standardization processes also imply the presence of an authority capable of enforcing and imposing the standard, and of a number of institutions that can provide it with indisputable legitimacy.

In this respect, language standards are both difficult to implement in the absence of such authorities, and perhaps undesirable as they might expose some of the weaknesses of a minority language community. Standardization processes might in fact hinder the very process of groupness, that is to say of group formation based on the idea of a common language, that language advocates may want to promote.

Finally, institutionalization calls for the idea of standards as resting upon institutions perceived not as neutral, but as legitimate, and as not pertaining to or representing one sector of society over another. In a now famous article, the linguistic anthropologist Kathryn Woolard (2008) opposed the authenticity that minority languages are thought to embody (that is to say, their capacity to index place, roots, identities etc.) to the anonymity of standards. Standards, thus, can be said to allow the performance of a "voice from nowhere", to quote from Gal and Woolard (1995), who were adapting Nagel's (1986) concept of a "view from nowhere".

In this short summary of the various conceptions of language standards that obtain in linguistic anthropology, I hope to have shown that standardization is not per se a good or a bad process. Historically speaking, standard registers have been constituted in a process that mirrored the emergence of public spheres in Europe, and the pure denotation they were meant to convey was seen as a way to accomplish the egalitarian dream of the Enlightenment. But, as Michael Silverstein (2003) argues, standards, precisely because they seemingly embody neutrality, are hegemonic in the hierarchical order that their very existence and the sources of legitimacy that they draw upon construct.

Thus standards tend to reflect, as a result of or prior to the standardization process, the language of the ruling elites. Either they become the usual way of speaking of the elite, who are drawn to the hierarchical status of the standard, unless they already are what elites speak.

The trouble is then that, because of historical associations of standards with correctness, they tend to index "language" in its purest form. Variants are, then, well exactly that: variants of the standard. And conversely, to be a language, that is to say an object that can be described (or prescribed), delimited, and taught), means to have a standard, at least in the European model. Consequently, minority language movements have traditionally been keen to promote (and argue over) standard forms of language, either to assert claims of languageness, or to prove how distinct their variety is from whatever language they seek to distinguish themselves from. The Catalan school of sociolinguistics has been particularly vocal about the necessity to create a standard (normativització), this being a cornerstone of the normalització policies which aimed at restoring the status of Catalan in society (see Aracil 1965). Countless examples can be named here. Valencianists who claim that Valencian is not Catalan have set up their own norms; Limburgish advocates who create different norms to assert their differences with Dutch; Kven people in northern Norway developing their own spelling standards after Kven was recognized as a separate language by the Norwegian government in the early 21st century, rather than as a dialect of Finnish (Lane 2011); Meänkieli undergoing similar processes in Sweden etc. And where conflicts are not of a separatist nature, they nevertheless still abound, as ways to articulate different perspectives on society: think about Breton, Galician, Occitan, Cornish, etc. It is easy to see why in Scotland James Robertson would be keen to avoid the subject.

The Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages plays an important role in this question, as was noted by several researchers working on the STANDARDS project at the University of Oslo (see Lane 2014). The project, of which I was part and which fo- cused on Kven, Meänkieli, Limburgish and Scots standardization processes, recognized the role of the Charter in generating the need for standardization. Indeed, the Charter explicitly covers only what it calls "languages", and excludes what it calls "dialects" from its recommendations and jurisdiction. But since it leaves each nation state responsible for defining what it includes under the term "language", this has resulted in the multiplication of such "languages". Meänkieli and Kven are good examples of this, since in order to be recognized under the Charter, the Norwegian and Swedish governments had to recognize them as languages first - rather than as dialects of Finnish.

In order to be successful, and to fulfill their task of embodying a voice from nowhere, language standard must be able to convey a sense of anonymity. The promoters of standards must therefore make sure to erase various types of associations, such as particular local places, or groups or classes of people, in order to signal a representation of the whole nation. Standards (must) index nationality and the nation, rather than specific groups and locations. In order to do this, they must undergo some form of anonymization process, in order to conceal their locus of origin. A standard thus always presents itself as a rationalization of a preexisting entity: a way to write the language of the Croatians, a way to formalize the Croatian language. Standards, however, are part of the construction of groups, not of their representations. Standardization was not a consequence of the emancipation of Croatians, it was, and is, part of a national project to create groups, by defining criteria of sameness and difference. In this respect, standardization as a process is of paramount interest to anthropological work.

Scotland and the Importance of Language In the Social Sciences

The second part of my commentary will seek to echo Andrew Hodges's text by pointing to the importance of the processes he outlines in other European contexts. My fieldwork has been located in Scotland since 2006, and I have spent much time in the past few years trying to understand why, especially in the context of the run up to or the aftermath of the Scottish referendum on independence in 2014, standardization processes have featured so little in public debates. In this respect, this mirrors the apparent lack of interest for questions of language in Scotland, outside the marginal case of Gaelic. While Gaelic, a Celtic language primarily spoken in Western Scotland, was granted official status in 2005, its promotion does not, in any way, match the types of efforts that have been undertaken in Wales, to remain within case of the United Kingdom.

Scots, like Gaelic, is recognized as a language by Scottish and UK governments under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This recognition, however, is largely symbolic. Unlike Gaelic, Scots is a language (if you believe it is a language) very closely related to English. The status of Scots has therefore been subject to questions since at least the Late Middle Ages, and several linguists have traditionally been reluctant to grant it full language status (Aitken 1990). Many other linguists, however, have recognized the centrality of Scots in Scotland's literary, linguistic, and ideological scenery (e.g. McClure 2009). Scots, nevertheless, and whatever it actually is, is widely spoken in many parts of Scotland, as indicated by the 2011 Census or by various polls (TNS-BMRB 2010). Polls, however, also point to the lack of identification of the population of Scotland with language issues, or with the recognition that what they speak is a language at all.

The aim of this short development is not to lament this state of facts, but rather to point to the fact that language is not generally viewed as an important part of Scottish public life. It is at best something that should be restricted to the private sphere, a matter of private choices, not a matter for government or education. In the run up to the 2014 referendum on independence, language was carefully excluded from public debates, as were, in fact, cultural issues in general. Scottish nationalism depicts itself as civic rather than ethnic, and Scottish nationalists are keen to emphasize political economic aspects in order to not single out recent immigrants, and to promote an inclusive discourse.

But what I did observe throughout the campaign was the omnipresence of language in ways that were not explicitly formulated as being about language. This took the form of people consistently apologizing for not having the right accent. Or for having too much accent. Or not enough. This also took the form of the presence of language tokens in the campaign, such as "Aye" or "Naw" stickers on the streets or banners on houses. Scots, in actual fact, was everywhere - just not as Scots, but as non-standard English. Yet, despite being ubiquitous in writing, it was intriguingly absent from public debate.

In fact, I would like to suggest that by relegating the language issue to the private sphere, the voice from nowhere, the de facto standard, was Standard English. This, I argue, is problematic in a country where a large proportion of the population does not have access to the full range of resources that Standard English stands for; a country where school pupils are, in some schools, still told off for not speaking properly - that is to say, for not speaking Standard English. In other words, not attending to issues of language can also mean, as Hodges also points out, not attending to issues of social class. Those observations thus raise the question: what counts as public sphere in a given country? Who has access to it? How is access regimented, and through what institutions? Language is one of those powerful institutions, as noted several decades ago by Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1991), and it is necessarily a focus for new independent countries, or for those that aspire to become so. At least for those where democracy matters, which in future Europe does not seem to be as obvious a statement as it was some twenty years ago.

An honest assessment of language and the public sphere, of the linguistic resources required to enter said public sphere is a prerequisite for democratic life. An equally honest assessment of the tendency of nation states in Modern times to fetishize language, to grant it quasidivine status (are languages not said to have genealogies, origins, families, sister-languages? To live and to die?) is, however, of equal importance. In Scotland as in Croatia, those who are best equipped to take part in such debates are quite possibly anthropologists and sociologists.

Mate Kapovic

Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb

Language, Linguistics, Nationalism and Science

Language and Nationalism

Progressive political ideologies generally take a dim view of nationalism. However, on the political left the general rule is to strongly disapprove of the extreme nationalism of the National Front in France or of Jobbik in Hungary, whilst Palestinian or Kurdish (progressive) nationalism in the Middle East is looked upon sympathetically. From the early days of revolutionary Russia through to a range of national liberation movements, we frequently see a dialectical relationship between internationalism and (Leninist) rights to national selfdetermination (primarily in situations where there is a real-existing subordination of specific ethnic groups). Such liberation movements, including those in the Third world a ftr the Second World War were also frequently socialist.

As such, examples like Kurdish nationalism in Turkey and contemporary Croatian nationalism in Croatia (and comparable nationalisms pertaining to "majority" peoples in European nation-states) can be viewed in different ways. In situations such as the first, there are real threats to and the oppression of certain (typically minority, but always politically weaker)33 social communities on the basis of language, religion, customs, ethnicity etc., and so nationalism has a defensive and liberating character. In other cases however, we are dealing with majority nationalism, which is typically - either symbolically or in real terms - defined from a position of supremacy and oppression (within the boundaries of its framework), when relating to interior minority ethnic groups, neighbouring nations, (middle eastern) immigrants and similar.

Such situations are also mapped onto and reflected in language. In Turkey for example, the letters x, y and w were banned up until 2013 as they are used when writing in Kurdish, but not in Turkish. Such formal or practical bans, requiring one to speak and write in a certain language have by no means been a rarity throughout history, not least in those countries which are today considered to lead the "democratic world", such as France, Canada or Australia. Fighting against such bans certainly constitutes one component of certain nationalist projects (here Kurdish), but the phenomenon is completely different to the unfolding of linguistic nationalism e.g. in Croatia. Here, one way in which it manifests itself, amongst others, is through the politics of linguistic purism, which is equivalent to the ethnic cleansing of language (Kapovic 2013: 392).34 This is also largely normalised within the wider language community. We can look at this from the perspective of linguistic activism, which doesn't limit itself to the mere description and analysis of language but also enters into the realm of making value judgments concerning the relationship between language and society. In cases such as Kurdish such activism condemns discrimination and linguistic oppression, whilst in other cases such as Croatia it criticises the nationalistic xenophobia which lurks in the background of purist projects.

As concerns questions of minority and endangered languages and nationalist approaches to language, from the perspective of upward mobility, the interests of speakers and speech communities need not overlap with the preservation a certain minority/endangered language. Abandoning the minority language (either completely, or simply using a different language exclusively in some contexts) can really benefit individuals or communities in an economic sense - see the earlier cited Brutt-Griffler 2002, in contrast to Phillipson 1992, 2009; Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb and Várady 1999, who advocate the concept of language rights, which emerged as a reply to colonialist and neo-colonialist linguistic imperialism.35 However, despite justified criticism of the concept of language rights (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 220-230), a few points are worth mentioning here. Even if the Roma in Croatia learn Croatian perfectly, this will hardly solve all their problems. Similarly, if poor black people living in the United States learn to speak "white" US English perfectly, this won't necessarily secure them a ticket out of the ghetto.36 Such an approach, after all, can hardly be called a class-based approach (as Brutt-Griffler 2002 seems to call it). Can we call it a class-based approach if we insist on the lower social strata obediently learning the language variety spoken by the upper strata?37 How is this different to the lower classes assuming other values which the ruling class hold (and which clearly reflect the material interests of their class)? Accepting a narrative in which the solution is found in oppressed classes (or communities who speak a different language) accepting the code of those who oppress them is ideologically flawed. However, this doesn't mean that in practice one should be against learning a standard dialect or dominant language such as English in schools. This is actually a case of an unconsciously internalised liberal ideologeme whereby success is understood as within reach of all those who try hard enough,38 combined with a liberal individualisation of systemic problems. The issue lies in the fact that linguistic oppression (whether of sociolects or dialects of the same language, or of different languages) does not emerge in a vacuum and doesn't constitute a problem in and of itself - it comes from the same class society with its inequalities. The only way that linguistic inequalities can disappear isn't by learning the language of those at the top, but through the political elimination of social inequalities (this is, clearly, a problem on a completely different level to that of class mobility, i.e. of a few individuals succeeding in climbing from the bottom to the top, in so doing learning the prestige idiom of the upper classes on their way). The solution to these problems doesn't lie within language, but rather outside of language - without a social change there can't be a linguistic change because language is only a reflection of society.39 If society is stratified along class lines, this will necessarily over time be reflected in the language and it is illusory to think that something will change simply through motivating the oppressed classes to learn the language of the ruling class (if this theoretically happened in its entirety, no change would occur outside of language, and undoubtedly relatively quickly new differences would emerge).

Languages also play a very crucial role in the formation of ethnicities. However, it is also true that various languages exist (bearing in mind that the definition of "a language" is problematic and is always, at least to a certain extent, dependent on politics), irrespective of the existence of ethnic groups and nationalism. If we speak of language rights (in whatever sense), linguistics ought to insist on language and not automatically connect it with a "nation" (as an imagined community - Anderson 2006), however much they are intertwined. Everyone ought to have the right to freely speak their language (dialect, sociolect...) irrespective of its status. Linguists should never remain "neutral" in situations where someone is not allowed to speak their language, or when the introduction of a specific language in education, official use, etc. is not permitted. Equally, one should never be forced to preserve their idiom (language, dialect or sociolect) at any cost. The task of the linguist is to describe and analyse language and to help speakers if they ask for help (e.g. in writing textbooks, in helping with official recognition of the language etc.) - but it isn't up to linguists to determine whether or not speakers ought to speak a particular idiom, or how they should speak it, and in fact they can't have a big influence on this. The expert desire of many linguists to preserve linguistic diversity (so that they can study it) should never be pursued if it harms the speakers of those languages in so doing (Kapovic 2011a: 96-98). In the same way, linguists ought to help social communities, as much they can, to gain access to the dominant language or variety (in contrast to what Skutnabb-Kangas 2000: 499 states), despite that language's dominance being the fruit of concrete social-political-historical circumstances, and being anything but neutral.

An insistence on the minority language rights framework can surely re-legitimate ethnic divides and the negative aspects which regularly accompany them (from class inequalities to ethnic conflicts). One such example is the conflict surrounding the use of Cyrillic signs in the town of Vukovar, Croatia, which began in 2013 and has continued since then, albeit at a lower intensity. In 1991 during the War, Serbian forces took control of Vukovar from Croatian forces, and this event was accompanied by a large amount of destruction and killing. In the city, which lies in Croatia by the Croatia-Serbia border, a Croatian majority (57%) currently live there, along with a significant Serbian minority (almost 35%). According to the law, this percentage is enough for Serbs in Vukovar to have the right to officially use Serbian in public space as a minority language. In practice, this entails putting up Cyrillic signs (given that the differences between standard Croatian and Serbian are more or less similar to those between British and American English - Kapovic 2011a: 142-143, 2011b: 53). The act of putting up Cyrillic signs resulted in their being smashed with hammers by a group of Croatian war veterans, which was an act encouraged from above by the nationalist fraction of the Croatian political elite. Of course, these signs have a purely symbolic (not a communicative) character given that even Serbs in Serbia very often use the Latin script40 alongside Cyrillic. Some of the public interventions made on this topic have suggested that the Cyrillic signs aren't necessary as they are written in the same (Serbo-Croatian) language, but this is a faulty line of reasoning. The fact is that a given language variety isn't a "language" has little to do with public signs: in certain places in Croatia you can find public signs written in dialect, and even if there weren't any there is no reason why there couldn't be if a certain local community wanted them (again, for symbolic reasons). Obviously, the Cyrillic public signs aren't there because Serbs speak a completely different language to Croats, they are rather there as a symbol of Serbian minority rights and presence in a certain area. This is therefore a political, rather than linguistic matter. On the other hand, it is equally true that such bilingual signs - apart from being visual symbols of minority (ethnic and also linguistic) rights - simultaneously act to deepen ethnic divides. Even worse is the example in Vukovar (as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina for example), of the segregation of children on the basis of language, where respect for minority/ethnic rights brings with it the separation of primary school children (such rights are here mapped onto linguistic differences - which are slight at the level of standard, nationalism based dialects, whilst in practice at the level of local communities they are frequently non-existent).41 In practice, this prevents any kind of life together. Whilst it is true that the application of minority (ethnic/linguistic) rights at the same time deepens and consolidates ethnic differences (e.g. in the form of segregation in schools and more generally),42 ethnic conflicts can't be solved by merely ignoring real existing differences, and however much ethnic identities have been and continue to be encouraged and constructed in a planned way from above,43 this can be overcome through supra- or even post-ethnic commitments alongside other kinds of political projects - primarily those which are class-based and internationalist. In practice, one present-day solution could be that pupils together, in the same classes, learn about their own and about others' language (or "language") and culture, but in practice this is difficult to achieve given the hegemony of political elites who live off ethnic divisions.

Linguistics and Taking a Scientific Approach

Social anthropologists often warn against the impossibility of objectivity and against taking a "scientific approach" to social research - such warnings might also hold true for linguistics. We might, at the very least, ask whether certain basic linguistic tenets may be relativized,44 e.g. the idea that language changes, rather than decays (see for example Aitchison 2001), or that all languages are of equal worth and that there are no "better" and "worse" words, forms and meanings (a result which may even be derived from Saussure's postulates about the arbitrariness of linguistic signs). Such scientific understandings of language are open to relativisation to the same degree as other scientific understandings, such as those concerning gravity, atoms or bacteria. Similarly, if creationism, astrology, racism and phrenology can be criticised as unscientific phenomena, then one may criticise linguistic prescriptivism and purism in the same way.

On the other hand, it is clear that every choice - including whether or not we assume there to be a scientific understanding of "national feeling"45 - is ideological, just as we make an ideological choice as linguists when we decide whether or not to advocate an elitist or egalitarian approach to language (and also society). Prescriptivism and purism can be criticised from a scientific perspective - as ways oflooking at language which have no foundation in known scientific understandings of language - but also as ideological/political, as a right wing political project which encourages authoritarianism, hierarchisation, elitism, xenophobia and nationalism through language (Kapovic 2013: 398).

From the perspective of language alone and pure grammatical description, we can also therefore be assured that feminist moves in language (e.g. the more recent use of the English "they" rather than the earlier generic "he", when considering both men and women) are not scientific - they can't by definition be scientific moves in language; instead, they are political. The question is rather whether or not we consider certain ideological-political interventions in language as being justified (e.g. if they help achieve gender equality) or not (e.g. if they are xenophobic). From the perspective of language alone and linguistics (as a basic set of methods and theories which serve for linguistic description and analyses) we can't say that is good or bad that in the majority of languages the male gender is generic. Equally, in the rare cases where the female gender is generic, this linguistic state of affairs doesn't guarantee women a better position in society.46 Whether or not we insist on the use of phrases such as studentice (*female form) and studenti (*male form) rather than simply studenti (*male form; generic) is therefore a political decision. The crucial di ffrence is that, when making progressive changes in language - whether or not they are feminist or a question of political correctness (e.g. not using the word gypsies (cigani) as an insult) - in principle we can never reach for an explanation drawing on some kind of scientific (and not political) grounds for making such moves in language/discourse. This doesn't just hold for prescriptivism, which is always - at least implicitly - justified in terms of quasi-scientific/linguistic reasons. In countries such as Croatia, prescriptivists' authority (which gives them the supposed right to decide for themselves on what constitutes "correct" and "incorrect" language)47 is very often justified in terms of their formal linguistic education or university position (in Croatia this mostly refers to professors in Croatian Studies). Ultimately, prescriptivism can be good (in the sense of being useful for a linguistic/social community), whilst being unscientific (from the position of linguistics, i.e. observing the ways in which language really functions), if such "unscientific" moves result in positive social consequences. However, despite such moves not being based on how language actually functions (according to what linguistics as a science of language has uncovered), the key point is that, as earlier mentioned, they do not result in some set of positive consequences for a community, but instead promote elitism, authoritarianism, an uncritical approach, insecurity, a fear of language, the rescinding of individuals' democratic legitimacy (e.g. from the less educated, who don't know how to speak "correctly" and who then don't dare to speak in public) etc. When discussing interventions in language (whether progressive or reactionary), one should always have in mind that they are always ideological/political, as are the arguments behind them.

Jelena Markovic

Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb

Purified in Translation: Language in "Small Stories" from the Early 1990s

Imagine if the comedy sketch genre were considered to be a legitimate academic medium through which to communicate ideas, including both scientific discourses and critical commentaries on social relations. Imagine if comedy sketches - with their own particular ways of communicating, the potential hidden in their subtexts and integrated subgenres - were recognized to be a legitimate form of scientific argumentation. If this were the case, then one commentary on (at least some parts of) Andrew Hodges' text about the harsh alterations to the language from the beginning of the 1990s - alterations which weren't inherent in the language itself - could be the Sarajevan comedy show Top lista nadrealista.48 Such a commentary could also focus on the inflated amount of attention which language has attracted in Croatia. If the comment genre (i.e. a comment on an academic text or genre of ethnographic description, or a critical take on a lived reality) were compatible with the comedy sketch genre, it would suffice to attach a link to a sketch called Jezici (Languages).49

In the introduction to this sketch, the host of an imaginary language themed TV show introduces a guest. On the table before them lie a range of books and dictionaries. The guest on the programme seems to be rather full of himself.

Host: "Dear, respected viewers, everything that has been happening has ruffled our feathers, causing quite a stir in literature, science, and linguistics. For this reason we've come to Cajnice, to the Institute of Language, Literature, Small Businesses and Telecommunications (...) and we have with us Doctor Nermin Padez."

Professor Padez: ".Professor Dr Nermin Padez from the Institute of Language, Literature, Small Businesses and Telecommunications from Cajnic. Well, as part of Prof. Dr. Nenad Zamjenica and Prof. Dr. Mr. Stjepan Zarez's team, we have made the epochal discovery that in fact, in linguistics. There isn't one language which has been imprecisely called Serb°Croatian, or the Croato-Serbian language; instead this language consists of six different languages. Yes, we are talking about six languages I tell you! We have the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Herzegovinian, Monte (Gorski) and Negrin (Crnski)50 languages. Let's take an example, so as to best explain this to our viewers. Generally, in linguistics, it's best to work with examples. We have one example of a simple sentence here with a subject and predicate, the sentence: Ja citam (I read). This is written in Serbian, isn't it? In Croatian this sentence is spoken completely differently. You say: Ja citam. Whilst in the Bosnian language, which is completely different from these first two variants, one says: Ja citam. The Herzegovinian language is interesting as it is similar to the Bosnian language and there are many similar, almost identical semantic connotations. This sentence is spoken in Herzegovinian as: Ja citam. Whilst the Negrin language is perhaps the most interesting of all languages . In the Negrin language this sentence is spoken like . I think you stand no chance of guessing how to say it. (.) In the Negrin language one says, pay close attention; pay close attention: Ja citam. Whilst the Monte language is completely different from all these other variants and to say this sentence in the Monte language one says... says... says... (____) Ja citam'.'

One of the reasons I find the idea of offering the described sketch as a comment on the relationship between language and politics attractive, is my personal stance that these issues cannot be discussed through argumentation commonly used by linguists, cultural anthropologists, folklorists, etc., as they are frequently in a position to irrationally plead for a favourite thesis, or pose as neutral and objective (which, of course, does not mean that some linguists and anthropologists haven't offered valid theses, ideas and argumentations).

Whilst a sketch would not work as a complete comment on part of Hodges' text, its specific poetics does not only open up many questions, but also reveals numerous aspects of the relationship between language, science, politics and the market, revealing them in a bare, easily comprehensible manner, with the added value of humour. The sketch serves here as an example showing how political ideas spill over and are mediated by and through language. It also shows how science functions both as a handmaiden to and opponent of ruling ideas, and how questions concerning language spill over into everyday communication and popular culture. These domains continue to be some of the most interesting from the perspective of ethnology, cultural anthropology and folklore studies. If the above sketch were translated into some kind of scientific observation, we might say that the 1990s bore witness to the "mapping of certain social and political phenomena onto language" (Kapovic 2011a: 12).

If we take a look at the academic activities of linguists, a whole range of directions, world-views as well as more narrowly linguistic ideas are discernible, all of which problematize questions concerning language and politics. Numerous polemics exist - some of which Hodges has mentioned in his text - and they do not need repeating here. That kind of linguistic debate, with its identical starting points, yet perhaps unforeseeable echoes and consequences, relates to the linguistic and narrative shaping of everyday life. Whilst academic workers primarily produce studies, articles and dictionaries into which a whole spectrum of linguistic and political ideas are weaved - ideas which are both the cause and consequence of social relations - the actions of amateur language purifiers very explicitly both produce and reflect a social discomfort and tension. They most frequently appropriate language and advocate ideas which are recognised in linguistics as linguistic purism and prescriptivism. As many bore witness to, the role of "language protectors" in 1990s Croatia wasn't only assumed by educational institutions, the public media and academic legitimating bodies. It was rather the case that language - in harmony with the politically dominant tendencies at that time - "protected" the "street". Hodges mentioned certain examples in which language questions spilled over into everyday life. There were many such situations in the 1990s. In fact, a whole study could be conducted into linguistic "street" amateurism, as well as into the formation of a completely new sub-genre ofhumour which consisted of mocking purism and prescriptivism, as illustrated in the above sketch. This could be viewed in terms of the poetics of resistance; of the narrative re-shaping of individual experiences in humorous stories etc. Indeed, the role of linguistic "street" prescriptivists was taken up by individual amateurs. Everyday life was the site in which the widely accepted project of "purifying" and disciplining the language took place. To illustrate this, let me give two examples. In the region from which I, as a student, moved to Zagreb, the word used for doughnut was krofna (plural: krofne). In the middle of the 1990s, when I asked for a krofna in a Zagreb bakery, despite the doughnuts standing there before me, the sales assistant said that they don't have any krofne. "They might possibly have them in Serbia", she replied. For her, the word krofna - despite being a word of German origin used in Istria - sounded Serbian. In the early nineties I also witnessed a situ- ation in which two passers-by were arguing in the street. One said to the other, after having knocked into him: "Izvinite" ("I'm sorry"; Serbian standard), to which the other replied: "Izvinem ti ruku, budalo. Kaze se: Oprosti." ("I am twisting your hand, you fool.51 The word is: Oprosti." ["I'm sorry" - Croatian standard]). His taking offence was also, as in the first case, motivated by the undesirable choice of words his interlocutor used.

What do these examples tell us about the scope, competences and interests of individual scientific disciplines, above all of ethnology (and/or cultural anthropology) and folklore studies? Let me now sketch an answer to this question. Hodges asks why researchers who weren't linguists in Croatia rarely participated in "sociolinguistic debates concerned with the new Croatian standard". One coherent reply might be: they didn't because they didn't. A more important question, it strikes me, is how they could have done so hypothetically. If we do not challenge at least the emic (self-) recognition of ethnology, cultural anthropology and folklore studies (with all accompanying and/or forms, see Prica 2001), on the level of the specificities of the disciplines' methodologies (i.e. their understandings) and research foci, and if we are not averse to disciplinary boundaries, we can still subscribe to Lozica's interpretation of disciplinary differentiation in which he (re)interprets Dundes' thoughts on texture, text and context (Lozica 1979). If we subscribe to it, we could, although with some reserve, position linguistics and its primary focus, and even methodology, inside the mentioned schema52 and say that that which is considered to be a text in linguistics, is just texture in folklore studies, and isn't even that in ethnology (and/or cultural anthropology). Such distance between foci isn't impossible to overcome, but it is a distance nonetheless. There is, undoubtedly, room for convergence. In the 1970s, linguistic research underwent a more serious change of focus from language to communicative process, whilst folklore studies switched emphasis from the folklore text to the narrative event, context, performance and communication. I can't delve deeper into this problematic here, but I would like to mention the ethnography of communication, and language socialization research. The ethnography of communication, with certain modifications undertaken by Richard Bauman (see for example 1975, 1986), didn't grow into the ethnography of oral literature or ethnography of oral performance by chance.53 The ethnography of communication offered a framework for interdisciplinary research into communication, through an interest in an integrative vision of language, literature and culture. In emphasising the contributions of linguistics to folklore studies and vice versa, Dell Hymes - the founder of the ethnography of communication - advocated defining communicative behaviour to be the subject of folklore studies ( 1971). The afore-mentioned meeting of two strangers in the street as an example of everyday conflict over language, can be viewed as a social, cultural, linguistic and folkloristic event, and the story of that event can be understood not only as an appropriate form for expressing identity but rather as its content. Researchers of language socialisation (e.g. Ochs 1993; Schiffrin 1996) say that subjectivity begins with the adoption of language and with its use in connection with identity constructions, which are crucial for both self-determination and making of the self. Through this analogy, it seems that our identity and stories which contain them and produce them are even more fragile when language changes in a way inconsistent with its inherent dynamic. At these fragile points, in the gaps created by politics, we can see more clearly how the construction of identity equally depends on the historical period and how the interval in which individual interactions take place and our personhood is relational (i.e. constructed in relation to others). Th is means that it is temporary and dependent on each individual interaction and story about selves and others.

To conclude, one of the key questions which might be opened up from the perspective of ethnology and/or cultural anthropology is the question of language politics and policy, and the related question of scientific policies. The key issue, of course, is that of the effects of scientific research and its role in preserving the common good on the one hand, or, on the other, the consent to replace a scientist, in this case a linguist, at least in part, with a language consultant, thus enabling the long-desired marketisation, however strange that may sound.

With this in mind, let us now turn our attention to the final parts of two "field reports" which followed the afore-mentioned sketch. Th e esteemed academic who explained the differences between the languages introduces us to two real-life examples. In the first a girl speaking Bosnian in a shop wants to buy some tea, but the shop assistant who speaks Monte (gorski) doesn't understand. The boss of the shop reaches for a Bosnian-Monte dictionary and in the end they succeed in understanding each other. Th is is followed by a report in which a young man who speaks Herzegovinian want to take a girl who speaks Serbian out for coffee. As if out of nowhere, a language advisor appears who helps the girl and young man understand each other. Upon leaving, the advisor says "This will cost you 18 dinars. You have had two subjects, three predicates and one adverbial time clause. (...) For this reason you should order our dictionaries. (...) Ideal for mixed marriages"

Tanja Petrovic

Institute of Culture and Memory Studies, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana

Prescriptivism in Language Standardization and Citizenship in Post-Yugoslav Societies

Andrew Hodges' article draws attention to the important link between regimes of language standardization and social changes that took place in the aftermath of the ethnic conflicts that followed the dissolution of the socialist Yugoslavia. Both language standardization practices governed by academic elites and EU minority language policies contribute to the nationalization of speakers and languages in the post-Yugoslav space, particularly in societies where Serbo-Croatian used to be spoken. Th ey actually follow the premises of language ideology prevalent in contemporary Europe, in which languages are perceived as discrete, clearly bounded, named forms, equated with states and ethnic groups (Gal 2006b). Nationalization is a process that has taken place in all spheres of social and political life in the Yugoslav successor states since the 1990s; often supported by both nationalist elites and the international community, this process has led to ethnically segregated schools and kindergartens (see Madacki and Karamehic 2012) and to political absurdities that often made state insti- tutions dysfunctional - most notably in Bosnia and Herzegovina (see Curak 2004; Jansen 2015; Mujkic 2007) - resulting in severe consequences for citizens' everyday lives.54

In this commentary, I will highlight three important aspects of ongoing processes relating to language policy in the former Yugoslavia, focusing mainly on Serbia, the society where I did a great deal of my research into language practices and ideologies. All these aspects are addressed by Hodges in his article and all of them are closely related to the citizenship regimes present in post-Yugoslav societies. First, I will discuss the consequences of the nationalization oflanguage on the citizens of Serbia and highlight its exclusionary and hierarchizing effects. I will then explore the notion of the objectivity in both language research and standardization, and the related issue of discrepancies between actual language use and prescribed norms and forms. Finally, I will offer a glimpse into new forms of linguistic activism and new spaces for pro-active approach to prescriptivism in language standardization offered by new media. I will also discuss the fragmentation and democratization of the public sphere, and pluralization of the voices heard in the academic community of linguists and other scholars interested in language issues.

Internal Exclusions

Although a great deal of language standardization practices are still shaped in opposition to other languages derived from Serbo-Croatian, and most starkly between Serbian and Croatian, it is important not to overlook the consequences these prescriptivist practices have had on citizenship within post-Yugoslav societies. In the language ideology prevalent in Serbia, the standard language is perceived as hierarchically superior over other forms of language and the generalized notion of "the Serbian language" is equated with its standardized form. In this context, dialects are not perceived as having cultural value and their use remains restricted to local frames of communication (Petrovic 2015).55 On the other hand, the specific history of language standardization makes the standard language not equally accessible to all speakers and citizens: there is a widespread belief that speakers of western Serbian dialects acquire the standard spontaneously, as their local vernaculars are "pure" and "correct",56 while speakers of dialects in Southeastern Serbia speak "corrupted", "incorrect" language and are unable to fully acquire the standard language. Despite such a view being in opposition to the very idea of having a standard language, which is supposed to be a means of communication anonymous and accessible to all citizens (Woolard 2008; Gal and Woolard 2001), it is shared and propagated even by linguists in Serbia: Pavle Ivic wrote that for a person from Nis, standard language acquisition is "a painful process and a task which usually remains unfulfilled" (Ivic 1988: 11). Sandra Sare and Stanislav Stankovic (2011) cite numerous examples of derogatory attitudes on the part of the teaching staff in Serbian language and linguistics departments toward students coming from Southeastern Serbia, who often tell them that they should not have chosen to study the Serbian language because of their dialectological background.

The Real and the Prescribed

As stressed by Hodges, objectivity is an important ideological concept underlying both language research and standardization policies and processes. The specific positioning of linguistics as being an "objective" and "scientific" discipline in the social sciences and humanities certainly deserves to be deconstructed. Even in linguistic sub-disciplines that deal with "'linguistic fact' aspects of language" (Hodges), one cannot unambiguously claim a neutral and ideology-free position: for example, Howard Aronson (2007) shows that even disciplines such as linguistic typology are not immune from "social factography:" in the long history of research into the Balkan Sprachbund (Balkan linguistic league) as a closed, unique and specific area, linguistics significantly contributed to prevalent Western conceptions of the Balkans as characterized by orientalism (Said 2008) and balkanism (Todorova 1999).

As Hodges notices, "scientific arguments" are often used by linguists who criticize prescriptivist standardization practices in Croatia. The same is true for Serbia: Marko Simonovic, for example, argues that "normative linguistics in Serbia is limited to the stigmatization and expulsion of certain linguistic phenomena and thus works against the basic principles of modern science" (Simonovic 2015; see also Arsenijevic in Stevanovic 2015). These claims need to be understood not in terms of a request for objectivity and a firm belief in it, but rather as claiming that standardization rules and choices need to draw on actual practices of language use and on linguistic and social reality. The lack of interest of the main actors involved in language standardization in these realities may be defined as the main characteristic of prescriptivist standardization and language politics from the 1990s onwards. Speakers of languages derived from Serbo-Croatian often find themselves in situations where what is proclaimed by linguists as "the truth" has little to do with their reality, or where the relationship between reality and farce, or the serious and the absurd, is blurred or reversed. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the authors of the show Top lista nadrealista made several video clips exposing the absurdity of the emerging claims that Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and Montenegrins speak separate (and even unintelligible) languages. What these videos have shown seemed absurd and funny for the majority of speakers back then, but nationalizing language politics in the Yugoslav successor states made it real, normal and acceptable. In 1995, the political elite pronounced Ekavian to be the means of public communication in order to unite Serbs on both banks of the Drina river which separates Serbia and Republika Srpska, the Serb-dominated part of Bosnia and Herzegovina The linguist Ranko Bugarski stressed that "...the abortive wartime efforts by the Bosnian Serb leadership to impose Ekavian pronunciation on an Ijekavian speaking population, thus making it more 'Serbian,' stands out as a drastic instance of attempted instantaneous change by decree which was naturally doomed to failure" (Bugarski 2002-2003: 74). The supposedly higher cause of the "national interest" is not the only reason why normativists tend to neglect speakers and their actual language practices. It can also be tradition, as in the case of the ongoing debate provoked by the instruction that cappuccino must be written and pronounced in Serbian as "kapucino" and not "kapucino" which is actually the only form used by speakers.57

Alternative Voices

In the mid-1990s, Serbs in Republika Srpska did not show a readiness to leave their native Ijekavian pronunciation for "higher political ends" and replace it with Ekavian, so this radical intervention into linguistic practice failed. Despite the continuous nationalization of languages, linguistic communities and individual speakers in the area where Serbo-Croatian used to be spoken, the ubiquitous spread of digital media over the last twenty years provided speakers with a plethora of tools and channels to challenge and subvert the nationalizing, prescriptivist regimes of language standardization. Th e internet and social networks have contributed to the pluralization and fragmentation of the public sphere, opening up spaces for many different voices and attitudes toward languages, as well as spaces for the circulation of different linguistic forms. Standardization has ceased to be an exclusive domain occupied by omniscient representatives of an academic elite and has rather come to be discussed by various groups of citizens and interested subjects, leading to the emergence of new forms of language activism. The campaign "Let's nurture the Serbian Language" ("Negujmo srpski jezik"), launched in 2015 by the Belgrade municipality and the Philological Faculty in Belgrade (and which then spread to Banja Luka under the name "Njegujmo srpski jezik" in 2016), triggered various forms of this new language activism (see, for example, the Facebook group "Neguj mo srbski jezik" with almost 200,000 followers in November 2016; see also http://www.tarzanija.com/negujmo-srpski-jezik-al-aj-ne-ovako/). Another Facebook site, named "Kako biste vi rekli?" ("How would you say this?") gathers together linguists, copy editors and translators, as well as "ordinary" speakers who test other speakers' preferences for certain forms, expressions and constructions - some out of curiosity, others to solve their personal or professional linguistic dilemmas or for research purposes. Th is kind of internet activity highlights how speakers, their language preferences and actual practices have become an important resource for various groups when judging the acceptability of certain language forms.

Over the last two decades we have also witnessed the pluralization of the academic sphere; discussions on language norms have ceased to be a privilege enjoyed by a narrow circle of elite members who occupy positions in national academic institutions: there is a new generation of linguists doing research in various linguistic sub-disciplines (and also researchers from other social sciences - see e.g. Brkovic 2014), with rich international experience, who competently intervene in these debates. Projects and research addressing linguistic and social phenomena in the post-Yugoslav space in which this new generation of researchers are involved have also significantly contributed to the deconstruction of essentialist and prescriptivist views on national languages as homogeneous, discrete and ethnically-bound (see Arsenijevic 2016; as well as the project "Regional Linguistic Data Initiative", Samardzic in Stevanovic 2016). All these endeavors challenge the top-down approach taken to language standardization and point to an emerging awareness that language standardization is intrinsically connected to the politics of citizenship in the former Yugoslavia.

Ivana Spasic

Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

A Number of Paradoxes

What I would like to develop from Andrew Hodges' insightful and informative paper, with which I agree on all the important points, is how much the language situation - in the former region where Serbo-Croatian was spoken - is shot through with paradoxes. Hodges also touches upon many of them, but I see some profit in teasing them out more forcefully. The paradoxical nature of the subject means that, at various levels, contrary positions emerge that are (almost equally) defensible on theoretical, political, practical, or moral grounds. Several such paradoxes may be identified, such as those on this provisional and non-exhaustive list.

1)The first and most general one is the paradox of prescriptive obsession. Prescriptivism has traditionally been strong in the linguistic culture of the region. The high prestige of language specialists, a public thirst for authoritative judgments as to which manners of speaking are "correct" and which should be ruled out, the popularity of language-related "letters to the editor" by ordinary people, the almost exclusive focus of language education in schools on the strict enforcement of existing standard norms, with the punishing of "mistakes"- all these tendencies suggest an understanding of language as a kind of prized good, as a highly valuable but also fragile and somewhat unpredictable, tender creature. It is not there for all of us to share but rather the other way around - it is us who should continuously take care, so as not to damage it.

This did not start with the linguistic disintegration that took place after 1990, as there are continuities with a Romanticist identification of nation and language widespread since at least the 19th century. Neither does this tendency solely concern a nationalistically motivated purism: the prescriptivist bias is broader than linguistic chauvinism. It often weaves together language's role as a repository of national identity with a Bourdieusian (1982) symbolic violence associated with the "legitimate language" which automatically, and unjustly, disadvantages speakers of regional or class varieties departing from the standard.

This prescriptivism is easy to criticize and may be explained away by a number of unfortunate cultural-historical, political and psychological circumstances. Yet a large number of people seem to share such an attitude to their own languages with enthusiasm. Th is is not just an elite preoccupation and there is much sincere bottom-up idolatry of language correctness. And who is authorized to judge these people wrong? If people genuinely take such prescriptivism to heart, as so many of them seem to, then who is to tell them that they are just plain stupid? Kapovic's (2011a) assertion that language belongs to its speakers, intended as an anti-prescriptivist battle cry, could here be turned on its head.

Incidentally, such normativism may have begun to wane. In Serbia, several recent indicators include - for example - the public response to the ambitious campaign "Let's Cherish the Serbian Language" ("Negujmo srpski jezik") launched by the Belgrade City Library and the local authorities, with the participation of several dozen cultural and sports celebrities. The debate that ensued included a surprising share of strongly anti-prescriptivist statements.58 The book Serbia and Its South by the Serbian-Slovene anthropologist Tanja Petrovic (2015) - a harshly critical account of the entrenched stigmatization of southern Serbian dialects - has provoked much interest. Also, a new generation of more open-minded (and, perhaps not accidentally, often foreign-educated) linguists such as Jelena Filipovic in Belgrade (e.g. Filipovic 2015), Boban Arsenijevic in Nis, and others, is increasingly present in public discussions - though they remain somewhat marginal in relation to the core of the "Serbianist" professional field (srbistika) and its institutional apparatus.

2) The paradox of nationalist non-nationalism refers to the post-SC language situation in Serbia. Unlike the Croatian case, except for being renamed (as Serbian instead of Serb°Croatian), standard language has not changed much otherwise. The former Serbian variant has largely remained "as it was" or, in Bugarski's (2012: 51) phrase, it has been "standing still" while others were moving increasingly away from the previous common standard, inflating differences and variant specificities. Although certain language forms perceived as "Croatian" are now frowned upon, nothing comparable to the extensive linguistic engineering which has been gleefully undertaken in Croatia has taken place in Serbia.

It is tempting to interpret this as a "less nationalist" response to the breakup of the common language. It looks calmer, more reasonable, more tolerant and democratic. And in many respects, this is true. But it can also be read as the linguistic expression of a different kind of nationalism. Over the history of South Slavic relations between national groupings, Serbian nationalism has traditionally been expansive rather than separatist and has tended to manifest itself through an insensitivity to difference and deafness to the interests and demands of others. Therefore, in the area of language, less need has been felt to assert a separate Serbian language. The idea of "one common language", so helpfully vague, slides easily between a nationalist, expansionist hue and a non-nationalist, pro-Yugoslav one. For many Serbs, the postSC languages are somehow artificial, willfully created from scratch and hence problematic.

The only area of openly nationalist linguistic anxiety in Serbia has been the alphabet. The defense of the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, allegedly threatened by globalization, the EU, Croats, and unrepentant communists, has been a frequent topic of public debate, and a matter of fumbling legislative regulation (Bugarski 2013: 91-97), as well as having been a rallying point for conservative activist groups. The la ttr urge the state, as well as the rest of society, to unite in efforts to save Cyrillic from imminent extinction by promoting it and banning the public use of (Serbian) Latin. The fact that Serbs have been using two scripts alternately for several decades59 and that it would take a lot of time and coercion to make them abandon one, is for these advocates a reason for rather than against such measures.

3) An appreciation of the many varieties of nationalism in language matters enjoins us to grasp retrospectively the pre-1990 situation in all its ambivalence. The paradox of muddled commonality deals with this issue.

Croatian anti-Serbian linguistic purism, rampant in the 1990s and still present today in more moderate forms, is also rather easy to ridicule, in its untiring endeavors to cleanse the language of all suspected "Serbianisms". Funny neologisms and bad dictionaries such as Brodnjak (1992) are easy targets. Yet this does not have to mean that the previous state of affairs, with Serbo-Croatian as the official common standard, was ideal. Was Croatian, as an SC variant, threatened by Serbian usage and linguistic norms, due to the force of the majority, Yugoslav institutional structure, and centralist tendencies in the official ideology? The question I think remains open. The dominant Croatian answer, a straightforward "yes", can be, and has been, seriously disputed. Yet the authors who do so, such as Kordic (2010), have no understanding whatsoever for any possible Croatian feeling of being restrained, disrespected and denied recognition. Needless to say, Serbian linguists (on the whole) hold the claim to be utter nonsense. Hence arguments can be raised on both sides. After all, how do we define and operationalize what "being threatened" means? And - again - who is to pass the final verdict on whether repression really "occurred", or not?

It turned out that a polycentric standard language shared by kindred nations, with a history of mutual conflicts, co-existing within a federation significantly functioning within a logic of ethnic competition, carried a great number of advantages and disadvantages. It is premised on mutual trust and good will. If they are there, a relaxed fuzziness is the result: speakers are not forced to choose strictly between variants, the use of a whole range of varieties and regional forms across the SC region is allowed, language forms are not definitely ethnically marked, etc. Yet on the other hand, such a context is a fertile ground for all kinds of mutual suspicion, founded or unfounded, to thrive. Also, it is easier to implement subtler forms of majority pressure and imposition, masking them as commonality.

4)In that sense, the recognition of former variants and regional varieties as full-blown standard languages, largely cleared the terrain. No underhand constraints are possible any more. Everybody is svoji na svome.60 Furthermore, minorities - in this new constellation - can be provided for and their rights, including language rights, guaranteed according to European and UN standards.

However: the paradox of the forced enjoyment of rights tells us that a politics that ensures minority rights simultaneously compels the minorities to choose between ethnically marked linguistic patterns. It is no longer possible to speak "neutrally" and, perhaps, "pass" as an inconspicuous member of the local population. Now, as a Croat in Vojvodina, one is either speaking Croatian or Serbian, as a Bosniak in Sandzak, either Bosnian or Serbian,61 as a Serb in Croatia, either Croatian or Serbian etc. And by choosing one or the other, one inevitably also chooses identities: in the case of Vojvodinian Croats for example, by opting for standard Croatian, that of a "true Croat", from one vantage point, or of a "minority Croat nationalist", from another; by opting for the Serbian standard, that of a "Croat traitor", or a "good, tolerable Croat". It is no longer possible, in other words, to use language mindlessly.

Hodges also shows through ethnographic data the contradictory nature of this development in the post-Yugoslav region, where "a blanket promotion of linguistic diversity" based on EU guidelines, and the "international legal framing of the situation" have unintentionally promoted "the articulation of nationally defined collectivities over which a history and war was fought". It is however questionable what, at this point, might be the way out. A step backwards and away from the minority rights framework is hard to imagine, and even harder to enforce.

If you ask me, no easy resolution to any of the listed paradoxes is in sight.

Andrew Hodges

Let me first take the opportunity to thank all the commentators for participating in this discussion; the insights and diversity of approach taken throw up many new questions, clarifying and strengthening some of the arguments mentioned, whilst justifiably discarding and/ or criticising others. This discussion is also useful in highlighting a range of different perspectives on the broadly defined academic left. In this reply I will especially focus on three issues which came up repeatedly: (i) the implications of a class rather than identity based approach (Kapovic, Abercrombie, Costa) (ii) questions of whose voice is legitimate and who gets to define/intervene in these debates and (iii) critiques of nationalist "groupness" (Kapovic, Costa) which argue that they do not constitute an analytic reality, but relate to a modern hegemonic ordering system (as also discussed by Spasic).

My original aim was to make an intervention, primarily in Croatia, into the debate over language standardisation from an anthropological perspective, with the aim of generating a dialogue between linguists, social scientists and anthropologists through tackling one "elephant in the room" There are signs that similar discussions are starting to take place in the post-Yugoslav states, including in Croatia, a fact I find encouraging. On the other hand, there have been negative developments since writing the text as well: I have now had firsthand experience of living in Croatia under a conservative government with far-right elements. The experience of feeling the effects of an assault on the media and security apparatus, along with attempts to culturally mainstream historical revisionist accounts of the Second World War, has deepened my understanding of how an atmosphere of conformity comes to prevail through the creation of a generalised atmosphere of fear across a state territory (which Markovic's comment implicitly referred to), leading to the circumvention of certain truths, at least in public discourse. Th is is a topic about which both Markovic and other Croatian anthropologists such as Cale Feldman, Prica and Senjkovic (1993) have written extensively.

My second aim was to draw anthropological comparisons with the linguistic and political situation in other, primarily European, contexts as the debates over standard language often feel quite insular, a point which Kordic (2010) also mentioned in her book on linguistic nationalism. Costa discusses the relative unimportance of standard language in the Scottish political context, relating this to concepts of public and private sphere central to Western liberal political theory. Th e question may be raised over whether - and if so how - such a concept might be translated into the post-Yugoslav context. From a Western liberal perspective, Croatian language policy - and policy on topics including LGBTQrights, abortion, the referendum on defining marriage as heterosexual etc. has made repeated attacks on the "private sphere" of individuals, be that in terms of speech corrected over coffee, or a systematic interest by certain actors in taking away the "private" rights of others. Petrovic's comments on the effects of standardisation processes and internal diversity and Othering add another important dimension in this vein. Irrespective ofwhether one applies a private/public sphere approach to the post-Yugoslav context (and I would argue against such an approach), such interventions, which includes linguistic practices asserting radical cultural difference, can and should be contested. This brings us onto the question of liberal and leftist confusions as mapped onto language:

Tackling Class through Language?

Abercrombie and Kapovic both consider the shortcomings of the class-based approach I cite from Bmtt-Griffler, criticisms with which, upon reflection, I completely agree. Kapovic argues that the approach entails a "liberal ideologeme", a point Abercrombie also implicitly makes in emphasising how a focus on class would entail access to the dominant language, and its usefulness on the job market - in a (capitalist) context where markets exist. Promoting an even linguistic playing field, for instance by offering extra help, time and resources for those pupils whose speech diverges from the state endorsed standard (and how close this standard is to working class or upper class sociolects for example) could be considered politically analogous to the promotion of a Blairite meritocracy seeking to create "equal chances for everyone", i.e. equality of access, which would promote class mobility, rather than challenging the class system. This is not to say that in everyday practice, drawing attention to, highlighting and criticising class differences or assumed hierarchies in the classroom and more generally, is not a progressive move - it clearly can be. Such interventions, in a similar way to psychotherapeutic interventions, can be liberating and important on an individual level, but they have no direct political effects in changing an unfair system producing and maintaining vast economic inequalities between people. If we view language, as Kapovic suggests, and I intimated in the original paper, as a kind of slate onto which echoes of political processes and changes past and present become inscribed, then social activism is always already prior to any kind of language activism. This is because material processes, such as class formation, will trump any kind of linguistic contra-intervention and as Kapovic noted, new forms of linguistic discriminations (in both senses of the word) would in any case emerge. This is one reason why, as Costa (2013) has argued elsewhere, sociolinguistics and language activism could benefit from an increased dialogue with social anthropology. Relatedly, as Abercrombie commented, "minority languages are not intrinsically less useful, but were made this way by virtue of the social and economic exclusion of their speakers", suggesting we pay attention to the historical processes through which certain "speakers" become minoritised. We might also criticise an approach which overly focuses on "policy". Taking a linguistic anthropological metaphor, if language standardisation entails the marking of particular linguistic forms and their placing in a register, an act which is both hierarchizing and thematic, we might think of policy as the enregisterment (see Agha 2005) of particular forms of political practice, also hierarchizing and thematic, through their promotion by hierarchically operating institutions such as modern states. Just as language standardisation requires legitimating bodies, so policy relies on institutions with material resources which will legitimate the privileging of certain political approaches / practices over others both through the provision of material resources and discursive legitimation.

A focus on choosing appropriate policies also takes us away from the situation on the ground, including how such policy is translated across contexts (Clarke et al. 2015) and the gaps which emerge between theory and the reality on the ground, as Balazev pointed out. Leaving theoretical concerns with the minority language rights framework to one side, the reality on the ground in Vojvodina is much more complex and understanding the different actors, their relationships and motivating dynamics is also important before drawing any broader conclusions about what "could" or "should" be permitted. Leaving linguistic issues to one side, teaching in Croatian in Serbia offers a range of resources and opportunities, some of which are of benefit to all students in the school. Bearing these criticisms in mind, perhaps a more sensitive perspective would permit individuals to make language choices on the basis not only of "useful skills" but also in accordance with "linguistic affinities" or perhaps the looser "identifications". Indeed, there were non-Croat identified ijekavian speakers (e.g. from Bosnia and Herzegovina) participating in the Croatian language stream I observed, as well as pupils whose parents were attracted to the smaller class sizes. As concerns Kapovic's suggestion of combined classes, this was, to my knowledge, attempted in a pilot scheme in Vojvodina, but the complaints from some Croatian minority activists were that this would lead to assimilation, the logic of which Spasic discussed in her reply. No easy solution to these problems is in sight.

Another issue little touched on in the replies is a discussion of the extent to which class is inherent in certain nationalist discourses (which are always about "group identity", but only sometimes also about class). Balazev's approach, through discussing a case study directly relating to my fieldwork, and highlighting several shared concerns, also throws up many questions, in taking a "non-essentialist approach" to national identity which understands such identities as narratives. Rejecting roots, biologically defined nations or scientific ideas of race, on this view anyone (myself included) could come to understand themselves as Croatian through exposure to and taking a position on, narratives of Croatian national identity. This would involve a cognitive (awareness and knowledge) component, and some kind of affective acceptance of the importance/value of those narratives. Her approach leaves out, but need not, a focus on the material effects of living in modern states which often leads to the production of such narratives.62 Yet, the question remains of who controls the power to define and assert particular narratives. Who decides whether or not Bunjevac is a "Croatian" language variety or not; how the boundaries of "linguistic mosaics" are determined, and what the implications of fixing those boundaries are - is such fixing not an essentialising move in itself? This brings us onto the second important topic:

Whose Voice Counts and Whose Voice Is Heard?

Depending on one's perspective, and indeed, as I experienced during fieldwork, possible answers to the question of whose voice "counts" as legitimate in debates over the Croatian linguistic situation include a combination of the following: a Croat, an academic, an academic trained in linguistics or language related disciplines, someone living in Croatia, someone who has been living in Croatia for a certain number of years, a Croatian language teacher. In the opening text, I felt the need to assert my legitimacy to participate in the debate by stating I had lived in the region for many years, alongside speaking fluent Croatian.

Nevertheless, I was still excluded by some with whom I spoke on the basis of national grounds, whilst others in conversation explicitly assigned me an "outsider" position and/or positioned me as "Western". Others placed me in a partial or near-complete insider position however. One anthropological perspective would be that a legitimate voice would be that of a person who has acquired the necessary "know-how", or deep understanding of the context gained through fieldwork, a knowledge which permits that person to be politically literate in the context, and with at least conversational fluency in the relevant language(s). Media discussions over the recent Prime Minister, Tihomir Oreskovic, who has lived in Canada for most of his life and speaks poor Croatian raise interesting questions in this regard. This process would likely take several years of immersion in the context, alongside attempting to understand it.63 Tourists on a short visit to Croatia in Spring 2016 would not have experienced the everyday fear felt by certain (and especially minority identified) citizens or long-term residents who are both involved socially, psychologically and materially in territory bound by Croatian state institutions. This is why I believe social anthropological methods, i.e. longterm fieldwork, are often well-placed to make important contributions to such discussions.

This leads us on to a point which Spasic eloquently makes, and which Kapovic also touches upon: who has the "right" or indeed, the "power" to define a linguistic and/or political situation, and who can "legitimately" intervene. Language activism in Croatia has been overwhelmingly focused on questions concerning standard language and often approaches which seek to garner support and provide arguments for the consolidation of nationalist approaches which are currently hegemonic, with a small but vocal number of dissenting voices, such as Snjezana Kordic and Mate Kapovic. Yet as Spasic points out, prescriptivist attitudes are also found amongst a large number of people living in the Yugoslav successor states, and as she states, "who is authorised to judge these people wrong?" Similarly, we can ask, if several million people understand themselves as "Croatian" or "English", who is to say that these people are wrong? Whilst wary of those advocating vanguard views, styling themselves as the most progressive, I respectfully disagree with her "straw-man" characterisation of hegemony. Many of the social agreed distinctions, such as national categories, rely on ideas promoted and absorbed from a very young age, which allow a degree of control in and over the world. For this reason, such hegemonic "habits", as the sociologist Michael Billig (1995) describes, are extremely difficult to shake. Drawing a parallel with the psychotherapeutic process, we can understand the process of gaining a sociological awareness from categories commonly used (our "blind spots") as being genuinely liberating and changing how we engage with and experience those categories.64 Finally, as Markovic points out through appropriating the genre of comedy sketch,65 arguing over such points often gets us nowhere, as individuals' commitments to certain viewpoints runs deep and very rarely changes.

Nationalism and "Groupness"

Many Marxists have advocated and promoted national belonging and certain kinds of national movements, as briefly discussed with respect to Socialist Yugoslavia. Kapovic's position on this topic is similar to Lenin's, wherein some nationalist movements are understood as progressive whilst others are oppressive, depending on their relationship to colonial power structures and minority/majority status. I certainly don't believe that a minority position, irrespective of its friendly or antagonistic relationship with colonial powers necessarily generates a better understanding of oppression - the post-Yugoslav case illustrates how not only external political factors but internal projects and forms of subjugation result in both oppression and violence. For instance, in my experience certain members of the Croatian minority in Serbia were oppressive in promoting an understanding of Croatianness tightly connected with Catholicism alongside an understanding of language as cultural heritage. This narrow understanding alienated others who participated in minority Croatian institutions and activism, such as LGBTQCroatian identified individuals.

A view such as Lenin's doesn't contest what all kinds of nationalisms have in common, namely the positing of some kind of group identity (however rigid or flexible) and group egoism, combined with particular individuals (nationalists) who claim to speak on behalf of, or in the name of, such imagined groups. These characteristics have much to do with the political conditions of modernity and with representational forms of democracy. Yet despite many Marxists implicit or explicit endorsement of banal or other forms of nationalism, it is principally Marxism's "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Ricoeur 2004) that offers a possible interpretation of anti-national positions in terms of discursive hegemonies. Costa, drawing on Brubaker, refers to this as "groupness", understood as a project, rather than a pre-existing state of affairs. When opting for politically nationalist alternatives in a given vote (e.g. Scottish independence) may have positive consequences from a class perspective, one might vote for a nationalist option whilst simultaneously holding an anti-national position. Analytic positions must here be separated from ethnographic and discursive strategies - in the field one will likely engage with the current realities of national categories and seek to make appropriate interventions as one sees fit.

1 Similar processes have taken place, in different ways and to different extents, in many other post-Yugoslav states. See Greenberg (2004) for an overview.

2 Croatian is now listed as an official EU language. See https://euobserver.com/news/31340 (accessed 29. 10. 2015). The text explicitly states: "Some Croatian officials have said in the past that if the EU failed to accept Croatian as an official language it would be almost impossible to get the support of Croatian citizens in a referendum to join the EU", emphasizing the strong politicization of the language issue and the legitimating importance for nationalists of Croatian being defined as a "language".

3 See for example, Vecernji List (2014): htip://www.vecernji.hr/zg-vijesti/nazive-avenija-dubrovnik-i-patacickina-ulica-trebalobi-izbjegavati-963175 (accessed 30. 11. 2015).

4 I have avoided the term diglossia so as to avoid misunderstanding given the range of ways in which the term is used (see Jaffe 1999: 18 for a discussion). I have opted instead for "hierarchies between language varieties".

5 See Jansen (2005) for a critical discussion of the dangers associated with the use of maps and national statistics in portraying the Yugoslav wars.

6 One approach in the literature understands language as "frozen actions" (Pietikäinen et al. 2011), an approach which is useful in placing an emphasis on process and introducing a temporal element. However, depending on the individual approach taken by authors, such a view may overstate the importance of discourse and language in shaping social life. I therefore prefer a description of language as "frozen traces or echoes of actions".

7 Icontend that all nationalist movements implicitly reference a group identity and exclusionary (to varying degrees) "we", whilst differing on many other grounds, such as the extent to which national categories relate to class positionings of various populations. This means that I would defend, in the absence of anti-national (ist) progressive political options, a relatively progressive (on the basis of class politics) "nationalist" option, such as a "yes" vote in the recent referendum for Scottish independence, on pragmatic grounds until a more progressive, anti-nationalist political option became available.

8 Sometimes referred to as "international". The term Anglo-American is not ideal either, as like the epithet Serbo-Croatian, it has ethnic connotations; the point is that it relates to state effects (Trouillot 2001), primarily of the UK and US states.

9 As Chomsky states: "The i-language, then, is some element of the mind of the person who knows the language, acquired by the learner, and used by the speaker-hearer. Taking language to be i-language, the grammar would then be a theory of the i-language, which is the object under investigation'' (Chomsky 1986: 22).

10 See Pateman (1983) for a discussion of this distinction. On this view, a domain of linguistic facts are not understood as social facts, although many facts about language are social facts.

11 Maintaining and working with a distinction between cognitive and language ideologies approaches to language has resulted in some interesting "bridges" made between the two fields, such as Zenker's work on second language acquisition of Irish (Zenker 2014).

12 See http://www.coe.int/1/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/default_en.asp (accessed 30. 11. 2015).

13See Bowman (2001); Brubaker and Cooper (2000) for a critique of the use of identity as a category in social science.

14 See http://www.vecernji.hr/neredi-u-vukovaru/prosvjednici-cekicima-razbili-cirilicne-ploce-u-vukovaru-606963 (accessed 14. 11. 2014).

15 See http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/vukovar-i-cirilica-tribina/print:true (accessed 14. 11. 2014) for a description in Croatian.

16 For more information on this topic, see Ljubojevic 2016.

17 See Kapovic 2011b.

18 This article does not discuss contemporary sociolinguistic work being undertaken by linguists in Croatia in great depth, including on topics relating to standard language ideology. Some works include: Kapovic, Starcevic and Saric 2016a; Muhvic-Dimanovski 1998; Novak 2012; Starcevic 2016; Simicic and Sujoldzic 2004.

19 Whilst this comment concerns teaching in the Croatian language in Serbia, I will leave out a discussion of the criteria for determining standard language, and those discussions concerning the relationship between the Serbian and Croatian language. In particular, whether they are a question of one polycentric language with a number of national standard variants (Kordic 2009: 85) or even two standard languages. I will draw on the situation on the ground which is officially and legally regulated and start from the position that there exist two standard languages - the Croatian language and the Serbian language. I will not analyse the linguistic distance between Croatian and Serbian neither from an historical nor from a structural nor from a communicative perspective, but rather from a sociolinguistic prespective as I consider it to be a question of Ausbau language and that between speakers there are no obstacles to understanding (at least as far as the standard forms of both languages are concerned). It is also important to mention that I consider the majority of speakers to recognise and differentiate one standard from the other without being "bilingual" themselves (in the sense of using both standards in speech/writing).

20 Alongside "bunjevac ikavian", the problem of attempts to standardise the bunjevac dialect frequently come up; for more on this topic see Vukovic 2010a, 2011b, 2011.

21 The author is from Vojvodina, where she lived and was schooled until 1998 when she left for Zagreb. Part of the conclusions drawn are a result of her own experience of life in Vojvodina and as being part of a national (and linguistic) minority, whilst some of the later insights were acquired during four years spent living and working in the field (2011-2015 as a teacher for the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, MZOS, teaching abroad).

22 Rather than the word dialect, the word "speech" (govor) is often used, e.g. bunjavac ikavian speech, sokac ikavian speech.

23 http://www.vtsnis.edu.rs/StrategijaObrazovanja.pdf (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

24 At the time of writing (June-July 2016), the author has no official knowledge of whether the Croatian National Council has taken any steps to write textbooks with suitable content.

25 http://www.hnv.org.rs/onama.php (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

26 For a list of agreements, see: Nadleinosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina (Various Authors s. a.: 14-15).

27 In Serbia the primary education system lasts for eight years (4 + 4) and after that pupils can attend secondary schools for three or four years.

28 The rehabilitation took place in May 2015. The textbook has been in use in Croatian teaching from 2014 and in majority (Serbian) teaching from 2010.

29 The financial help in question is received from the Office for Croats Abroad (Ured za Hrvate izvan Republike Hrvatske).

30 Slaven Bacic speaking in Croatian about the textbooks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_sm8zNFb8 (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

31 For an insight into the entire procedure which should be followed when completing the production of the textbooks for teaching in minority languages, see Nadleznosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina (Various Authors s. a.: 20-23).

32Scots is usually defined either as a collection of dialects deriving from Old English and spoken in Scotland, or as a language in its own right, close to English yet distinct.

33 Number isn't always the deciding factor in ethno-religious power relationships - e.g. the Sunni minority in Bahrain rule over the Shia majority, as was the case in Saddam's Iraq, and is similarly the case with the Alawite minority at the top of Assad's Syria. Colonial and post-colonial situations hardly need mentioning either - take, for example, the white minority in South Africa (which today no longer has the political reins of power, but continues to have the economic reins).

34 Interestingly, discrimination in language is still more or less completely normalised everywhere (whether commenting on someone's dialect or of certain words as being of "unsuitable" origin), yet outside of language, at least in public discourse, this is no longer seen as politically correct (see Milroy 2007: 135).

35 Without a doubt, the fact that English is a global lingua franca is the result of colonialism, economic neo-imperialism and uneven capitalist economic development the world over. As such, English today can never be "neutral" given that it largely rests on the global-economic, political, military as well as the cultural, media and linguistic hegemony of the USA. Whilst the USA's politicaleconomic hegemony is declining, the linguistic global hegemony of English currently remains. The above-mentioned texts, which advocate the concept of language rights (Phillipson 1992 et al.) - although undoubtedly written from a progressive perspective, with many aspects of their critique holding - represent, at least in the solutions they suggest, a kind of linguistic ludism (one can, in a significant sense, see a basic problem here of progressive thinking, both political-economic and linguistic). They mostly o ffr a wellfounded criticism of the status quo and how it came about, before moving on to operationalise solutions, partly because the political conditions for solving those problems aren't on the horizon and the solutions are not simple. This doesn't mean however that I can accept the conservative-apologetic critiques of this approach, e.g. Honey 1994. See for example, Trudgills (1998) savage critique of Honey's (1997) book, where he criticises Honey's prescriptivism, amongst other things./Ovaj se rad bavi jezicnom politikom i drustvenim promjenama koje su se dogodile u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme i nakon rata koji je trajao od 1991. do 1995. godine. Pocinjem opisom povijesne pozadine, rata i devedesetih godina 20. stoljeca, koje je obiljezila velika kolicina jezicnog purizma i preskriptivizma u Hrvatskoj te stvaranje postjugoslavenskih drzava u kojima je pripadanje naciji predstavljalo kljuc za definiranje drzavljanstva. Istrazivanjem odnosa izmedu promjena u jezicnom i drustvenom poretku, problematiziram vise tema. Tvrdim da je zakonski okvir prava manjinskog jezika osnazio i legitimizirao nacionalisticki imaginarij, stvarajuci daljnje drustvene podjele i ucvrscujuci hijerarhije koje medu nacionalnim kategorijama promoviraju odredeni nacionalisti. Iz tog razloga, tvrdim da nekriticko odobravanje ili promoviranje lingvisticke razlicitosti mogu biti opasni. Nadalje, u aktivistickoantropoloskom smislu, razlazem moguce razloge zbog kojih su znanstvenici drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti rijetko sudjelovali u sociolingvistickim raspravama koje se ticu novog hrvatskog standardnog jezika. Tvrdim da bi takvim raspravama u znatnoj mjeri doprinijelo sudjelovanje znanstvenika humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti, jer bi se stvorila veza izmedu sociolingvistike i ostalih grana humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti te bi se tako odmaknuli od, prema mojem sudu problematicne, politike usredotocene na "identitet".

36 As mentioned by Brutt-Griffler 2002: 231 (footnote 9).

37 This kind of error has been made previously on the Left - see for example Gramsci's (2000) comments on language, which are difficult to call progressive, or the text "The Struggle for Cultured Speech" by Trotsky (Pravda, 15. 5. 1923), with which many of today's prescriptivists would happily agree in the main. See also Trudgill's lucid observations regarding how the afore-mentioned conservative Honey (1997) in many ways shares a position "with those (mostly German) Marxist linguists who espoused the 'let's empower the proletariat by giving them standard language line'", neglecting the class nature of the standard dialect. Even today, the political left frequently shows themselves to be completely oblivious to the right wing/conservative political agenda which is hidden in prescriptivism, i.e. standard language ideology (Milroy 2007), although the links are crystal clear (Kapovic 2013).

38 One well-known example is that of the American comedian Bill Cosby, when he mocked Black Americans' "ignorance of English" publically, blaming in a completely naïve way their vernacular (AAVE) for their poverty and position in society.

39 Interestingly, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 222-223) notes something similar when criticising the concept of language rights ("In constructing the solution, on the other hand, frameworks focusing on the establishment of language rights offer little to correct the systemic source of the problem."), but she does not note that this point also holds for her approach which emphasises the necessity of access to the dominant language.

40 Similarly, the bilingual public signs wri% en in Italian in Istria, Croatia are not there so that the Italian minority can understand what is wri% en on them (as all Italians in Istria know Croatian), they rather symbolically point to the minority presence and its rights in the region.

41 The bizarre fact, unknown to the wider public in Croatia, that the dialect spoken by ethnic Croats in Vukovar is in fact the Sumadija-Vojvodina dialect. This dialect is mostly spoken by ethnic Serbs in Serbia; in Croatia it is only spoken in the most Eastern parts (in Vukovar and the surrounding area), whilst in Serbia it is spoken in the majority of the North-West of the country. This explains the oft-heard anecdote from the time of the war-time exile of people from Vukovar in 1991, when speakers from other parts of Croatia were amazed that they speak "Serbian" Such examples speak volumes about the very frequent complete mismatch between linguistic reality and nationalist phantasms.

42 This is the case for example, in the town of Mostar in Herzegovina, which is divided into Western (Catholic/Croatian) and Eastern (Muslim/Bosniac) parts. It isn't the only such example in the Balkans.

43 Perhaps the most indicative example of nation building via jumbo-posters comes from the population census conducted in 2013 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), when advocators of Bosniac nationalist politics put up jumbo-posters throughout BiH, instructing Bosniacs (Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims) on how to sign the census (this is because the complexity of ethnic-religious-linguistic terminology would have led to a lot of confusion): religion - Islam, nation - Bosniac, language - Bosnian language. The perceived problem for the Bosniac nationalist programme lay in the fact that people might get confused and instead of Bosniac write Bosnian or Herzegovinian (Muslim, as an ethnic determiner from Yugoslavia, is currently totally repressed), and instead of writing the Bosnian language they might have written the Bosniac language (which would have negated their pretensions to claim the whole territory of BiH), or even worse, the Serbo-Croatian language, or possibly a label heard on the street, such as jezik (our language).

44 See Dixon's (2011: 167-187) statement that linguistics as a science (in the sense of "basic linguistic theories" and the description and analysis of language) in fact falls under the natural sciences.

45 In this way, the Croatian prescriptivist Stjepan Babic, when writing about the words (eng. sport - the first form is the common one, the second is a nationalist-prescriptivist "revived" archaism), without hesitation disapprovingly writes that for "many Croats (...) habit (...) is more important than the normal national criteria" (p. 71 in Babic, Stjepan. 2008. "Zagonetna prevlast jelovnika nad jestvenikom". Jezik55/2: 70-72).

46 The female gender is generic, for instance, in the Amazonian language jarawara, although that society, like the majority of others, is patriarchal (Dixon 2011: 14).

47 For a text on the anatomy of prescriptivism in Croatia, with numerous concrete examples, compare the current situation with Kapovic, Starcevic and Saric 2016b.

48 The TV show began in the 1980s and was on air throughout the 1980s and 1990s in the former Yugoslav region, including in Croatia.

49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztrX5dXmxU (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

50 A pun on Montenegrin, i.e. crnogorski.

51 A pun that is difficult to translate to English, based on the similarity between the Serbian phrase for "I'm sorry" ("Izvinite"), and the Croatian word for twisting ("izvinuti") (translator's note).

52 Nevertheless, Lozica considered that: "What is text in folklore studies, is just part of the texture in ethnology. The context of folklore studies (people and their lives) is the text of ethnology" (1979: 45).

53 Such an approach resulted in a crucial turning point in folklore studies, and more widely in anthropology, towards performance. Bauman considers a focus on performance to define a turning point in the "new folklore studies", which has been liberated from a focus on the traditional remnants of bygone ages "and which will be able to include a great deal more of the totality of human experiences" (Bauman 1975: 306).

54 How far the insistence on ethnically defined citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina can go was most radically revealed in 2013, when representatives of constitutive nations in the parliament could not reach an agreement over distribution of ID numbers - leaving newborns without document and possibility to travel abroad for necessary medical treatments. This lead to the large scale citizen protests across the country (subsequently labeled Bebolucija), the first one after the war in the 1990s that united citizens regardless of their ethnic background (see Mujanovic 2013).

55 The low level of prestige of Serbian dialects addressed and the absence of their conceptualization through lenses of cultural value or heritage may be related to the fact that there was no tradition oflocal/regional written idioms based on dialects prior to Karadzic's standardization - the situation very different from that in Croatia, where the new Serbo-Croatian standard was confronted by several "folk" standards (see Alexander 2002-2003).

56 See: "Valjevci i Uzicani ne prestaju se raspravljaju ko govori pravilnijim srpskim jezikom: Evo sta su presudili filolozi", http:// bulevar.b92.net/srpska-posla.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=19&nav_id=1109529 (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

57 See http://www.politika.rs/scc/danak/ 195279/Kapucino-i-Pacino-protiv-kapucina-i-Pacina (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

58For information regarding the campaign, see: http://www.bgb.rs/index.php/2011-11-14-21-00-27/n-gu-srps-i-zi (accessed 20. 3. 2016). Some responses may be found at http://pescanik.net/od-danas-pisem-neznam/, http://www.danas.rs/danasrs/kultura/ malogradjanska_normativnost_naseg_mentaliteta. 11.html?news_id=300264, http: / /www.tarzanija.com/neguj mo-srpski-jezikal-aj-ne-ovako/ (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

59 An overwhelming majority of Serbian speakers have an equally good (or equally bad) command of both and can use them interchangeably, especially in reading - o' en without even noticing, unless particular a% ention is paid. Cyrillic is taught to in the & rst year and Latin script in the second year of elementary school. In spite of protestations by Cyrillic militants and the increasing o$ cial"protection" of Cyrillic, Latin script dominates in advertising, the press, and the virtual world. " us - another paradox! - the Cyrillic lunatics may have some merit to their case a' er all.

60 A phrase which means something like "holding on to their own turf" - translator's note.

61 A controversy over Bosniak minority education in their mother tongue has been alive for some time now. While Bosniak organizations insist on the label the Bosnian language, Serbian linguists, and the overwhelming majority of public opinion, reject this as unfounded (artificial, invented, etc.) and generally ridicule the demand for separate education for Bosniak pupils. As an extreme of their magnanimity, they have proposed the term the Bosniak language instead, derived from the name of the minority (http://mondo. rs/a822776/Info/Drustvo/Odbor-za-standardizaciju-Bosanski-jezik-ne-postoji.html, accessed 20. 3. 2016). The state, for the time being, has sided with the Bosniaks (http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/index.php/yu/vesti/1118-15-godina-obelezavanja-medunarodnog-dana-maternjeg-jezika, http: //www.danas.rs/dodaci/sandzak/bosanski_jezik_na_vise_manifestacija.42.html?news_ id=316609, accessed 20. 3. 2016). Given the minimal linguistic differences involved, the subject of dispute may seem trivial. In light of the victimization of Serbian Muslims in the 1990s and their continuing vulnerable position in today's Serbia, it becomes less so.

62A parallel can be drawn here between Malkki's concept of the national mythico-history (see Malkki 1995): a collective story about a "nation" which describes and explains the nation's group characteristics and has a strong moral dimension; and the concept of "life scripts" in transactional analysis, which refer to an internalised narrative of one's future life trajectory which describes and explains certain behaviours and personality characteristics and leads to the repetition of certain behaviours, including psychological games (see Steiner 1990). On this view the mythico-history, which typically includes aspects of history as taught in school classes is key to cementing national identity through creating an individual identification with a collective narrative with a moral dimension could be viewed as "pathological" Two possibilities then emerge, completely dispensing with the mythico-history and understanding it as relating to specific historical conditions (an anti-national position), or seeking to gain some distance from it, so as not to experience it in a direct, strongly affective and less-aware manner (perhaps an approach that might be called "liberal" or "liberal left").

63 Conditions other than this, for instance on national grounds or claiming that one has to live here and only here to be able to participate, I find oppressive.

64 These points have been extensively debated in an anthropological debate on this topic, in which the anthropologist Robert Hayden (2007) accuses certain anthropologists working on the post-Yugoslav region as letting a "moral vision" based on an antinational commitment skew their understanding of how both the vast majority of people living in (and outside of) post-Yugoslav states want "their" societies to be organised.

65 Two replies (Markovic, Petrovic) have flagged up the show Top Lista Nadrealista and its satirical approach and indeed, the importance of humour as simultaneously a critique of changes to the linguistic order and a coping strategy dealing with them.

STANDARDIZACIJA HRVATSKOG JEZIKA I STVARANJE NACIONALIZIRANIH POLITICKIH SUBJEKATA KROZ JEZIK?

Pogled iz oci-ta dru-tvenih i humanistickih znanosti

Andrew Hodges

Centar za napredne studije - jugoistocna Europa, Sveuciliste u Rijeci

Ovaj se rad bavi jezicnom politikom i drustvenim promjenama koje su se dogodile u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme i nakon rata koji je trajao od 1991. do 1995. godine. Pocinjem opisom povijesne pozadine, rata i devedesetih godina 20. stoljeca, koje je obiljezila velika kolicina jezicnog purizma i preskriptivizma u Hrvatskoj te stvaranje postjugoslavenskih drzava u kojima je pripadanje naciji predstavljalo kljuc za definiranje drzavljanstva. Istrazivanjem odnosa izmedu promjena u jezicnom i drustvenom poretku, problematiziram vise tema. Tvrdim da je zakonski okvir prava manjinskog jezika osnazio i legitimizirao nacionalisticki imaginarij, stvarajuci daljnje drustvene podjele i ucvrscujuci hijerarhije koje medu nacionalnim kategorijama promoviraju odredeni nacionalisti. Iz tog razloga, tvrdim da nekriticko odobravanje ili promoviranje lingvisticke razlicitosti mogu biti opasni. Nadalje, u aktivistickoantropoloskom smislu, razlazem moguce razloge zbog kojih su znanstvenici drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti rijetko sudjelovali u sociolingvistickim raspravama koje se ticu novog hrvatskog standardnog jezika. Tvrdim da bi takvim raspravama u znatnoj mjeri doprinijelo sudjelovanje znanstvenika humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti, jer bi se stvorila veza izmedu sociolingvistike i ostalih grana humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti te bi se tako odmaknuli od, prema mojem sudu problematicne, politike usredotocene na "identitet".

Kljucne rijeci: jezicna politika, aktivizam, lingvisticka antropologija, Hrvatska

Uvod

Tokom i nakon razdoblja u Hrvatskoj poznatog pod nazivom Domovinski rat (1991. - 1995.), lingvisti i jezicni aktivisti1 bavili su se vrlo obimnim jezicnim planiranjem i stvaranjem jezicne politike s ciljem "emancipacije" standardnog jezika - koji se ranije smatrao dijelom jedinstvenog srpsko-hrvatskog jezika - od utjecaja srpskog i uspjeli su u tome dobiti medunarodnu podrsku, ukljucujuci i onu Evropske unije (EU), da se hrvatski prizna kao "jezik"2 Te su aktivnosti dobile znacajnu drustvenu podrsku, pa su rasprave o ortografiji, pravilima pisanja, gramatici i standardnom vokabularu bile javne, pri cemu je posebno isticana briga oko "pravilne" uporabe jezika, gdje su "strucnjaci" davali upute o ispravnoj uporabi jezika i raspravljali o najcescim "pogreskama" koje cine razni clanovi zajednice i to u glavnim medijima.3 Te su reforme osnazile model "monoglotskog standarda" (Silverstein 1996), koji je povijesno cest u Evropi i gdje se jezici vide kao "organizirani sustavi sa sredisnje definiranim normama, gdje svaki od njih idealno izrazava duh nacije i podrucja koje zauzima" (Gal 2006a: 163). Iz perspektive mnogih jezicnih aktivista za promicanje novog hrvatskog standarda (tj. Babic, Finka i Mogus 1984; Gluhak 1990) i dijelova drustva koji promicu takvu politiku, iz navedenog je proizasla jezicna hijerarhija izmedu standardnih i nestandardnih formi, u kojoj se mnogi nestandardni leksicki elementi i oblici, posebice oni blizi standardnom srpskom u juznoslavenskom dijalektalnom kontinuumu, smatraju manje "kulturnima".4 Na primjer, naglasak na kulturi koja oblikuje imaginarije u vezi standardizacije jezika vidi se u izjavi koju je dao jezicni aktivist za promicanje novog hrvatskog standarda iz Vojvodine u Srbiji. Na tom sam se podrucju bavio lingvistickom antropologijom, analizirajuci drustvene, politicke i jezicne posljedice poucavanja hrvatskog u Srbiji i povremeno cu se tokom rasprave vracati na ono sto sam primijetio na terenu. Vukovic zapocinje clanak naslovljen "Kako skrbiti za hrvatski jezik u Vojvodini?" diskusijom o procesima oko ceskog standardnog jezika i Praske skole (smatrane vise "zapadnom" i "srednjoevropskom"): "(...) Prazani isticu da je za odredivanje norme standardnoga jezika relevantna u prvom redu uporaba obrazovanih i kultiviranih govornika" (Vukovic 2014a: 80). Zanimljivo je uociti njegov izbor usporedbe s ceskim te naglasavanje vaznosti obrazovanja i kulture pri odabiru normi standardnog jezika.

Neki jezicni aktivisti cesto traze od ucenika u razredu da upotrebljavaju standardne oblike (i u slucajevima manje formalnih, kreativnih zadataka), a ponekad to ocekuju i od drugih, cak i u govornoj interakciji u svakodnevnim situacijama, iz cega proizlaze stalni "samoispravci" govora, koje je lingvistica Kordic (2010) kritizirala u knjizi Jezik i nacionalizam. Jos jedan primjer bio bi onaj gdje se nekoliko prijatelja koji su pohadali skolu u Zagrebu tokom 1990-ih prisjetilo kako su njihovi domaci zadaci bili znatno losije ocijenjeni ako su upotrebljavali "da li" u upitnom obliku - jer su taj oblik neki nacionalisticki orijentirani jezicni aktivisti smatrali vise "srpskim" u odnosu na preferiranu, "vise hrvatsku" alternativu.

Nenamjerna posljedica tvrdog inzistiranja na puristickim i preskriptivickim praksama jest manjak jezicnog samopouzdanja medu nastavnicima u uporabi standardnog jezika u razredu, jer strahuju da njime ne vladaju dovoljno dobro. Na primjer, po zavrsetku tecaja hrvatskog jezika koji sam pohadao na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu, otisli smo na kavu i trotoar je bio zaleden. Nastavnica ga je opisala rijecju klizavo. Jedan od ucenika upitao je nije li rijec sklisko preferirani standardni oblik. Nastavnica nije bila sigurna i tada je rekla da se brine da bi u nastavi mogla pociniti pogreske u vezi oblika koje je uputno upotrebljavati.

Takve su nametnute lingvisticke hijerarhije u izravnoj vezi s drustveno nametnutom hijerarhijom, gdje se istocniji "Drugi" (kao sto su Srbi) smatraju nizima u civilizacijskoj hijerarhiji, sto je podrobno objasnjeno terminom balkanizam (Todorova 2009) i konceptom "ugnijezdenih orijentalizama" (Bakic-Hayden 1995). Ti su procesi ukljucivali ekstreme jezicnog purizma - ciscenje jezika i preskriptivizam. Nove "hrvatske" rijeci su se ponekad izmisljale, dok su se arhaicne rijeci ugradivale u standardni jezik (to se objasnjavalo time da je standardni jezik "knjizevni jezik" - jezik knjizevnosti), gdje su novi leksicki elementi bili u uporabi u medijima da bi se izbjegli "internacionalizmi", mnogi od kojih su se povezivali sa standardnim srpskim: primjerice, uporabi rijeci avion ili aerodrom pretpostavljala se uporaba izraza zrakoplov i zracna luka. To je podrazumijevalo i minimalizaciju tudica, posebice iz jezicnih varijeteta koji su se smatrali nepozeljnim unutar balkanske kulturne hijerarhije (kao na pri3 mjer turske, gdje neki od aktivista opisuju turcizme i srbizme gotovo kao sinonime). Mnoge od tih lingvistickih praksi imale su prilicno dobar odaziv u drustvu.

Nakon sto sam prvi put stigao u Zagreb, 2008. godine, moja uporaba svakodnevnih jezicnih elemenata, obicno identificiranih kao srpskih (kesa/kesica, pecurke, dopuniti mobilni), umjesto hrvatskih (vrecica, gljive, nadoplatiti mobitel), cesto je "ispravljana" i to od strane ljudi na ulici u svakodnevnim situacijama kao sto je narucivanje hrane ili placanje na blagajni. Bitno je istaknuti da nisu svi ti pokusaji "ispravaka" vezani uz preskriptivizam. Neki (npr. pecurke) ticu se varijanata koje nikada nisu bile u uporabi u Zagrebu i koje bi zbog toga mogle biti dio korisne knjige fraza za prevodenje standardnih/kolokvijalnih srpsko-hrvatskih izraza. Ostali (npr. dopuniti mobilni) odnose se na leksicke elemente koji su se prosirili u razdoblju nakon pocetka rata, tokom kojega je bilo manje jezicnih kontakata. Neki, poput vrecica, odnose se na preskriptivisticke intervencije.

Iz navedenoga je razvidno, a tice se i konteksta mojega terenskog istrazivanja - tj. pracenja poucavanja u Hrvatskoj i u Srbiji - jest da se ideologija standardnog jezika (Milroy 2002) i praksa standardnog jezika nastavljaju i imaju znacajnu vrijednost u drustvu. Te su promjene u politici izravno povezane s nacionalnim diskurzivnim hegemonijama (Roseberry 1994) nastalima nakon nedavnog rata u kontekstu u kojemu se drzavljanstvo usko povezivalo s nacionalnom (hrvatskom) pripadnosti. Lingvisticki i marksisticki aktivist Mate Kapovic (2013) opisao je purizam kao nacionalizam izrazen jezikom, a preskriptivizam kao konzervatizam u jeziku. Te su lingvisticke prakse pratile drustvene prakse, koje ukljucuju porast nacionalistickih, konzervativnih politickih opcija i etnicko ciscenje, cija je posljedica bila prisilno migriranje ljudi i tisuce smrti.5 Ocito je da su drustvene i jezicne prakse usko povezane,6 no veza izmedu jezicnih i drustvenih pravila nije uvijek o cita i pravocrtna: na primjer, Kapovic (2011a: 85) opisuje kako "slobodno lingvisticko trziste" nema negativne posljedice na drustvo, no kao marksist nije pobornik slobodnog trzista kao drustvenog, ekonomskog izbora. Za ilustraciju nam moze posluziti i jezicna standardizacija na Korzici. Naime, lingvisticka antropologinja Alexandra Jaffe (1999) opisuje kako su dopustene znacajne jezicne varijacije koje se nazivaju "polinomijalni standard", sacinjen kao izravna opozicija jezicnoj ideologiji francuskog jezika kao monoglotskog standarda, u situaciji gdje se dva nacionalisticka strujanja (korzicki i francuski) zalazu za vrlo razlicite jezicne ideologije.

S obzirom na usku povezanost promjena u lingvistickom i drustvenom poretku, cudi me da su znanstvenici drustvenih disciplina tako malo sudjelovali u tim debatama. Prije negoli i sam interveniram, zelim pojasniti vlastitu poziciju u akademskom polju. Kao socijalni antropolog iz Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva koji zivi i radi u Hrvatskoj, moja je pozicija negdje izmedu insajdera i autsajdera, s obzirom na to da sam vecinu svog zivota kao odrastao covjek zivio i radio u Hrvatskoj/Srbiji, a u djetinjstvu s regijom nisam imao doticaja. Koncentrirajuci se na jezikom izrazeni nacionalizam, otvoren sam kritici koja se cesto pripisuje "zapadnim" komentatorima i znanstvenicima - da se previse usredotocuju na nacionalizam u evropskoj poluperiferiji i kritiziraju ga, sto moze imati orijentalizirajuci ucinak. To je posebno slucaj ako se ne zauzme stav o "nacionalizmu kod kuce" (tj. zemljama Zapada) kao problematicnom ili ako se upotrebljava nacionalni okvir kako bi se opisali dogadaji, a istodobno se kritizira politicki nacionalizam. U skladu s akademskom dosljednoscu, vjerujem da bilo koja vrsta nacionaliz5 ma moze biti opasna i svjestan sam da je on u ovom trenutku prisutan slicnim intenzitetom i u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu i u zemljama proizaslima iz bivse Jugoslavije, gdje se prava koja se pripisuju nacionalnim kategorijama upotrebljavaju kako bi se opravdale vojne intervencije u ratovima izvan Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva ili imaju ulogu u konsolidiranju rasizma me du pojedincima koji pripadaju razlicitim nacionalnim grupama, primjerice engleskim i skotskim.7

Daljnji je tekst strukturiran na sljedeci nacin: prvo ukratko opisujem povijesnu pozadinu debata u vezi sa standardnim jezikom, za citatelje koji nisu upoznati s kontekstom. Zatim se bavim pitanjem u kojem se smislu jezicna standardizacija moze smatrati drustvenim procesom. Nakon toga istrazujem siru politicku pozadinu u kojoj je doslo do promjena, sugerirajuci da je zakonski okvir prava manjinskog jezika, koji zastupa EU, konsolidirao nacionalni poredak stvari (Malkki 1992) i da nekriticko zalaganje za jezicnu razlicitost ili njezino promicanje mogu biti opasni jer mogu dati legitimitet i pojacati nacionalne podjele i s njima povezane drustvene hijerarhije. Na kraju, u aktivisticko-antropoloskom smislu izlazem moguce razloge zbog kojih znanstvenici koji su obrazovani u drustvenim i humanistickim znanostima nisu sudjelovali u sociolingvistickim debatama o novom hrvatskom standardnom jeziku.

Neke zabiljeske o nedavnim procesima standardizacije hrvatskog jezika

U vrijeme Socijalisticke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije (SFRJ) srpsko-hrvatski se smatrao jedinstvenim jezikom s istocnim i zapadnim oblicima. Neki su hrvatski jezikoslovci opetovano zahtijevali autonomnost u pokusaju otklanjanja, kako su oni to vidjeli, srpskog utjecaja na hrvatsku varijantu kao posljedicu jake politicke centralizacije u Beogradu. Takvi su napori doveli do Deklaracije o nazivu ipoloiaju hrvatskog standardnog jezika 1967. godine i do tiskanja Hrvatskog pravopisa 1971. godine. Centralni komitet Saveza komunista Hrvatske smatrao je to "nacionalistickim potezom sabotaze" koji je u pitanje doveo opstojnost Jugoslavije (Babic, Finka i Mogus 1984: iv prema Pupavac 2003: 142). Godine 1974. socijalisticko je vodstvo dopustilo sve vecu decentralizaciju i ovlasti svakoj od republika, uz planiranje jezika u vidu "standardnih jezicnih idioma" odredivanih na republickoj razini (Greenberg 2004: 23). Nakon perioda ekonomske liberalizacije, osamdesetih je godina uslijedila politicka i ekonomska kriza, dok su devedesete donijele "Domovinski rat", raspad dotadasnje SFRJ i zahtjeve za nacionalnom, jezicnom i kulturnom neovisnoscu. Nacionalni okvir tih zahtjeva doveo je do tvrdnji da je hrvatski zaseban jezik u odnosu na srpski te je doslo do temeljitih promjena u standardnom jeziku, kako bi se povecale razlike u odnosu na srpski, s posebnim naglaskom na ozivljavanje brojnih arhaizama. Sve je to bilo nastavak i, mozda, ubrzavanje procesa koji su se dogadali sredinom kasnog socijalistickog razdoblja, kada su se stvarali temelji za nedavne promjene. U doba SFRJ nacionalne su kategorije bile konsolidirane i elaborirane unutar multikulturalne logike varijanata nacionalnih (i drugih) kultura, koje su se dijelom drzale zajedno na temelju socijalisticke logike "bratstva i jedinstva". Ritam promjena pojacan je odlukom definiranja "idioma standardnog jezika" u srpskom i hrvatskom 1974. godine te nastojanjima definiranja hrvatskog jezika kao posebnog u odnosu na srpski tokom i nakon rata devedesetih. Sve je bilo popraceno obiljem jezicnog purizma i preskriptivizma u pokusaju da se standard preoblikuje kako bi se sto vise razlikovao od srpskog. U posljednje vrijeme dolazi do propitivanja uvozenja anglizama, sve u svrhu borbe protiv globalizacije (prvenstveno) americke kulture. Odredeni se koncepti i oblici globaliziraju putem medija - na primjer, dok sam radio na terenu, kolegica je opisala kako joj je jedini broj kojeg se mogla sjetiti u trenutku nevolje bio 911, tj. broj sluzbe za hitne intervencije u SAD-u. Tvrdim da se ovdje ne radi o "zaokruzenoj kulturnoj cjelini" poput "americke kulture" koja se namece drugim kulturama, na primjer "hrvatskoj kulturi", vec da se utjecaj na jezik i prijenos koncepata koji se odnose na hijerarhijske odnose moci odrzavaju kroz globalne svjetske sustave i kapitalisticku politicku ekonomiju. Upravo njih treba propitivati, a ne samo "simbolicku" dominaciju, jer nas usredotocenost na simbolicko odmice od drustvenog procesa i materijalnih odnosa proizvodnje kroz koje se stvaraju nejednakosti i hijerarhije.

Javni karakter tih rasprava odrazava tradiciju prisutnosti javnih intelektualaca u regiji, koja se zasigurno ucvrstila tokom socijalistickog razdoblja (1945. - 1991.), s obzirom na sklonost odredenih marksistickih tradicija prema akademskim krugovima (Graeber 2003). No, ti procesi i rasprave sezu u jos udaljeniju proslost, tocnije u 19. stoljece i vrijeme utjecaja njemackog romantizma na ovom prostoru. Rad pojedinaca koji su bili ukljuceni u standardizacijski proces u to doba, ukljucujuci Ljudevita Gaja (Hrvatska) i Vuka Karadzica (Srbija), i rasprave u kojima su sudjelovali i koje su iznjedrile pravac kojim je standardizacija krenula, poducavaju se u sklopu srednjoskolskih programa, sto ukljucuje i poucavanje hrvatskog na srednjoskolskoj razini u Srbiji, kojem sam i sâm svjedocio tokom svojeg lingvistickoantropoloskog terenskog istrazivanja.

Je li jezicna standardizacija drustveni proces? Zauzimanje stava

U glavnim postjugoslavenskim medijima i u nizu clanaka i knjiga jezikoslovka Snjezana Kordic (2010, 2009) iznijela je svoju cuvenu tvrdnju da srpsko-hrvatski jest jezik, na temelju "znanstvenih" kriterija medusobne razumljivosti. Kordic govori o tome da lingvisti moraju biti objektivni u procjenama toga s to moze biti smatrano jezikom i da su debate oko nedavnog standardizacijskog procesa u Hrvatskoj podbacile u tom smislu, jer su sudionici bili emocionalno involvirani u predmet vlastitih studija. Neki drugi jezikoslovci, poput Kapovica, u svojem pristupu jeziku preskriptivne pristupe opisuju kao neznanstvene, jer oni opisuju ono sto bi jezik "trebao" biti, a ne ono sto jezik "jest" (Kapovic 2011a: 14). No, u socijalnoj antropologiji postoji veliki broj studija koje kritiziraju ne samo mogucnost objektivnosti, nego i ideale objektivnosti i "znanstveni pristup" u drustvenim istrazivanjima (vidi Scheper-Hughes 1995; Green 1997). U socijalnoj se antropologiji i drustvenim studijama znanosti i tehnologije vec raspravljalo o udruzivanju tih ideala s procesima kolonijalnih osvajanja i vladavine, ukljucujuci i rasprave o ulozi znanosti u kolonijalizmu (Prakash 1999). Mnogi antropolozi koji pisu unutar angloamericke tradicije8 samim se time odricu objektivnosti kao cilja, shvacajuci saznanja socijalne antropologije kao intersubjektivno, situirano znanje (Haraway 1988). Slicni argumenti koji spajaju tvrdnje o znanstvenom polozaju lingvistike s projektima kolonijalne moci pojavili su se pri opísima povijesnog razvoja lingvistike i odnosa medu odredenim praksama - ukljucujuci standardizaciju i transkripciju govora u standardizirane jezicne sustave - onih koji su bili ukljuceni u kolonijalnu administraciju i posebno misionara, kao aktera u konstrukciji "populacija" i "naroda" kroz koje su kolonijalne vlasti pokusavale vladati, te vazne uloge koju je imao jezik i leksicki odabir napravljen u konceptualizaciji postojecih tradicija kao zaokruzenih cjelina (vidi Errington 2008; Bauman i Briggs 2003).

Dok pristup Snjezane Kordic, politicki progresivan, ne propituje uporabu etniciziranih oznacitelja (tj. srpsko-hrvatski) govoreci o "jeziku", Kapovic daje prednost stokavskom jer se ne referira na "etnicku grupu" (Kapovic 2011b). Pristup Snjezane Kordic vjerojatno odrazava njezino skolovanje u sintaksi, disciplini koja se prije svega bavi jezikom iz ocista "unutarnjeg jezika" (internal language, i-jezik), koji je prvenstveno kognitivan i psiholoski.9

Neka vrsta udaljene, nepristrane analize je, vjerujem, moguca u takvim lingvistickim poddisciplinama jer se prvenstveno bavimo vidovima jezika kao "lingvistickim cinjenicama", a ne prvenstveno kao "drustvenim cinjenicama".10 Cim pokusamo analizirati ono sto su osnovne drustvene kategorije (vanjski jezik, external language, e-jezik), kao sto su "jezici" (tj. engleski ili hrvatski) i "standardi", stvaramo argumente koji se prvenstveno bave drustvenim cinjenicama. Pateman ( 1983) tada predlaze da se cinjenice o e-jeziku mogu proucavati pomo cu metoda kao sto je Bourdieuov rad na lingvistickim trzistima (Bourdieu i Thompson 1991) i koristeci koncepte poput jezicnih ideologija, pristup kojem se i ja uglavnom priklanjam u svom radu.11

Jezicna politika EU-a: promocija nacionalnih identifikacija?

Smatram da postoje dva aspekta sadasnje politike EU-a prema manjinskim jezicima koja su problematicna: (1) usredotocenost na promociju lingvisticke razlicitosti i (2) pristup individualnih prava. U ovom se dijelu bavim tvrdnjom da spomenuto ponekad cini nevidljivima klasno bazirana pitanja jezicne uporabe te da potencijalno ucvrscuje utvrdenu razliku, a ponekad i hijerarhije izmedu nacionalno definiranih grupa. Jezicna politika EU-a jednako je vazna kao i pristup EU, kojoj se Hrvatska pridruzila u srpnju 2013., sto je bio jasan cilj hrvatskih elita iz poslijeratnog razdoblja. Pritom su dva podrucja posebno relevantna: postavljanje hrvatskog kao jednog od sluzbenih jezika EU-a i politika EU-a u vezi s pravima manjinskih jezika. Potonje se posebno tice manjine koja se identificira kao srpska u Hrvatskoj i kao hrvatska u Srbiji. Evropska povelja o regionalnim ili manjinskih jezicima sastavljena je 1992. godine,12 a njezine su ideje razvijane u kasnijim dokumentima. Primjerice, ratificirani komentar o pravima manjinskih jezika, povezan s Okvirnom konvencijom o manjinskim pravima, kaze:

Okvirna konvencija trazi da drzave promicu potpunu i ucinkovitu jednakost osoba koje pripadaju nacionalnim manjinama u svim podrucjima ekonomskog, drustvenog, politickog i kulturnog zivota. To se odnosi na pravo na jednaku pravnu zastitu i jednaku zastitu pred zakonom te pravo na zastitu od bilo kojeg oblika diskriminacije temeljene na etnickom porijeklu i drugim temeljima, ukljucujuci i jezik. (Advisory Committee 2012: 3)

Ovdje je najvaznije istaknuti da ono sto se govori ima pravni (politicki) status jezika, a ne samo jezicnog varijeteta. Kako bi hrvatski bio zasticen prema navedenim pravilima, mora biti smatran jezikom. Za one pripadnike manjina koji smatraju da su njihova "kultura" i "tradicije" dovedene u pitanje, pristup odredenim resursima povecat ce se ako je varijetet jezika kojim se sluze smatran jezikom.

"Manjinski jezik" unutar ovog Komentara, dakle, ukljucuje bilo koji od razlicitih naziva koje upotrebljavaju drzave clanice kao sto je "jezik nacionalne manjine", "jezik koji upotrebljava nacionalna manjina", "jezik osoba koje pripadaju nacionalnim manjinama", "izvorni jezik" ili "materinski jezik". Ovo ne podrazumijeva sluzbeno priznavanje kao "manjinskog jezika" od strane vlasti. (ibid.: 4)

Trece, fokus Okvirne konvencije opisuje se na sljedeci nacin:

Okvirna konvencija temelji se na pristupu koji uzima u obzir individualna prava. U tom se smislu ne usmjerava na sam jezik ili na jezicnu zajednicu, nego na govornike. Njihov komunikacijski repertoar, koji moze obuhvacati raspon lingvistickih resursa (standardnih i nestandardnih oblika jezika, dijalekata itd.), cesto se razvija tokom zivota kao rezultat interakcije i mobilnosti. (ibid.)

Navedeno je kljucno jer implicira da je u osnovi svega samoidentifikacija. Prema Konvenciji, pojedinci koji se samoidentificiraju kao Hrvati (tj. ne identificiraju se samo time sto imaju prezime koje se najcesce povezuje s time da su "etnicki Hrvati") mogu u nacelu potvrditi svoja "prava manjinskih jezika", sto je ocito neesencijalisticka definicija. Stephen May, borac za prava manjinskih jezika, tvrdi da je "uocena tendencija prema esencijalizmu u artikulacijama prava manjinskih jezika - da su jezici i identiteti uvijek cvrsto povezani" (May 2003: 96). Mayjev protuargument jest da, dok tu vrstu esencijalizma promoviraju neki zagovornici prava manjinskih jezika, neki drugi zagovornici prava manjinskih jezika, medu koje spada i on sam, smatraju esencijalisticke pristupe problematicnima. U progresivnijoj situaciji s manjinama, kao sto je ona u Baskiji (vidi Urla 2012), gdje prava manjinskih jezika imaju duboku komunikacijsku (a ne prvenstveno simbolicku dimenziju kao u slucaju hrvatskog, vidi Skiljan 2000: 8), takav bi pravni okvir bio primjereniji. No, smatram da bi, umjesto pristupa temeljenog na "identitetu" - bez obzira da li je esencijalisticki ili ne - pristup temeljen na klasnim odlikama pomogao zaobici cijeli niz problema koje stvara analiticka uporaba "identiteta" kao kategorije u drustvenim znanostima:13

Ako etnicitet, nacionalnost ili manjinski status uzmete kao jedinice analize, onda mozete zakljuciti da bi ljudi htjeli ili trebali u vlastitom interesu odrzavati materinski jezik. Ako, nasuprot tomu, uzmete klasu kao jedinicu analize, njihov interes moze diktirati naglasak na pristupu "dominantnim jezicima"... (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 225)

Iz te perspektive, jezicna politika i planiranje bi se uglavnom koncentrirali na stvaranje "jednakih mogucnosti ili izjednacenih startnih pozicija" za one koji su u nepovoljnijem polozaju s obzirom na nejednakosti koje se ticu pristupa i mogucnosti uporabe "dominantnih jezika", a ne bi koristili "pravo" pojedinca da se izrazi u jezicnom varijetetu nazvanom "materinski jezik".

Ukratko, smatram da je opce promoviranje jezicne razlicitosti u Povelji EU-a - gdje se razlicitost inherentno smatra pozitivnom i dobrom - problematicno u postjugoslavenskom kontekstu. Promicanje jezicne razlicitosti je ovdje takoder promicalo artikulaciju nacionalno definiranih kolektiviteta zbog kojih su se vodili ratovi. Promicanje jezicnih razlicitosti medu ucenicima kroz vazecu jezicnu politiku nedvojbeno igra ideolosku ulogu u nametanju sve vece jezicne i kulturne razlike izmedu srpske i hrvatske djece, ovisno, naravno, o kontekstu. Prilikom terenskog istrazivanja hrvatskog jezika u Srbiji, osim sto se srpski poucavao izdvojeno kao "strani" jezik, nisam primijetio nista sto bi upucivalo na to da ucenici prave znacajnu razliku izmedu srpskog i hrvatskog jer su redovito dolazili u dodir s oba standarda tokom nastave. Nadalje, u nastavi hrvatskog ponekad su koristeni tekstovi na srpskom jeziku (ukljucujuci cirilicne), u slucajevima kada iz razlicitih razloga nisu bili dostupni hrvatski tekstovi. Medutim, neke kolegice znanstvenice iz Zagreba opisale su kako su se njihova djeca zacudila dok su gledala televizijski program na srpskom jer su sve lako razumjela, a ocekivala su poteskoce, s obzirom na to da se srpski smatra razlicitim jezikom. Kad se kulturna udaljenost koja je usadena u ucenicki (lingvisticki) habitus koristi za stvaranje drugosti, to moze imati ozbiljne drustvene implikacije poput povecanja segregacije, sto moze ucvrstiti postojece drustvene ideologije poput nacionalizma.

Osim problematicnog okvira Povelje EU-a, vidovi povezanih diskursa su kreativno reinterpretirani od strane jezicnih aktivista u Hrvatskoj: na primjer, diskurs ljudskih prava je adaptiran tako da ukljucuje tvrdnje o "ljudskim pravima" leksickih elemenata, koji su navedeni u hrvatskom Savjetniku kako bi se opravdalo ponovno uvodenje odredenih arhaicnih jezicnih elemenata (Greenberg 2004: 124). Ta se osjetljivost odnosi na stvaranje legitimiteta za prakse koje se povezuju s novom "nacionalnom drzavom" i kao sto je Pupavac primijetila:

Borci za ljudska prava iz Amnesty Internationala, Helsinskog odbora i ostalih organizacija kritizirali su Hrvatsku sto ne postuje jezicna prava svoje manjine etnickih Srba time sto im ne omogucuje posebne jezicne uvjete. No, bi li tko zatrazio posebne jezicne uvjete za etnicke Britance u Sjedinjenim Drzavama ili obrnuto? (2003: 8)

Medunarodni pravni okvir te situacije ucvrstio je njezin nacionalisticki okvir nakon nedavnih ratova, jer "model manjinskih prava ironicno osigurava nacionalisticke deklaracije u vezi s jezikom o kojem se radi (...) [P]ristup koji zagovara prava identiteta koji su zauzeli strani diplomati, borci za ljudska prava i posrednici u sukobima nazalost ide prema ozakonjenju nacionalistickih tvrdnji o jeziku i iskljucivanja manjina" (ibid.). Zakonski okvir jezicnih prava manjina je doveo do znacajnih problema u Vukovaru, gradu u Hrvatskoj koji je bio popriste masakra hrvatskih gradana u "Domovinskom ratu". Pojedinci koji se identificiraju kao dio srpske manjine zive u gradu i oko njega i u skladu s legislativnom Evropske povelje o manjinskim jezicima postavljeni su javni natpisi na cirilici14 - pismu koje se cesto povezuje sa srpskom manjinom - sto je dovelo do prosvjeda hrvatskih ratnih veterana, koji su cekicima razbili dvojezicne ploce u rujnu 2013., a taj su potez, koji je povecao napetosti u citavoj Hrvatskoj, mediji detaljno popratili. Dok su se odredene aktivisticke grupe, poput Mreze antifasistkinja Zagreba,15 uhvatile u kostac s tom temom, do detaljnih etnografskih spoznaja o promjenama u odnosima izmedu jezika i politickih i drustvenih promjena na terenu jos nije doslo, a detaljan opis i interpretacija tih dogadaja te simbolicka znacenja koja se vezuju za Vukovar potrebna za daljnju diskusiju izvan su dosega ovog teksta.16

Nastavak debate: pogledi iz ocista drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti

Skolovanje u podrucju drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti je korisno jer pomaze u shvacanju suptilnosti odnosa izmedu jezicne politike - kao sto je opisana Povelja EU-a - i drustvenih promjena koje svakodnevno utjecu na ljude u Srbiji i Hrvatskoj. Konacno, iz svega navedenog neminovno proizlazi pitanje zbog cega se toliko mali broj sociologa i socijalnih antropologa ukljucio u ove rasprave. Pritom iskljucivo govorim o pripadnicima akademske zajednice, tj. onima koji su zaposleni na fakultetima i istrazivackim institutima. Kao objasnjenje iznosim nekoliko mogucih razloga. Prvo, znanstvenici drustvenih i humanistickih disciplina, a ciji su politicki pogledi orijentirani udesno, zadovoljili su se baviti kulturnim vidovima nacionalizma, prepustajuci jezicni vid jezikoslovcima. Istodobno, oni s lijeva su se usredotocili na druga pitanja, a jezik im se mozda cinio irelevantnom ili pak prezahtjevnom temom, kad se uzme u obzir da su cak i protuargumenti morali biti predstavljeni u prociscenom jeziku (bez obzira na to sto se to cinilo u razlicitim mjerama i s odredenim leksickim izborom koji je cesto dovodio do pretpostavki o necijoj politickoj orijentaciji i/ili "nacionalnom" podrijetlu).17 Drugo, lingvistika kao disciplina se vjerojatno smatra vise "znanstvenom" i manje otvorenom politickom utjecaju, posebno to tako vide laici, nego sto su to drustvene discipline i etnologija/antropologija, pa u tom smislu vise kotiraju u hijerarhijama akademskih ("znanstvenih") autoriteta. Kao rezultat toga, cesto se smatra da lingvisti (i znanstvenici u drugim disciplinama, ukljucujuci i one koji se bave prirodnim znanostima) posjeduju akademski autoritet da govore o drustvenim procesima i drustvenim problemima, dok znanstvenicima drustvenih disciplina i antropolozima nije dano pravo da govore o drustvenim procesima u vezi sa standardizacijom i njezinim utjecajem, osim ako nisu skolovani do neke mjere i u lingvistici.18 Kao sto sam ranije spomenuo, znanstveni autoritet koji ima lingvistika bio je koristan u ovlascivanju nacionalistickih politickih odluka koje se ticu standardnog jezika jer se to smatralo nekom vrstom znanstvene intervencije. Trece, i povezano s dosad navedenim, drustvene se znanosti smatraju politicki osjetljivijima te je moguce da je to otezalo njihovo ukljucivanje u politicke debate o jeziku tokom devedesetih, posebno kad se uzmu u obzir povijesno snazne veze s marksizmom, temom koju su cesto rabili karijeristi koji su se zeljeli prikljuciti Partiji u SFRJ. Cetvrto, osim neukljucivanja u lingvisticke debate, malo je sociologa/antropologa obavljalo empirijska lingvistickoantropoloska terenska istrazivanja. No, bilo je i iznimaka: Anita Sujoldzic je izvrsila sociolingvisticka istrazivanja analizirajuci jezicne ideologije prisutne u Istri i Dalmaciji, dok je Jadranka Grbic provela terensko istrazivanje s pojedincima koji se smatraju clanovima hrvatske manjine u Madarskoj, istrazujuci "identitet manjinske grupe" (Grbic 1994). Specificni manjak etnografskog rada o "Srbima" u Hrvatskoj i "Hrvatima" u Srbiji gotovo sigurno odrazava osjetljivost situacije u kojoj bi se u podrucju nedavno pogodenom ratom kriticki analizirale jezicne ideologije koje se koriste, kao i razliciti prioriteti onih koji imaju pristup novcanim sredstvima te visoka razina politizacije, koja se znacajno povecala od pocetka ekonomske krize s dogadajima poput onih opisanih u Vukovaru. Naposljetku, relativan manjak radova iz sfere lingvisticke antropologije vjerojatno odrazava uspostavljene tradicije. U SAD-u lingvisticka antropologija predstavlja oblik posebne specijalizacije i cesto se poducava preddiplomskim studentima kao dio cetverodijelnog antropoloskog obrazovanja (kulturna, lingvisticka, bioloska antropologija i arheologija). U Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu je stavljen jaci naglasak na drustvene odnose, a manji na "kulturu i identitet", sto u Sjedinjenim Drzavamapripada ostavstini Franza Boasa. U Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu lingvisticka se antropologija ponekad poducava kao modul unutar socijalne antropologije kao dio preddiplomskog obrazovanja, dok sociolingvistika moze ciniti dio obrazovanja na lingvistickim odsjecima. Interes za lingvisticke teme unutar socijalne antropologije u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu je sporadican, a "pitanjima veze izmedu jezika, kulture i drustva se cjelovitije bave lingvisticke konferencije" (Rampton 2007: 586). U Hrvatskoj je lingvisticka antropologija dostupna unutar nekoliko izbornih kolegija, kao dio studija antropologije i studija etnologije i kulturne antropologije u Zagrebu te studija etnologije i antropologije u Zadru, a materijal kolegija se u velikoj mjeri temelji na jakoj americkoj tradiciji. Sociolingvistika i bavljenje temama lingvisticke antropologije se takoder javlja na nekoliko filoloskih odsjeka na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu i drugim sveucilistima.

Cilj mi je potaknuti raspravu i moguca buduca bavljenja temama koje su politicki osjetljive, ali isto tako i potrebne. Smatram da se, uza sve veci vremenski odmak od dogadanja devedesetih, sve vise otvara mogucnost provodenja detaljnih istrazivanja "osjetljivih" tema. Vazni uvidi iz takvih istrazivanja i razumijevanja mogli bi dovesti u pitanje nacine razmisljanja unutar regionalne politike kao sto je Povelja EU-a, pomicuci fokus od identiteta u smjeru klase. Ukratko, postjugoslavenski je kontekst vrlo relevantna studija slucaja kad se uzmu u obzir moguce opasnosti povezane s ponekad nekriticnim promoviranjem jezicne razlicitosti u drugim kontekstima u citavoj Evropi.

I V'OMENTARI

KOMENTARI

Amelia Abercrombie

Odsjek za socijalnu antropologiju, Sveuciliste u Manchesteru

Jezicne vjestine i jezicno nasljede

Hodgesov clanak nudi svjez pogled na sjeciste politika, jezika i drustvenih znanosti. Posebno mi se svidjelo razmatranje o politickoj prirodi razdiobe (bivseg) srpsko-hrvatskog. Dok autori poput Kordic (2010) priznaju da je odcjepljenje hrvatskog jezika bilo politicki cin, cesto se ne priznaje da su sve jezicne politike i standardizacije politicke prirode, ukljucujuci i odredivanje jedinstvenog prijasnjeg srpsko-hrvatskog jezika. Hodges zakljucuje da su varijante razlicite i medusobno razumljive te da je stvaranje granica nekog jezika uvijek posljedica politika i politickih procesa. Stoga je problematicno tvrditi da je razlika izmedu srpskog i hrvatskog lingvisticke, a ne politicke prirode. Tu nije u pitanju opozicija izmedu lingvisticke i politicke razlike, jer definiranje hrvatskog (a i srpsko-hrvatskog) uvijek ukljucuje odluke o tome koje oblike treba ukljuciti, a koje iskljuciti. Inzistiranje na zajednistvu srpsko-hrvatskog moze biti pluralisticko, decentralisticko i protunacionalisticko u opreci s preskriptivistickim, puristickim i nacionalistickim inzistiranjem na hrvatskom kao posebnom jeziku, no obje su perspektive politicke. Problematicno razlikovanje politickih i lingvistickih definicija nekog jezika i posljedicno neukljucivanje strucnjaka drustvenih znanosti u nesto sto se smatra jezicnim pitanjima, posve su ociti u Hodgesovom c lanku. Sredisnji dio argumenta propituje "nekriticno odobravanje ili promidzbu jezicne razlicitosti", posebno pristupa temeljenih na etnickom identitetu kojima se sluze kreatori politike za jezicna prava, predlazuci kao mogucu alternativu pristup temeljen na klasnim polazistima. Hodges tvrdi da bi se to ticalo "pristupa i mogucnosti uporabe 'dominantnih jezika' a ne bi [se] koristil[o] 'pravo' pojedinca da se izrazi u jezicnom varijetetu nazvanom 'materinski jezik'".

Tekst se bavi pojmom hrvatskog kao "materinskog jezika", istodobno u Hrvatskoj te kao manjinskog jezika u Vojvodini. Jezicna prava temeljena na politici priznavanja identiteta problematicna su jer se reifikacijom hrvatskoga kao manjinskog jezika taj jezik postavlja kao razlicit od srpskog i u opreci s njime. Hodges opisuje postojecu diferencijaciju hrvatskog unutar balkanske hijerarhije, gdje se oblici koji su najmanje srpski smatraju najkulturnijima i najhrvatskijima. Maksimalna se diferencijacija izmedu dviju varijanti temelji na preskriptivnoj, a ne na deskriptivnoj ideji jezika, sto znaci da je uloga lingvista uputiti ljude kako da najbolje govore "njihovu" varijantu, a ne opisivati govorne oblike. Umjesto opisivanja postojecih razlika, preskriptivni pristup jezicnim razlikama podrazumijeva stvaranje i ocvrscivanje razlike te time divergencije. Medutim, Hodges objasnjava da nije rijec samo o postojanju divergencije izmedu srpskog i hrvatskog, nego i o proizvodnji "jezicne hijerarhije" izmedu standardne i nestandardne forme unutar hrvatskog. Uporaba odredenih oblika u odredenom kontekstu (npr. srpskih oblika u hrvatskom skolovanju) sve je vise stigmatizirana. Ovaj se argument moze primijeniti i na nacine na koji ti procesi mogu utjecati na druge manjinske je- zike, posebno one kojisu genetski udaljeniji od vecinskog jezika. U kontekstu drugih manjinskih jezika priznavanje njihovog manjinskog statusa znaci da oni mogu biti poucavani u skolama i upotrebljavani u institucijama, iako je vjerojatnije da ce ona varijanta koja se poducava ili se upotrebljava biti standard ili prestizna varijanta. Iako se to mijenja od slucaja do slucaja, malo je vjerojatno da manjinske nacionalnosti govore standardnim jezikom njihove domovine ili drzave, pa ce varijanta kojom se oni sluze ponovno biti postavljena u hijerarhijski odnos sa standardom kao i s jezikom zemlje-domacina. Jezik postaje manjinskim jezikom u odnosu na drzavni jezik, a govorna se varijanta u nepovoljnom smislu usporeduje sa standardom.

Kada bismo usvojili klasno utemeljen pristup jezicima, kako to predlaze Hodges, jezici bi se mogli smatrati vjestinom, a ne simbolom identiteta, i relativne prednosti i mane poucavanja jezika manjine bi se promijenile. Odnos prema jeziku kao vjestini nezaobilaznoj za zaposlenje imao bi za posljedicu to da bi ljudi trebali nauciti (i da bi im se to trebalo omoguciti) jezik koji bi im bio najkorisniji kao vjestina. Buduci da je to u vecini slucajeva standardna varijanta drzavnog jezika, to bi moglo navesti i manjine na jezicnu promjenu u korist drzavnog standarda. Druga je mogucnost da bi to znacilo ucenje prestizne ili standardne varijante manjinskog jezika usporedo s drzavnim jezikom. Za hrvatsku manjinu pristup standardnom srpskom mogao bi povecati njihove mogucnosti zaposlenja u Srbiji, dok im standardni hrvatski moze povecati tu mogucnost u Hrvatskoj. U oba slucaja, razumijevanje ne ce predstavljati problem.

Kada bi se to primijenilo na jezike (u Vojvodini) koji su genetski udaljeniji, poznavanje, na primjer, madarskog uz standardni srpski smatralo bi se dodatnom vjestinom. To pretpostavlja da grupa prvo ima pristup skolovanju na standardnoj varijanti drzavnog jezika (srpskog) i zatim dodatno nauci madarski. Njihov materinski jezik predstavlja dodatni jezik, a ne zamjenjuje drzavni jezik. No, to ne bi bio slucaj za grupe koje kompetentno ne vladaju prvo drzavnim jezikom u govoru i pismu i ciji materinski jezik nije sluzbeni u drugoj drzavi te je zbog toga manje koristan kao vjestina na trzistu rada. Ucenje npr. rusinskog ili romskog moglo bi se smatrati simbolicki vaznim, no od vrlo malo koristi kao poslovna vjestina. Priznavanje manjinskih jezika ili varijanti nece promijeniti njihov drustveni status dok god su njihova obiljezja povezana s grupama koje su u nepovoljnijem ekonomskom polozaju i stigmatizirane su u drustvu nejednakosti.

Naglasavanje pristupa vecinskom jeziku naustrb materinskog jezika znacilo bi gubitak priznavanja simbolicke funkcije manjinskog jezika u prilog vjestini koja bi bila korisna na trzistu rada. Medutim, smatram kako bi bilo korisno osvrnuti se na povijesne procese i suvremene socioekonomske strukture koje cine jedan jezik ili jednu varijantu vjestinom korisnijom za uposljavanje od druge. Manjinski jezici nisu sami po sebi manje korisni, nego su takvima postali zbog drustvene i ekonomske iskljucenosti njihovih govornika. Romski jezik, na primjer, u mnogo situacija ima malo vrijednosti u smislu vjestine jer su Romi iskljuceni kao grupa. No, poruka je opcenitija: manjinski se jezici smatraju manje vrijednima na trzistu jer su njihovi govornici strukturno u nepovoljnom polozaju, a u visejezicnoj okolini cesto je nuzno da jedan jezik postane glavni jezik medukomunikacije. Uceci vise vrednovani jezik (uz ostale vjestine), pojedinci se mogu probiti na trzistu rada, no nece do ci do promjene u sveukupnoj strukturnoj nejednakosti. Drustvene se nejednakosti protezu na daleko sire podrucje nego sto su jezicne ili neke druge vjestine. Stoga omogucavanje pristupa vjestinama koje bi pojedincima pomogle da se uzdignu na hijerarhijskoj ljestvici ne unosi promjene u samu hijerarhiju. Neki se nikada nece biti u stanju uzdici. Razliciti drustveni, ekonomski i politicki cimbenici takoder utjecu na mogucnost takvih promjena. Situacija u kojoj ljudi imaju pristup jezicnim vjestinama kako bi napredovali na drustvenoj ljestvici moze dovesti do jezicnih pro- mjena (mogu biti vezane uz drustvene i regionalne varijante ili uz strane naglaske i strane jezike) koje se smatraju odgovarajucima u odre denim poljima. Blommaert (2009) opisuje kako se razlike vrlo brzo mogu pretvoriti u nejednakost, te da karakteristike jezika koje su u jednom kontekstu na cijeni u drugome ne moraju biti. Novi oblici mogu biti prihvaceni ili neprihvaceni, no uvijek ce postojati neprihvatljivi nacini uporabe jezika. Samo promjena u strukturnoj nejednakosti i ekonomska stratifikacija etnickih grupa mogu osigurati buducnost klasnih i etnickih manjina i njihovih jezika.

Iz perspektive politike, omogucavanje pristupa dominantnom jeziku moze prouzrociti promjenu u uporabi jezika, ali ne i u strukturnoj nejednakosti. Konceptualizacija jezika kao vjestine, a ne kao nasljeda moze se proucavati i etnografski. Hodges predlaze da znanstvenici drustvenih znanosti trebaju vise intervenirati u jezicna pitanja i to se cini jednim od podrucja koje bi moglo biti posebno plodonosno u razumijevanju jezicnih promjena i jezicnih politika. Ako odredeni jezici imaju manju vrijednost na trzistu rada u odnosu na druge, ne samo da ce biti manje prestizni, vec ce roditelji imati manje poticaja da prenesu jezik svojoj djeci. Osim toga, posljedica toga da se jezik smatra vjestinom, a ne nasljedem moze biti i ta da se vise naglasava prestizna varijanta. Tako da ce ciparski Turci u Londonu uciti standardni turski (vidi Lytra 2012), dok ce se kineski ucenici prije odluciti za kantonski nego za hakka ili ce mandarinski pretpostaviti kantonskom (vidi Francis, Archer i Mau 2009). Ako se ucenje dodatnog jezika smatra vjestinom, onda se ta vjestina moze kvantificirati i standardizirati (u obliku testova i kvalifikacija) i moze se upotrijebiti za nastavak skolovanja ili za posao. S druge strane, u nekim uvjetima priznavanje moze dovesti do toga da se jezik institucionalizira tako da postaje vjestina neophodna za institucionalni rad. Na primjer, Heller (2010) smatra da se francuski jezik u Kanadi poceo vrednovati kao vjestina na radnom mjestu vise nego kao simbol frankofonskog identiteta. U tom slucaju pomak u politici je naposljetku utjecao na odnos ljudi prema jeziku.

Nacin na koji ljudi interpretiraju sto je jezik i cemu sluzi utjece na njihov jezicni izbor, kao sto je u koju ce skolu upisati djecu i hoce li ih upisati u jos koju skolu ili na dodatne satove kako bi naucili materinski jezik kao dio njihovog nasljeda ili kao vjestinu. U situaciji gdje su sva podrucja zivota podlozna birokratizaciji i marketingu, ljudi sve manje vremena i energije trose na vjestine koje nemaju trzisnu vrijednost, tako da je vjerojatnije da ce zaobici jezike nasljeda ili varijante koje nisu prestizne, u korist jezika koji se smatraju korisnom vjestinom. S obzirom na neprestane promjene na trzistu rada, vrijednost jezika ce se mijenjati u skladu s politickim promjenama i nece uvijek biti moguce predvidjeti koji ce jezik biti najkorisniji sljedecoj generaciji.

Zakljucno, Hodgesov clanak nudi zanimljivo i originalno razmatranje o jezicnoj politici u Hrvatskoj (i sire) i otvara niz zanimljivih pitanja. U komentaru sam se usredotocila na pitanje uporabe vecinskog i manjinskog jezika. Omogucavanje pristupa dominantnom jeziku clanovima nedominantnih grupa moglo bi pojedincima otvoriti mogucnost uspona na drustvenoj ljestvici, no to ne moze promijeniti sustavne nejednakosti koje vode do toga da odredena jezicna obiljezja budu privilegirana. S druge strane, obrana prava manjinskih jezika bez uzimanja u obzir razloga za njihov nepovoljan polozaj nece osigurati buducnost grupe niti jezika. Pritom je vazno shvatiti kako ljudi upotrebljavaju i odnose se prema konceptima kao sto su materinski jezik, jezik nasljeda i prema vjestini ili kvalifikaciji te kakvog to utjecaja ima na njihovu uporabu jezika. To je podrucje u kojem znanstvenici drustvenih disciplina, a posebno etnografi, mogu biti od koristi.

Marina Balazev

Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb

(De)konstrukcija nacionalnog identiteta - obrazovanje na hrvatskom u Vojvodini

Jedan od zakljucaka koje donosi Hodges jest taj da zakonski okvir manjinskih jezicnih prava u stvari potice umjesto da smiruje nacionalizam, ili kako to kaze Greenberg: "U drzavama nasljednicama Jugoslavije sporno je pitanje manjinskih jezicnih prava imalo destabilizirajuce ucinke" (Greenberg 2005: 173).

Na primjeru Srbije i obrazovanja na manjinskom jeziku (hrvatskom) vidjet cemo da problemi izlaze izvan okvira jezicnih prava, ali da jezik jest znacajan jer je jedan od uvjeta postojanja nastave na manjinskom jeziku. Obrazovanje (na jeziku vecinskog stanovnistva kao i na jeziku manjine) (re)producira esencijalisticko poimanje identiteta. Stoga smatram da uzroci napetosti nisu u poveznici izmedu jezika i nacionalnog identiteta jer takva identifikacija moze i izostati. Zato ni uklanjanje oznake nacionalnog iz naziva jezika ili uvodenje u uporabu neke "neutralne" varijante nisu garancija prestanka napetosti jer se fokus s jezika moze prebaciti na bilo koji drugi element koji bi se onda uspostavio kao oznacitelj nacionalnog identiteta te bi se toj novoj kategoriji moglo pripisati nacionalno znacenje, cime bi se ona pretvorila u tocku potenciranja Drugosti.

Identitet

Ako identitet (osobni, a kao segment osobnog i nacionalni) promatramo kao narativ (McAdams 2005) i izrazavamo ga upravo pomocu jezika, jasno je zasto se jezik cesto odabire kao njegova glavna odrednica. No, vazno ja uociti da:

a) identitet ne pociva samo na jeziku, nego na siroj drustvenoj slici koju pojedinac gradi kroz iskustvo, kao i na narativima koje proizvodi drustvo, a koje pojedinac moze ili ne mora internalizirati;

b) jezik koji se kroz iskustvo povezuje s identitetom je jezik skupine cijim dijelom pojedinac postaje kada ga progovori (uglavnom je rijec o nekom od lokalnih govora, materinskom jeziku) i kao takav ne mora uvijek biti i oznakom nacionalnog identiteta. Hoce li do toga doci, ovisi o nizu faktora kao i o tomu koliko pojedinac prepoznaje lingvisticke varijetete te kako pomocu njih oznacava dogadaje, ljude, aktivnosti koje smatra znacajnima. Jer dijalekti ne reflektiraju lingvisticke ili estetske kvalitete per se, nego su izraz drustvenih konvencija i preferencija koje izrazavaju svjesnost o statusu i prestizu onako kako to vidi govornik odredenog varijeteta (Edwards 1985: 21);

c) da bi standardni jezik postao oznakom identiteta potrebno je pounutrenje nekih od narativa koje proizvodi drustvo, a takav oblik identiteta Catells naziva legitimizirajucim (Castells prema Sujoldzic 2008: 28).

Jezik i nacionalni identitet

Kada se identitet poima esencijalisticki, jezik se (uz vjeru, kulturu itd.) smatra jednim od glavnih obiljezja nacionalnog identiteta ili, kako objasnjava Edwards, najvazniji je aspekt ljudskog jezika, osim instrumentalne i komunikacijske uloge, njegov odnos prema grupnom identitetu (Edwards 1984: 3). Primjeri u kojima se jezik smatra jednom od kljucnih sastav- nica toga inventara, odnosno kljucnim simbolom nacionalnog identiteta, cesti su, sto se vidi npr. iz napisa na stranicama Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje: "Hrvatski jezik je od svojih pocetaka, odnosno vec vise od jednoga tisucljeca, temeljni jamac ocuvanja hrvatskoga identiteta" (prema Peti-Stantic 2013: 29) ili: "Hrvatski jezik je uz hrvatsku vojsku, jamstvo hrvatske opstojnosti i samobitnosti" (Kacic prema Peti-Stantic 2013: 16).

Takvo se stanje reproducira i kroz nastavu te nastavni planovi i programi za hrvatski jezik kao glavne ciljeve navode "(...) da se izgradi i produbi osobna ucenikova svijest o ulozi jezika i umjetnosti u upoznavanju, cuvanju i razvijanju vlastitog, te u upoznavanju i postovanju tudeg kulturnog i nacionalnog identiteta" (Peti-Stantic 2013: 207). Kurikulum nastavnog predmeta Hrvatski jezik s elementima nacionalne kulture i bastine, koji se poucava u Hrvatskoj nastavi u inozemstvu, kao jedan od opcih ciljeva navodi: "Razviti pozitivan odnos i osjecaje ucenika prema hrvatskom jeziku i knjizevnosti, povijesno-kulturnoj i prirodnoj bastini Hrvatske kao zemlji podrijetla ucenika/ca i odrednicama razvoja njihova nacionalnog identiteta" (Bezen i Bosnjak 2012: 58).

Primjer Hrvatske niposto nije izolirani slucaj, nego je cest u europskim drzavama. Tako je u Poljskoj parlament donio odluku u kojoj navodi kako je "(...) poljski jezik osnovni element poljskoga nacionalnog identiteta (...)" te govori o povijesnim iskustvima "borbe protiv osvajaca i okupatora protiv poljskog jezika" te smatra nuznim "zastitu nacionalnog identiteta", a "ocuvanje kulture i njezina razvoja moguce je samo putem zastite poljskog jezika" (Czerwinski 2009: 17).

"Hrvatski jezik" i "hrvatski standardni jezik"

Poveznica izmedu jezika i identiteta nije tako jednostavna. Pod sintagmom "hrvatski jezik", prije svega u nastavi, podrazumijeva se "hrvatski standardni jezik". Da bi se narativ o standardnom jeziku kao materinskom pounutrio te standardni jezik postao jednom od odrednica nacionalnog identiteta, potrebni su izvanjski mehanizmi medu kojim je vrlo vazan i obrazovni sustav. S druge strane, sintagmom "hrvatski jezik" cesto se oznacava i "materinski jezik" sto dovodi do pogresnog izjednacavanja standardnog oblika (dogovorenog) s "materinskim" jezikom (spontano usvojenim jezikom kojom se pojedinac povezuje s odredenom zajednicom, a koji je najcesce neki od dijalekata).

Upravo je takva jednadzba - "hrvatski standardni jezik" je "materinski jezik" - u osnovi obrazovanja na hrvatskom jeziku u Srbiji. Zakonski okvir manjinskih prava ne definira koji je to "materinski" odnosno "svoj" jezik odredene manjinske zajednice. Ustavom Republike Srbije pripadnicima manjinskih naroda garantirana su prava na uporabu "svojeg" jezika: "Pripadnici nacionalne manjine imaju pravo: na izrazavanje, cuvanje, negovanje, razvijanje i javno izrazavanje nacionalne, etnicke, kulturne i verske posebnosti; na upotrebu svojih simbola na javnim mestima; na koriscenje svog jezika i pisma (...)" (UstavRepublike Srbije, clan 79). A korpus toga sto spada u "svoj" odreduju politicki predstavnici manjinske zajednice. Kroz sluzbenu uporabu (na javnim natpisima) kao i kroz manjinsku nastavu vidi se da se hrvatski standardni jezik medu Hrvatima u Vojvodini sluzbeno predstavlja kao "svoj" odnosno "materinski".

No unatoc nastavi na hrvatskom jeziku19 i drugim nastojanjima manjinske politicke elite, medu hrvatskim stanovnistvom u Srbiji identifikacija s hrvatskim standardom kao oznakom nacionalnog identiteta izostaje. To pokazuje i popis stanovnika (iz 2002. godine) prema kojemu u Vojvodini zivi 56.546 Hrvata, a samo su 21.053 osobe hrvatski navele kao materinski jezik (Vukovic 2010a: 84). Ono sto se prepoznaje kao "materinski jezik" jesu lokalni govori (medu Hrvatima su to na primjer tzv. "bunjevacka ikavica"20 i "sokacka ikavica"), koji su bili i oznakom nacionalnog identiteta i kod samih govornika, a tako su bili videni i od strane pripadnika drugih (nacionalnih) zajednica. No, zbog cestih negativnih konotacija21 (uglavnom poveznice s ruralnim) kao i zbog prestiznog statusa standarda (srpskog) mlade se generacije sluze srpskim standardom, a lokalnim govorima rijetko i to samo u sferi privatnoga. Vukovic 0 tome kaze:

Vazna je, medutim, bila i lingvisticka kultura karakteristicna za dominantnu srpsku jezicnu zajednicu, ciji je vazan segment razmjerno niska snosljivost prema nenovostokavskim i neekavskim dijalektima. Dok su u hrvatskoj lingvistickoj kulturi stavovi prema dijalektima dominantno pozitivni, sto je bez sumnje povezano s bogatom tradicijom ugledne pismenosti na mnogima od njih, u srpskoj su dijalekti u pravilu stigmatizirani kao ruralni i nazadni. (Vukovic 2010a: 91)

Kod velikog broja pojedinaca koji se identificiraju kao Hrvati te govore nekim od lokalnih (hrvatskih) govora izostaje svijest o tomu da ti govori pripadaju hrvatskom jeziku jer se s takvim podacima nisu upoznali kroz obrazovanje. Slicnost dvaju standardnih oblika (srpskog 1 hrvatskog), nepostojanje prepreka u razumijevanju, izlozenost srpskom jeziku, dijalekatska raznorodnost hrvatskih govora u Vojvodini itd. doprinose tomu da identifikacija s hrvatskim standardom izostaje.

Rad u nastavi i boravak na terenu (cetiri sam godine, od 2011. do 2015., provela u Subotici radeci kao ucitelj MZOS-a u hrvatskoj nastavi u inozemstvu kao Koordinatorica hrvatske nastave u Vojvodini) pokazali su da se hrvatski standard nije uspio etablirati kao prestizan unutar manjinske zajednice te da nema siru uporabu izvan manjinskih medija i tiska cija publika nije brojna. Hrvatski standardni jezik u Vojvodini ima simbolicku ulogu - kao jedno od ostvarenih manjinskih prava i kao okvir koji omogucuje izvodenje nastave.

Nacionalni identitet i obrazovanje

Ako izostaje identifikacija sa standardom kao jednom od odrednica nacionalnog identiteta, konstrukte identiteta treba potraziti dalje u sadrzajima koji se prenose kroz obrazovanje. Ulogu obrazovanja u izgradnji nacionalnog identiteta jasno pokazuje Nacionalni okvirni kurikulum, koji identitet smatra jednom od glavnih vrijednosti (uz znanje, solidarnost i odgovornost):

Odgoj i obrazovanje pridonose izgradnji osobnoga, kulturnoga i nacionalnoga identiteta pojedinca. Danas, u doba globalizacije, u kojemu je na djelu snazno mijesanje razlicitih kultura, svjetonazora i religija, covjek treba postati gradaninom svijeta, a pritom sacuvati svoj nacionalni identitet, svoju kulturnu, drustvenu, moralnu i duhovnu bastinu. Pritom osobito valja cuvati i razvijati hrvatski jezik te paziti na njegovu pravilnu primjenu. Odgoj i obrazovanje trebaju buditi, poticati i razvijati osobni identitet istodobno ga povezujuci s postivanjem razlicitosti. (Skupina autora 2010: 14, istaknula autorica)

U Srbiji slicne ciljeve (pr)opisuje Strategija razvoja obrazovanja u Srbiji do 2020. godine,22 koja navodi kako obrazovne potrebe Republike Srbije proistjecu iz odredenih pretpostavljenih opredjeljenja me du kojima je i "da se istrajno i posveceno cuva i neguje nacionalno kulturno naslede i identitet, razvija tolerantan i kooperativan odnos prema drugim kulturama" (str. 5) ili: "Funkcija osnovnog obrazovanja jeste da bazicno opismeni ucenike iz svih oblasti znacajnih za zivot u savremenom svetu, da razvija funkcionalna znanja, umenja, motivaciju za ucenje, stavove i vrednosti neophodne za formiranje nacionalnog i kulturnog identiteta (···Γ (str. 28).

Vaznost obrazovanja u tom kontekstu prepoznaju i manjinske zajednice u Srbiji te se, prije svega, trude ostvariti pravo na uporabu vlastitoga jezika jer im to pravo omogucuje nastavu na vlastitom jeziku, koja im dalje omogucuje konstruiranje i prenosenje narativa o vlastitom nacionalnom identitetu. Osim materinskog jezika, nastavni predmeti koji su znacajni za (re)produkciju nacionalnih sadrzaja su povijest, zemljopis, likovna kultura i glazbena kultura - upravo su to predmeti u cije udzbenike manjine u Srbiji umecu 30% vlastitog nacionalnog sadrzaja. Medutim, takav angazman izostaje kada je u pitanju hrvatska manjinska zajednica.23

Obrazovanje na hrvatskom u Srbiji i gubljenje nacionalnog identiteta

Zakon o zastiti prava i sloboda nacionalnih manjina iz 2002. omogucio je uspostavu nacionalnih saveta u Srbiji, odnosno osnivanje Hrvatskog nacionalnog vijeca (HNV) koje "predstavlja hrvatsku nacionalnu manjinu u podrucju sluzbene uporabe jezika, obrazovanja, informiranja i kulture, sudjeluje u procesu odlucivanja ili odlucuje o pitanjima iz tih podrucja i osniva ustanove iz ovih podrucja",24 a Europska povelja o regionalnim ili manjinskim jezicima jedan je od dokumenata (uz niz medudrzavnih sporazuma)25 koji stvara okvir za izvodenje nastave na manjinskim jezicima. Medudrzavni sporazumi koji se ticu nastave na manjinskim jezicima su: Sporazum izmedu Savezne vlade SR Jugoslavije i Vlade Republike Hrvatske o saradnji u oblasti kulture i prosvete te Sporazum izmedu Srbije i Crne Gore i Republike Hrvatske o zastiti prava srpske i crnogorske manjine u Republici Hrvatskoj i hrvatske manjine u Srbiji i Crnoj Gori (Grupa autora s. a.: 14). Ovlasti i odgovornosti nacionalnih vijeca propisane su zakonima i pravilnicima, a od onih koji se odnose i na obrazovanje kljucni su: Nadleznosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina, Zakon o udzbenicima, Zakon o nacionalnim savetima nacionalnih manjina i Zakon o izmenama i dopunama zakona o nacionalnim savetima nacionalnih manjina.

Vaznost obrazovanja u konstrukciji nacionalnog identiteta kao i u konstrukciji slike o Drugome znacajna je. U obrazovanju u Srbiji (u vecinskoj nastavi) postoji niz udzbenika ciji su sadrzaji vrlo problematicni upravo zbog konstrukcije negativnog Drugog. Jedan od primjera je i u udzbenikMuzicka kultura 8 u izdanju BIGZ-a, za osmi razred osnovne skole, koji u potpunosti presucuje postojanje hrvatske manjine u Srbiji cak i u dijelu koji obraduje glazbu nacionalnih manjina (Petrov i Grujic 2013: 113-123). Potpuno se isti sadrzaji nalaze u udzbeniku Glazbena kultura 8 (Petrov i Grujic 2014: 113-123).

Hrvatsko nacionalno vijece u skladu s ovlastima koje ima treba ukazati na takve sadrzaje u vecinskim udzbenicima no, umjesto toga, te iste udzbenike, 2014. godine, uvodi u hrvatsku nastavu. Tako su u udzbeniku Mozaik proslosti 8. Ud¿beník izpovijesti za osmi razred osnovne skole (koji predstavlja prijevod udzbenika Mozaikproslosti 8. Udibenik istorije za osmi razred osnovne skole, Pavlovic i Bosnie 2010) u izdanju BIGZ-a, dogadaji iz 1990-ih prikazani vrlo jednostrano, a tekstovi o Drugom svjetskom ratu Drazu Mihailovica prikazuju kao junaka (cak prije nego li je javno rehabilitiran)26 (Pavlovic i Bosnie 2014: 115, 144-148).

Do 2014. godine u hrvatskoj su se nastavi koristili udzbenici koji su uvezeni iz Hrvatske, a bili su odobreni od Ministarstva prosvete Republike Srbije. Ti su udzbenici bili odgovarajuci sadrzajem, no nisu se u potpunosti poklapali s planovima i programima. Kako je HNV inzistirao na tomu da drzava ispuni svoje obveze i osigura ucenicima hrvatskih razreda udzbenike, a Srbija je to opetovano propustala uciniti, 2014. godine HNV odlucuje rijesiti pitanje udzbenika - kako se pokazalo, na posve neadekvatan nacin. Udzbenike iz vecinske nastave HNV samo prevodi na hrvatski standardni jezik bez intervencije u sadrzaj. I dok Vijece (preko svojeg Odbora za obrazovanje) treba utjecati i na sadrzaj udzbenika "inoviranjem i obogacivanjem nastavnih sadrzaja u udzbenicima koji deo svog prostora posvecuju istoriji, umetnosti i kulturi nacionalnih manjina" (Grupa autora s. a.: 23), iz udzbenika za hrvatsku nastavu nisu uklonili problematicne sadrzaje niti su u njih unijeli 30% vlastitog nacionalnog sadrzaja. Na taj se nacin kroz obrazovanje na hrvatskom prenose sadrzaji cija je uloga konstrukcija nacionalnog identiteta - srpskog - i u potpunosti izostaje upoznavanje ucenika s bilo kakvim sadrzajem koji se odnosi na hrvatsku kulturu, tradiciju i bastinu. Ti su, sadrzajno vrlo problematicni, udzbenici, prema rijecima predsjednika HNV-a, "placeni sredstvima HNV-a, Hrvatska je platila prijevod,27 a Ministarstvo prosvete tiskanje udzbenika". Osim toga navodi: "Sve moguce procedure smo ispostovali, proveli (...) i napokon Ministarstvo prosvjete je platilo tiskanje ovih udzbenika."28 Suprotno izjavama, napravljen je cijeli niz propusta, pocevsi s izostankom recenzije udzbenika od strane HNV-a pa sve do izostanka odgovarajuceg vlastitog nacionalnog sadrzaja.29

Ta specificna situacija u kojoj se kroz obrazovanje na hrvatskom u Vojvodini prenose narativi koji konstruiraju "tud" nacionalni identitet, a vlastiti se u potpunosti zanemaruje, i to na inicijativu Hrvatskog nacionalnog vijeca, otvara dublja pitanja o nacinima na koji se okvir manjinskog obrazovanja, koji se uspostavlja preko jezicnih prava, koristi.

James Costa

Odsjek za lingvistiku / LACITO istrazivacki laboratorij, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Pariz

Vaznost proucavanja jezicne standardizacije u Europi, od Hrvatske do Skotske

Tekst Andrewa Hodgesa o pitanjima standardizacije jezika u Hrvatskoj i na Balkanu potice nas na razmisljanje ne samo o povijesnoj i drustvenoj vaznosti procesa o kojima govori, vec i o vaznosti njihova proucavanja i razumijevanja kroz prizmu antropologije. U tom je poduhvatu vrlo vazno raditi i na sto obuhvatnijem promoviranju rezultata naseg istrazivanja, iako je antropolozima, kako Hodges istice, cesto tesko postici da se njihovi glasovi cuju u javnim raspravama.

Povjesnicari i lingvisticki antropolozi cesto isticu da su jezici, kao institucije, glavna komponenta u konstruiranju povijesne moderne. Ta se veza moze iscitati u razlicitim oblicima, koje su Bauman i Briggs usustavili govoreci o dvije osnovne pozicije u vezi s jezikom u moderni kao o lockeovskoj i herderovskoj ideologiji (Bauman i Briggs 2000). Obje su ideologije pomogle raspirivanju nacionalizma, no moramo imati na umu da jezik i nacija nisu bili toliko usko povezani u pocetnim fazama francuskih ili americkih revolucionarnih projekata (Hobsbawm 1990). U fracuskom je slucaju tek kad je Revolucija kritizirana doslo do dinamike grupnosti (groupness) onih koji govore jedan jezik kao sredstva postizanja nacionalne kohezije i nadgledanja gradana. U tom smislu, iza umisljenih velicina i nacionalnih projekata jezik i dalje ostaje vrlo snazan sibolet za stvaranje grupa kako bi se odijelilo one koji u njih pripadaju od onih koji u njih ne pripadaju. Jezik je, dakle, esencijalna komponenta pitanja istosti i razlicitosti, pitanja koje standardizacijski proces, postavljajuci u zariste jezik, moze uciniti jos akutnijim. Drugim rijecima, jezicni procesi su (ili bi trebali biti) u samom srcu antropoloskog i socioloskog promisljanja.

Andrew Hodges nas poziva da razmisljamo upravo o spomenutim pitanjima i htio bih odgovoriti na njegov poziv time sto cu se, s jedne strane, pozabaviti vrstama rasprava na koje se naslanja unutar sirih sociolingvistickih okvira, a s druge, time sto cu podcrtati vaznost antropoloskih pristupa procesima vezanima za jezik na temelju vlastita terenskog istrazivanja u Skotskoj. Nadam se pokazati da je skotska situacija umnogome slicna hrvatskoj, a da razlike medu njima mozda mogu pojasniti sto se dogodilo u Hrvatskoj.

Standardizacija, nacionalizam i grupnost (groupness) u Europi

U prvom bih dijelu htio naglasiti dvosmislenost prirode standardizacije i pokazati pojedine ucinke koje je imala Europska povelja o regionalnim ili manjinskim jezicima na samu definiciju onoga sto se moze ili ne moze smatrati jezikom. Time se nadam naglasiti kako je standardizacija vrlo usko povezana s problemima koje sociolog Rogers Brubaker naziva "grupnost" (groupness), sto podrazumijeva "kontekstualno promjenjivu konceptualnu varijablu" (Brubaker 2002: 167). Rabe ci izraz grupnost, Brubaker zeli izbjeci ideju "grupe" kako bi naglasio procesnost stvaranja kolektiva koji se onda nazivaju "grupama", "nacijama", "etnicitetima" ili "identitetima". To premjesta zariste s pojasnjavanja na ono sto je potrebno pojasniti: grupe, dakle, nisu varijable pojasnjenja, vec su upravo ono cime se trebamo baviti.

Standardizacija je postala u mnogim pokretima manjinskih jezika strasilo za ptice iliti babaroga, sto i nije toliko neobicno, jer kako bi itko mogao podrzavati takav proces kad se istodobno argument! u obranu tih jezika oslanjaju na retoriku razlicitosti i tolerancije. To je donedavno bio slucaj u Skotskoj, gdje je u predgovoru knjige kratkih prica na skotskom30 priznati pisac James Robertson napisao sljedece:

U ovim pricama postoji siroka lepeza pristupa problemima skotskog pravopisa i ja ih nisam pokusavao eliminirati. Jedan argument protiv standardizacije skotskog pravopisa jest da je jedna od najjacih odlika jezika njegova fleksibilnost i njegov gotovo nerespektabilan status: pisci mu se okrecu jer im omogucuje bijeg prema jezicnom individualizmu, anarhizmu, nomadizmu i hedonizmu. Ono sto se cesto smatralo fatalnom slaboscu mozda je zapravo tajna otpornosti i opstanka tijekom cetiri stotine godina puzece anglikanizacije. Ako postoje nekonzistentnosti - da prilagodimo rijeci Walta Whitmana - pa neka, nekonzistentnosti postoje: jezik sadrzava mnozinu. (Robertson 1994: xiv)

Standardizacija priziva slike uniformnosti, cilja koji se cesto smatra nespojivim s nastojanjima unutar pokreta manjinskih jezika. No, standardizacijski procesi takoder podrazumijevaju prisutnost autoriteta koji je u stanju nametnuti i primijeniti standard te mnogih institucija koje mu mogu pribaviti neprikosnoven legitimitet.

U tom su smislu jezicni standardi tesko provedivi u nedostatku takvih autoriteta te moguce i nepozeljni jer bi mogli otkriti neke od slabosti zajednice manjinskog jezika. Proces standardizacije bi zapravo mogao omesti sam proces grupnosti, odnosno stvaranje grupe temeljene na ideji zajednickog jezika koji pobornici jezika zele promovirati.

Konacno, institucionalizacija trazi da se ideja standarda oslanja na institucije koje se ne smatraju neutralnima vec legitimnima, te koje ne pripadaju ili predstavljaju samo jedan segment drustva zanemarujuci druge. U svom sada vec nadaleko poznatom clanku lingvisticka antropologinja Kathryn Woolard (2008) suprotstavila je autenticnost za koju se smatra da manjinski jezici utjelovljuju (odnosno, njihovu sposobnost da ukazuju na mjesto, korijene, identitete itd.) anonimnosti standarda. Moze se, dakle, reci da standardi dopustaju pojavu "glasa niotkud", da citiramo tekst Gal i Woolard (1995), koje su prilagodile Nagelov (1986) koncept "pogleda niotkuda"

Nadam se da sam u ovom kratkom pregledu razlicitih koncepcija jezicnih standarda koje postoje u lingvistickoj antropologiji pokazao da standardizacija nije dobar ili los proces per se. Povijesno govoreci, standardni registri stvarali su se tijekom procesa koji je odrazavao pojavu javne sfere u Europi i poruka koju su trebali prenijeti videna je kao nacin ostvarivanja prosvjetiteljskog sna o jednakosti. No, Michael Silverstein (2003) tvrdi da su standardi, upravo zato sto se cine poput utjelovljenja neutralnosti, ustvari hegemonijski unutar hijerarhijskog poretka koji je konstrukt samog njihovog postojanja i izvora legitimiteta na koji se oslanjaju.

Standardi, stoga, imaju tendenciju odrazavanja, kao rezultata standardizacijskog procesa ili stanja prije samog procesa, jezika vladajucih elita. Oni ili postanu uobicajeni nacin izrazavanja elita, koje su privucene hijerarhijskim statusom standarda, ili su standardi vec ono sto elite govore.

Problem je u sto u tom slucaju, zbog povijesnih veza standarda s ispravnoscu, oni indeksiraju "jezik" u njegovom najciscem obliku. Varijante su onda upravo to: varijante standarda. I u skladu s time, kako bi nesto bilo jezik, odnosno predmet koji se moze opisati (ili propisati), omediti i poducavati, mora imati standard, barem prema europskom modelu. Iz toga proizlazi da su manjinski pokreti tradicionalno pokusavali promovirati standardne oblike jezika (i raspravljati o njima), bilo da iznesu tvrdnje o jezicnosti ili da dokazu koliko se njihova varijanta razlikuje od jezika od kojeg se zele distancirati. Katalonska skola sociolingvistike posebno istice potrebu stvaranja standarda (normativització), sto predstavlja kamen temeljac normativització politika koje su imale za cilj vracanje drustvenog statusa katalonskog (vidi Aracil 1965). Mnogi se primjeri ovdje mogu navesti. Valencijanisti koji tvrde da valencijski nije katalonski postavili su vlastite norme; pobornici limburskog stvorili su razlicite norme kako bi potkrijepili tvrdnje da je razlicit od nizozemskog; Kveni u sjevernoj Norveskoj rade na vlastitoj ortografiji nakon sto je norveska vlada pocetkom 21. stoljeca priznala kvenski kao poseban jezik, a ne dijalekt finskog jezika (Lane 2011); meänkieli prolazi slican proces u Svedskoj itd. Ondje gdje prijepori nisu povezani sa separatizmom, a mnogo ih je, oni predstavljaju nacine artikuliranja razlicitih pogleda na drustvo: razmislite o bretonskom, galicijskom, okcitanskom, kornvalskom itd. Lako je uvidjeti zbog cega je u Skotskoj James Robertson zelio izbjeci tu temu.

Europska povelja o regionalnim ili manjinskim jezicima igra vaznu ulogu u ovom pitanju, sto je primijetilo nekoliko istrazivaca koji rade na projektu STANDARDS na Sveucilistu u Oslu (vidi Lane 2014). Projekt, u kojem sam i sâm sudjelovao i koji se koncentrirao na standardizacijske procese kvenskog, tornedalskog (meänkieli), limburskog i skotskog, prepoznao je ulogu Povelje u stvaranju potrebe za standardizacijom. Naime, Povelja eksplicitno pokriva samo ono sto se u njoj naziva "jezicima" i iz svojih prijedloga i jurisdikcije iskljucuje ono sto naziva "dijalektima". No, s obzirom na to da svakoj drzavi prepusta definiranje onoga sto ce ukljuciti u termin "jezik", doslo je do multipliciranja takvih "jezika" Tornedalski i kvenski predstavljaju dobar primjer za to jer, kako bi bili prepoznati unutar Povelje, vlade Norveske i Svedske su ih prvo morale priznati kao jezike - a ne ih smatrati dijalektima finskog.

Kako bi bio uspjesan i kako bi izvrsio zadatak ukljucivanja glasa niotkuda, standard treba nositi osjecaj anonimnosti. Promotori standarda trebaju, stoga, osigurati brisanje razlicitih vrsta asocijacija kao sto su posebni lokaliteti, grupe ili klase ljudi, kako bi na taj nacin standard signalizirao to da predstavlja citavu naciju. Standardi trebaju indeksirati/indeksiraju nacionalnost i naciju, a ne posebne grupe i lokacije pa zato, kako bi prikrili mjesto odakle potjecu, moraju proci kroz neku vrstu procesa anonimizacije. Standard se, dakle, uvijek predstavlja kao racionalizacija vec postojeceg entiteta: nacin pisanja jezika Hrvata, nacin formaliziranja hrvatskog jezika. Standardi su, medutim, dio konstrukcije grupa, a ne njihovih reprezentacija. Standardizacija nije posljedica emancipacije Hrvata, nego je bila i jest dio nacionalnog projekta stvaranja grupa odredivanjem kriterija istosti i razlicitosti. U tom je smislu standardizacija proces od velikog interesa za antropologiju.

Skotska i vaznost jezika u drustvenim znanostima

U drugom dijelu komentara pokusat cu ukazati na vaznost procesa koji Andrew Hodges opisuje u drugim europskim kontekstima. Od 2006. godine provodim svoje terensko istrazivanje u Skotskoj i puno sam vremena u zadnjih nekoliko godina posvetio tome da pokusam razumjeti zasto je, posebno u kontekstu neposredno prije ili nakon skotskog referenduma o neovisnosti 2014. godine, standardizacijski proces zauzeo tako malo prostora u javnim raspravama. To ukazuje na navodni manjak interesa za pitanja jezika u Skotskoj, izvan marginalnog slucaja galskog. Dok je galski, keltski jezik koji se prvenstveno govori u zapadnoj Skotskoj, dobio sluzbeni status 2005., njegova promocija ni na koji nacin ne odgovara vrsti napora koji je ucinjen u Walesu, ako ostanemo unutar Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva.

Skotski je, poput galskog, priznat kao jezik od strane skotske vlade i vlade Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva u okviru Europske povelje o regionalnim ili manjinskim jezicima. To je priznanje, medutim, uglavnom simbolicno. Za razliku od galskog, skotski je jezik (ako vjerujete da je jezik) vrlo usko povezan s engleskim. Zato je status skotskog propitivan jos od, najmanje, kasnog srednjeg vijeka i nekoliko se lingvista tradicionalno opiralo dati mu potpuni status jezika (Aitken 1990). Mnogi su drugi lingvisti, medutim, prepoznali sredisnju poziciju skotskog u skotskoj literaturi, jezicnom i ideoloskom krajoliku (npr. McClure 2009). Bez obzira na to, skotski je, stogod on zapravo jest, siroko rasprostranjen u mnogim dijelovima Skotske, kako je pokazao i popis stanovnistva iz 2011. godine ili razlicita ispitivanja javnog misljenja (TNS-BMRB 2010). Ispitivanja, medutim, takoder upucuju na manjak identifikacije skotske populacije s pitanjima jezika ili s prepoznavanjem da je ono sto govore uopce jezik.

Cilj ovog kratkog prikaza nije da se kuka nad stanjem stvari, nego upravo da se podcrta cinjenica da se jezik, u principu, ne smatra vaznim dijelom skotskog javnog zivota. U najboljem slucaju, on je nesto sto treba ograniciti na privatnu sferu, stvar osobnog izbora, kojom se ne treba baviti vlada ili skolstvo. Neposredno prije referenduma o neovisnosti 2014. godine jezik je pazljivo izostavljen iz javnih debata, kao sto su izostavljena i sva kulturna pitanja. Skotski nacionalizam sebe opisuje kao gradanski a ne etnicki i skotski se nacionalisti trse naglasiti politicka i ekonomska obiljezja kako ne bi izdvojili nedavne useljenike i kako bi promovirali inkluzivni diskurs.

No, ono sto sam primijetio tijekom citave kampanje bila je sveprisutnost jezika na nacine koji nisu bili eksplicitno formulirani kao oni koji se ticu jezika. Primjerice, ljudi su se stalno ispricavali zbog toga sto ne govore pravim akcentom. Ili zbog toga sto im je akcent prejak. Ili preslab. Nadalje, prisutnost jezicnih znakova u kampanji, kao sto su "Aye" i "Naw" naljepnice na ulicama ili plakati na kucama. Zapravo, skotski je bio posvuda - no ne kao skotski, nego kao nestandardni engleski. A opet, bez obzira na to sto je bio sveprisutan u pisanom obliku, bio je intrigirajuce odsutan iz javne debate.

Zapravo, predlozio bih da je time sto je problem jezika stavljen u privatnu sferu, glas niotkuda, de facto standard, bio standardni engleski. Smatram da je to problematicno u zemlji u kojoj velik udio stanovnistva nema pristup cijelom rasponu resursa koji karakteriziraju standardni engleski; u zemlji u kojoj ucenici u nekim skolama jos uvijek bivaju ukoreni zbog toga sto ne govore pravilno - odnosno zbog toga sto ne govore standardnim engleskim jezikom. Drugim rijecima, ne baviti se pitanjima jezika moze takoder znaciti, kako i Hodges naglasava, ne baviti se pitanjima klase. Ova opazanja dovode do pitanja: sto se smatra javnom sferom u nekoj zemlji? Tko ima do nje pristup? Kako je taj pristup reguliran i preko kojih institucija? Jezik jest jedna od takvih snaznih institucija, kao sto je prije vise desetaka godina primijetio Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1991), te je nuzno u fokusu novih neovisnih drzava ili onih koje imaju zelju takvima postati. Barem onih u kojima je demokracija bitna, sto se za buducu Europu ne cini toliko ociglednim koliko je to bilo prije dvadesetak godina.

Iskrena procjena jezika i javne sfere, jezicnih resursa potrebnih da bi se uslo u spomenutu javnu sferu, preduvjet je demokratskog zivota. Jednako iskrena procjena tendencije nacionalnih drzava modernih vremena da fetisiziraju jezik i pridaju mu kvazibozanski status (zar nije receno da jezici imaju genealogije, izvore, porodice, sestrinske jezike, da zive i umiru?) je, medutim, od jednake vaznosti. U Skotskoj kao i u Hrvatskoj oni koji su najbolje pripremljeni za sudjelovanje u takvim diskusijama su, najvjerojatnije, antropolozi i sociolozi.

Mate Kapovic

Odsjek za lingvistiku, Filozofski fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu

Jezik, lingvistika, nacionalizam i znanost

Jezik i nacionalizam

Nacionalizam se u progresivnim politickim ideologijama uglavnom promatra u negativnom svjetlu. Pa ipak, na politickoj se ljevici u pravilu osuduje ekstremni nacionalizam jedne Nacionalne fronte u Francuskoj ili Jobbika u Madarskoj, dok se uglavnom sa simpatijama gleda na palestinski ili kurdski (progresivni) nacionalizam na Bliskom istoku. Jos od rane revolucionarne Rusije preko niza narodnooslobodilackih pokreta, koji su cesto bili istovremeno i socijalisticki, u Trecem svijetu nakon Drugog svjetskog rata tu, dakle, imamo dijalekticki odnos internacio nalizma i (lenjinistickog) prava na nacionalno samoodredenje (ponajprije u situacijama realne podredenosti odredenih etnickih skupina).

Shodno tome, na razlicit se nacin moze promatrati npr. kurdski nacionalizam u Turskoj i suvremeni hrvatski nacionalizam u Hrvatskoj (i usporedivi nacionalizam vecinskih naroda u evropskim nacionalnim drzavama). U slucajevima poput prvoga je posrijedi realno ugrozavanje i potlacenost odredene (obicno manjinske, a uvijek politicki slabije)31 drustvene zajednice na osnovi jezika, vjere, obicajâ, etniciteta itd., gdje je nacionalizam obrambenog i oslobodilackog karaktera, dok je u drugom slucaju rijec o vecinskom nacionalizmu, koji se obicno - simbolicki ili realno - definira iz pozicije nadmoci i opresije (u okvirima svojih granica) u odnosu prema unutrasnjim manjinskim etnijama, susjednim nacijama, (bliskoistocnim) imigrantima i sl.

Takva se situacija moze preslikati i na jezik. U Turskoj su, primjerice, cak i sama slova x, y, w do 2013. bila zabranjena jer se upotrebljavaju u pisanju kurdskoga ali ne i turskoga. Takve zabrane, formalne ili prakticne, da se govori i pise odredenim jezikom nisu u povijesti bile rijetkost, ponajmanje u zemljama koje danas predvode "demokratski svijet" kao sto su Francuska, Kanada ili Australija. Borba protiv takvih zabrana je svakako dio i pojedinih nacionalistickih projekata (ovdje kurdskoga), no fenomen je potpuno razlicit od emanacije jezicnog nacionalizma primjerice u Hrvatskoj, koji se ispoljava, medu ostalim, u tome da se u jeziku provodi, uvelike i u siroj jezicnoj zajednici normalizirana, politika jezicnog purizma, ekvivalenta etnickog ciscenja u jeziku (Kapovic 2013: 392).32 Iz perspektive lingvistickog aktivizma, koji se ne zadrzava na pukom opisu i analizi jezika, nego ulazi i u vrijednosne sudove na razini odnosa jezika i drustva, u slucajevima poput kurdskoga se osuduje diskriminacija i opresija nad jezicima, dok se u slucajevima poput drugoga kritizira nacionalisticka ksenofobija koja stoji u pozadini puristickih projekata.

Sto se tice pitanja manjinskih i ugrozenih jezika i nacionalistickog pristupa jeziku, istina je da se interesi govornikâ i govornih zajednica iz perspektive vertikalnog napredovanja u drustvu nikako ne moraju poklapati s ocuvanjem pojedinog manjinskog/ugrozenog jezika. Napustanje (bilo da je ono potpuno, bilo da se radi o iskljucivoj upotrebi drugog jezika u nekim kontekstima) manjinskog jezika moze doista pomoci pojedincima ili zajednicama u ekonomskom smislu - usp. vec citirano Brutt-Griffler 2002, za razliku od Phillipson 1992, 2009; Kontra, Phillipson, Skutnabb-Kangas i Várady 1999, koji zagovaraju koncept jezicnih prava, proizaslih kao odgovor na, kolonijalisticki i neokolonijalisticki, jezicni imperijalizam.33 Medutim, unatoc opravdanim kritikamakoncepta jezicnihprava (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 220-230), tu treba napomenuti nekoliko stvarî. To sto ce Romiu Hrvatskoj savrseno nauciti hrvatski tesko da ce rijesiti sve njihove probleme, kao sto ni siromasnim crncima u SAD-u savrseno nauceni bjelacki engleski takoder nece nuzno pribaviti izlazak iz geta.34 Takav je pristup, uostalom, tesko nazvati klasnim (kako se to cini u Brutt-Griffler 2002) - moze li se klasnim nazivati inzistiranje da nizi slojevi bespogovorno usvoje varijetet visih slojeva?35 Kako je to tocno razlicito od toga da nizi slojevi usvoje i druge vrijednosti vladajuce klase (a koje, jasno, odrazavaju materijalne interese klase kojoj pripadaju)? Prihvacanje narativa po kojem je rjesenje u tome da potlaceni slojevi (ili zajednice koje govore drugim jezikom) prihvate kôd onih koji ih tlace uvelike su ideoloski promaseni (sto, naravno, ne znaci da bi se trebalo u praksi zalagati protiv ucenja standardnog dijalekta ili dominantnih jezika poput engleskog u skolama). Tu je zapravo rijec o nesvjesnom internaliziranju liberalnog ideologema po kojem je uspjeh svima nadohvat ruke samo ako se dovoljno potrude,36 kao i o liberalnoj individualizaciji sistemskih problema. Stvar je u tome da jezicna potlacenost (bilo da se radi o sociolektima ili dijalektima istoga jezika ili o razlicitim jezicima) ne nastaje u vakuumu i ne cini problem sama za sebe - ona proistjece iz samog klasnog drustva i nejednakosti i jedini nacin da jezicne nejednakosti nestane nije u usvajanju jezika onih na vrhu, nego u politickoj eliminaciji drustvene nejednakosti (sto je, jasno, problem sasvim drugog ranga od uspjeha nekolicine pojedinaca da se probiju do vrha iz nizih slojeva, usput usvajajuci prestizni idiom visih slojeva). Rjesenje nije u jeziku nego izvan njega - bez promjenâ u drustvu ne moze biti ni promjenâ u jeziku jer je jezik, kao drustvena preslika, samo odraz drustva.37 Ako je drustvo klasno stratificirano, to ce se nuzno s vremenom odraziti i u jeziku i iluzorno je misliti da ce se nesto promijeniti poticanjem klasno potlacenih na usvajanje idioma vladajuce klase (kad bi se to i teoretski dogodilo u potpunosti, izvan jezika promjenâ ne bi bilo, a i nesumnjivo bi razmjerno brzo nastale nove razlike).

Cinjenica je da jezici igraju vrlo bitnu ulogu u formiranju etnicitetâ. Medutim, isto tako je cinjenica da razliciti jezici postoje (koliko god definicija jezika bila problematicna i uvijek bar donekle i politicki uvjetovana) i neovisno o postojanju etnickih grupa i nacionalizma. Ako govorimo o jezicnimpravima (u kojem god smislu), lingvistika bi tu trebala inzistirati na jeziku i ne povezivati ga automatski s "nacijom" (kao imaginarnom zajednicom - Anderson 2006), koliko god to bilo isprepleteno. Svatko bi trebao imati pravo slobodno govoriti svojim jezikom (dijalektom, sociolektom...) bez obzira na njegov status. Lingvisti nikako ne bi smjeli ostajati "neutralnima" u situacijama kada se nekome brani da govori svojim jezikom, kada se brani uvodenje odredenog jezika u obrazovanje ili sluzbenu upotrebu i sl. No isto tako ne bi nikome smjeli nametati da posto-poto moraju ocuvati svoj idiom (jezik, dijalekt ili sociolekt). Zadaca je lingvistâ da jezik opisu i analiziraju te da govornicima pomognu ako ih ovi za to zamole (pisanjem udzbenikâ, pomocu sa sluzbenim priznavanjem jezika i sl.) - ali nije na lingvistima da odreduju govornicima bi li i kako odredenim idiomom trebali govoriti, niti oni tu zapravo mogu puno utjecati. Strucna zelja lingvistâ da se jezicna raznolikost ocuva (kako bi je oni mogli proucavati) ne smije nikako ici na s tetu samih govornika tih jezika (Kapovic 2011a: 96-98). Isto tako, lingvisti bi trebali drustvenim zajednicama pomoci, koliko to mogu, da dobiju pristup dominantnom jeziku ili varijanti (nasuprot onome sto tvrdi Skutnabb-Kangas 2000: 499), koliko god dominantnost toga jezika bila plod konkretnih drustve no-p oliticko -povijesnih okolnosti i sve samo ne neutralna.

Inzistiranje na okviru manjinskih jezicnih prava svakako moze povratno legitimizirati etnicke podjele i negativnosti koje uz njih redovno idu (od klasne nejednakosti do etnickih sukoba). Jedan je takav primjer sukob oko cirilicnih natpisa u Vukovaru u Hrvatskoj, poceo 2013. i nastavljen kasnije manjim intenzitetom. Vukovar je grad koji su srpske snage u ratu 1991. zauzele od hrvatskih snaga uz velika razaranja i ubijanje. U gradu, koji se nalazi u Hrvatskoj ali na samoj granici sa Srbijom, danas zivi hrvatska vecina (57%), uz znacajnu srpsku manjinu (skoro 35%). Prema zakonu, to Srbima u Vukovaru daje pravo na sluzbenu upotrebu manjinskog jezika, sto se u praksi svodi na postojanje cirilicnih natpisa (s obzirom da su razlike izmedu hrvatskog i srpskog standarda vise-manje slicne onima izmedu britanskog i americkog engleskog - Kapovic 2011a: 142-143, 2011b: 53), a sto je onda, ponajprije poticano odozgo iz politikantskih razloga, dovelo do razbijanja cirilicnih ploca cekicima od grupe hrvatskih ratnih veterana. Naravno, ti natpisi su cisto simbolickog (a ne komunikacijskog) karaktera s obzirom da cak i Srbi u Srbiji vrlo cesto uz cirilicu upotrebljavaju i latinicu.38 Neke su javne intervencije isle u smjeru toga da cirilicni natpisi nisu potrebni jer je rijec o istom (srpskohrvatskom) jeziku, no to je promaseno argumentiranje. Cinjenica da odre deni varijetet nije poseban jezik nema nikakve veze s javnim natpisima - u Hrvatskoj u nekim mjestima postoje i dijalektalni javni natpisi, a cak i da ne postoje nema razloga zasto to ne bi bilo moguce ako neka lokalna zajednica to zeli (opet iz simbolickih razloga). Posve je jasno da cirilicni javni natpisi nisu tu zato sto Srbi govore potpuno drugi jezik od Hrvatâ, nego kao simbol njihovih manjinskih prava i prisutnosti na odredenom podrucju. To je, dakle, stvar politike a ne lingvistike. S druge strane, jednako je tako fakt da takvi dvostruki natpisi takoder, osim sto su vizualni simbol manjinskih (etnickih pa onda i jezicnih) prava, istovremeno i povratno djeluju tako sto osnazuju etnicke podjele. Jos je gori primjer toga u Vukovaru (ali i npr. u Bosni i Hercegovini) segregacija djece s obzirom na "jezik", gdje postivanje manjinskih/etnickih prava (preslikano na jezicne razlike - koje su neznatne na razini standardnih, nacionalisticki zasnovanih, dijalekata, a u praksi na razini lokalnih zajednica vrlo cesto i potpuno nepostojece)39 sa sobom nosi razdvajanje osnovnoskolske djece, sto onda u praksi onemogucuje ikakav zajednicki zivot. Iako je, dakle, istina da primjena manjinskih (etnickih/ jezicnih) prava istovremeno i produbljuje i ucvrscuje etnicke razlike (npr. u vidu segregacije u skolama i inace),40 etnicki sukobi se ne mogu rijesiti pukim ignoriranjem realno postojecih razlika, ma koliko etnicki identiteti bili i dalje aktivno poticani i planski izgradivani odozgo,41 nego tako da se eventualno nadidu kroz nad- ili cak post-etnicko pristajanje uz drugu vrstu politickih projekata - ponajprije klasnih i internacionalistickih. U praksi bi u sadasnjosti u takvim primjerima rjesenje eventualno bilo u tome da ucenici zajednicki, u istim razredima, uce i o svojem i o drugom jeziku (ili "jeziku") i kulturi, no to je u praksi tesko ostvarivo s obzirom na hegemoniju politickih elita koje od etnickih podjela zive.

Lingvistika i znanstvenost

U socijalnoj se antropologiji cesto upozorava na nemogucnost objektivnosti i "znanstvenog pristupa" kao takvog u drustvenim istrazivanjima, sto bi onda potencijalno vrijedilo i za lingvistiku. Pa ipak, u najmanju je ruku upitno moze li relativizacije biti o nekim osnovnim lingvistickim spoznajama o jeziku42 - npr. o tome da se jezik mijenja, a da se ne kvari (usp. npr. Aitchison 2001), ili da su svi jezici jednako vrijedni i da nema "boljih" i "losijih" rijeci, oblika i znacenja (a sto se zapravo moze izvesti vec i iz de Saussureovih postavaka o arbitrarnosti jezicnog znaka). Takve su znanstvene spoznaje o jeziku otvorene relativizaciji jednako kao i spoznaje drugih znanosti o gravitaciji, atomima ili bakterijama. Slicno tome, ako se kreacionizam, astrologija, rasizam ili frenologija mogu kritizirati kao neznanstveni fenomeni, onda je to moguce i u slucaju preskriptivizma i purizma u jeziku.

S druge strane, jasno je da je svaki izbor - pa tako i onaj hocemo li npr. pretpostaviti znanstvene spoznaje "nacionalnom osjecaju"43 - ideoloski, isto kao sto je ideoloski izbor i to hocemo li npr., kao lingvisti, zagovarati elitisticki ili egalitaran pristup jeziku (a onda i drustvu). Preskriptivizam i purizam se mogu kritizirati i iz znanstvene perspektive - kao pogledi na jezik koji nemaju temelja u recenim znanstvenim spoznajama o jeziku - ali i ideoloski/ politicki, kao desni politicki projekt u jeziku koji potice autoritarnost, hijerarhiziranost, elitizam, ksenofobiju i nacionalizam (Kapovic 2013: 398).

Gledano iz perspektive samog jezika i cistog gramatickog opisa isto je tako sigurno da ni feministicki zahvati u jezik (poput, recimo, novije upotrebe engleskog they za prijasnje genericko he, kada se misli i na muskarce i na zene) nisu znanstveni - znanstvenih zahvata u jeziku po samoj definiciji ni ne moze biti - nego politicki. Pitanje je samo smatramo li odredene ideolosko-politicke intervencije u jeziku opravdanima (ako su npr. u sluzbi ostvarivanja rodne jednakosti) ili ne (ako su npr. ksenofobne). Iz perspektive samog jezika i lingvistike (kao osnovnog seta metodâ i teorijâ koje nam sluze u jezicnom opisu i analizama) ne moze se, primjerice, reci da je dobro ili lose to sto je u vecini jezikâ muski rod genericki, kao sto ni to sto je u rjedim slucajevima zenski rod genericki ne jamci zenama bolji polozaj u drustvu.44 Hocemo li inzistirati, primjerice, na upotrebi izrazâ poput studentice i studenti umjesto samo studenti je, stoga, pitanje politicke odluke. Pri cemu je bitna razlika i u tome sto se u progresivnim zahvatima u jezik - bilo da su oni feministicki ili da je rijec o pitanjima politicke korektnosti (npr. da se rijec cigani ne upotrebljava kao uvreda) - u principu nikada ne poseze za pretvaranjem da je rijec o nekakvim znanstvenim (a ne politickim) temeljima takvih zahvata u jezik/diskurs. To ne stoji i za preskriptivizam, koji se u pravilu uvijek, bar implicitno, pravda toboze znanstvenim/lingvistickim razlozima, a u zemljama poput Hrvatske preskriptivisti svoj "autoritet" (koji im toboze daje pravo da sami odlucuju o tome sto je u jeziku "pravilno" a sto ne)45 vrlo cesto pravdaju svojim formalnim lingvistickim obrazovanjem ili pozicijom na fakultetu (u Hrvatskoj se tu u pravilu radi o kroatistima). U konacnici, i preskriptivizam bi teoretski mogao biti dobar (u smislu da je koristan za jezicnu/drustvenu zajednicu), iako je neznanstven (iz pozicije lingvistike, tj. promatranja nacina na koji jezik stvarno funkcionira), kad bi njegovi, iako neznanstveni, zahvati uradali dobrim rezultatima po drustvo - medutim, stvar je u tome da takvi zahvati, osim sto nemaju utemeljenja u nacinu funkcioniranja jezika kao takvog (prema onome sto je o tome otkrila lingvistika kao znanost o jeziku), promoviraju, kako vec rekosmo, ne neke pozitivne posljedice po zajednicu nego elitizam, autoritarnost, nekriticnost, nesigurnost, strah od jezika, oduzimanje demokratskog legitimiteta pojedincima (npr. slabije obrazovanima, koji ne znaju "pravilno" govoriti pa se onda ne usuduju govoriti u javnosti) itd. U svakom slucaju, kada se govori o intervencijama u jeziku (bile one progresivne ili reakcionarne), treba imati na umu da su one uvijek ideoloske/ politicke, kao i argumenti za njih.

Jelena Markovic

Institut za etnologijui folkloristiku, Zagreb

Ocisceno u prijevodu: Jezik u "malim pricama" s pocetka 1990-ih

Kada bi se skecom kao zanrom mogle legitimno i akademski ovjereno komunicirati ideje koje primarno pripadaju znanstvenom diskursu i koje su kriticki komentari drustvene stvarnosti, odnosno kada bi skec sa svim svojim komunikacijskim kanalima, potencijalom njegovih podtekstova i integriranim podzanrovima bio priznat kao pandan znanstvenoj argumentaciji, komentar na tekst Andrewa Hodgesa ili bar na jedan njegov dio o grubim i jeziku neimanentnim preradama s pocetka 1990-ih, ali i komentar na inflaciju pozornosti koju je jezik privukao, mogao bi biti jedan od skeceva iz sarajevskog humoristickog serijala Top lista nadrealista.46 Dakle, kada bi zanr komentara na znanstveni tekst ili zanr etnografskog opisa i/ili kritickog osvrta na zivljenu stvarnost bio na neki nacin kompatibilan sa skecom, gotovo da bi bilo dovoljno kao komentar na veliki dio priloga priloziti link na skec koji je naslovljen Jezici.47

U skecu, uvodno, voditelj emisije o jeziku najavljuje svoga sugovornika. Na stolu je niz knjiga i rjecnika. Gost emisije djeluje nadmeno.

Voditelj: "Postovani gledaoci, sve ovo sto nas je uzburkalo, uzburkalo je i knjizevnost i nauku i lingvistiku. Zato smo mi otisli u Cajnice na Institut za jezik, knjizevnost, malu privredu i telekomunikacije (.) I doveli smo doktora Nermina Padeza".

Profesor Padez: "...profesora doktora Nermina Padeza s Instituta za jezik, knjizevnost, malu privredu i telekomunikacije iz Cajnica. Naime, mi smo, u sastavu prof. dr. Nenad Zamjenica i prof. dr. gospodin Stjepan Zarez, dosli do epohalnog otkrica da je u stvari u lingvistici. Naime, ne postoji jedan jezik koji se do sada neprecizno nazivao srpsko-hrvatski, odnosno, hrvatsko-srpski jezik, vec se radi o sest razlicitih jezika. Naime, radi se o sest jezika se radi. O srpskom, hrvatskom, bosanskom, hercegovackom, crnskom i gorskom jeziku. Da bih gledaocima pojasnio stvar, najbolje da uzmemo jedan primjer. U lingvistici inace primjeri najbolje rade na primjerima. Imamo jedan primjer proste recenice gdje ima samo subjekat i predikat, recenice koja glasi: Ja citam. To je na srpskom jeziku. Jel? Na hrvatskom se ova recenica govori potpuno drugacije. Kaze se: Ja citam. Dok je bosanski jezik, medutim, potpuno drugaciji od ove prve dvije varijante i ovo se na bosanskom jeziku kaze: Ja citam. Ali, hercegovacki jezik je zanimljiv jer je slican bosanskom jeziku i ima mnogo slicnih, skoro istih semantickih konotacija te se ova recenica na hercegovackom jeziku kaze: Ja citam. Dok je crnski jezik mozda i najinteresantniji od svih jezika. Naime, na crnskom jeziku se ova recenica kaze .Ja mislim da nema sanse da pogodite kako se to kaze. (...) Na crnskom se kaze, pazite dobro, pazite dobro: Ja citam. Dok je gorski jezik potpuno drugaciji od svih ovih varijanti i na gorskom jeziku se ova recenica kaze . kaze . kaze . (...) Ja citam".

Ideja da se opisanim skecom komentira odnos jezika i politike cini mi se primamljivom i zbog osobnog stava da se ta pitanja ne daju braniti uobicajenim argumentacijskim izvodima koje koriste primjerice lingvisti, kulturni antropolozi, folkloristi i sl. jer su gurnuti u sferu cesto iracionalnog zastupanja voljene teze, poziranja u korist vlastite neutralnosti i objektivnosti (sto dakako ne znaci da neki lingvisti i antropolozi nisu ponudili valjane znanstvene teze, ideje i argumentacije).

Prema svemu sudeci, skec nece moci figurirati kao cjeloviti komentar dijelu teksta Hodgesa, premda svojom specificnom poetikom ne samo da otvara mnoga pitanja, nego brojne aspekte odnosa jezika, znanosti, politike i trzista neupitno razotkriva i to na ogoljeli, razumljiv nacin, dodanom vrijednoscu humora. Unatoc tome, skec ce ovdje posluziti kao primjer kako se politicke ideje prelijevaju i posreduju jezikom i kroz jezik, kako znanost funkcionira i kao sluga i kao oponent vladajucim idejama te kako se pitanja jezika prelijevaju u svakodnevnu komunikaciju i popularnu kulturu, sto drzim najzanimljivijim iz perspektive etnologije, kulturne antropologije i folkloristike. Drugim rijecima, kada bi spomenuti skec preveli u neku znanstvenu konstataciju, mogli bismo reci da smo 1990-ih svjedocili "preslikavanju nekih pojava iz drustva i politike u jezik" (Kapovic 2011a: 12).

U akademskom djelovanju posebice lingvista prepoznato je niz pravaca, svjetonazorskih i uze lingvistickih ideja koje problematiziraju pitanja jezika i politike. Brojne su polemike koje je Hodges spomenuo u svom tekstu pa ih ne treba ovdje ponavljati. Ta se lingvistic46 ka rasprava s identicnim polaznim tockama, ali s teze predvidivim odjecima i posljedicama preslikava u jezicno i narativno oblikovanje svakodnevice. Dok akademski radnici primarno proizvode studije, clanke, rjecnike u koje je utkan cijeli spektar lingvistickih i politickih ideja koje su i uzrokom i posljedicom drustvenih odnosa, djelovanje amaterskih "cistaca" jezika vrlo eksplicitno proizvodi i reflektira nelagodu i drustvenu napetost. Oni najcesce prisvajaju jezik i zastupaju ideje koje su u lingvistici prepoznate kao jezicni purizam i preskriptivizam. Kao sto mnogi mogu posvjedociti, ulogu "cuvara jezika" 1990-ih u Hrvatskoj nisu preuzele samo obrazovne institucije, javni mediji, znanstveni ovjerovitelji, vec je jezik u skladu s politickom dominantom "cuvala" "ulica". Hodges je spomenuo neke primjere prelijevanja jezicnih pitanja u svakodnevicu. Medutim, njih je 1990-ih godina bilo toliko da bi bilo moguce napraviti cijelu studiju o ulicnom jezikoslovnom amaterizmu, ali i o jednom posve novom humornom podzanru kojemu je cilj ismijavanje purizma i preskriptivizma, sto uostalom pokazuje i spomenuti skec. Njega bi bilo moguce promatrati u kontekstu poetike otpora, narativnog preoblikovanja osobnog iskustva u humoristicnu pricu ili sl. Dakle, ulogu jezicnih "ulicnih" preskriptora preuzeli su pojedinci amateri. Svakodnevica je bila mjestom realizacije siroko prihvacenog projekta "ciscenja" i discipliniranja jezika. Radi ilustracije, navest cu dva primjera. U kraju iz kojega sam se kao studentica preselila u Zagreb za slatki kolac od dizanog tijesta przenog u ulju koristi se rijec krofna. Kada sam sredinom 1990-ih u zagrebackoj pekari zatrazila krofnu, prodavacica mi je, iako su krofne stajale ispred mene, rekla da krofne nemaju. "Mozda ih eventualno imaju u Srbiji", rekla je. Njoj je krofna, iako rijec germanskog podrijetla koju smo koristili u Istri, zvucala kao srbizam. Takoder, svjedocila sam ranih devedesetih situaciji ulicne prepirke koja je zapocela tako da se jedan prolaznik drugome, nakon sto su se sudarili, ispricao rekavsi: "Izvinite", na sto mu je drugi odgovorio: "Izvinem ti ruku, budalo. Kaze se: Oprosti." Njegovo negodovanje bilo je takoder, kao u prvom slucaju, potaknuto nepozeljnim izborom rijeci sugovornika.

Sto nam ti primjeri govore o djelokrugu, kompetencijama i interesima pojedinih znanstvenih disciplina, ponajprije etnologije (i/ili kulturne antropologije) i folkloristike? Odgovor na to pitanje mogu ovdje tek naznaciti. Naime, Hodges se pita zasto su istrazivaci nelingvisti u Hrvatskoj rijetko sudjelovali u "sociolingvistickim debatama koje se ticu novog hrvatskog standarda". Jedini suvisao odgovor mogao bi biti: Nisu jer nisu. Vaznije je pitanje, cini mi se, kako su to hipotetski mogli uciniti. Ako nismo osporavatelji barem emske (samo)prepoznatljivosti etnologije, kulturne antropologije i folkloristike (sa svim pripadajucim i/ili formama, usp. Prica 2001) i to na razini specificnosti metodologija (odnosno njezinog razumijevanja) i istrazivackog fokusa te ako ne zaziremo od svojevrsne tjesnoce disciplinarnih ladica, i dalje mozemo valjanim drzati Lozicino tumacenje razlikovanja disciplina u kojemu (re)interpretira Dundesova promisljanja teksture, teksta i konteksta (Lozica 1979). Drzimo li je valjanom, onda bismo mogli, iako ne bez ostatka, lingvistiku, odnosno njezin primarni fokus, pa ako hocemo i metodologiju, smjestiti u spomenutu Lozicinu shemu48 i to tako da kazemo da ono sto je za lingvistiku tekst, za folkloristiku je tek tekstura, a za etnologiju (i/ili kulturnu antropologiju) niti to. Ta udaljenost fokusa nikako nije nepremostiva, ali je i dalje udaljenost. Mjesta priblizavanja neosporno ima. Sedamdesetih godina prosloga stoljeca u lingvistickim istrazivanjima zapocinje ozbiljnije premjestanje fokusa s jezika na komunikacijski proces, a folkloristika premjesta naglasak s folklornog teksta na pripovjedni dogadaj, kontekst, izvedbu i komunikaciju. Ne mogu ovdje uci dublje u tu problematiku, ali mogu samo podsjetiti na etnografiju komunikacije ili, primjerice, istrazivanja jezicne so48Naime, cijalizacije. Etnografija komunikacije nije slucajno, s odredenim modifikacijama Richarda Baumana (vidi npr. 1975, 1986), zazivjela kao etnografija usmene knjizevnosti ili kao etnografija usmene izvedbe.49 Etnografija komunikacije ponudila je okvir za interdisciplinarno istrazivanje komunikacije zanimajuci se za integrativnu vizuru jezika, knjizevnosti i kulture. Isticuci doprinose lingvistike folkloristici i obrnuto, Dell Hymes, utemeljitelj etnografije komunikacije, zagovara definiranje komunikacijskog ponasanja kao folkloristickog predmeta ( 1971). Susrete dvoje neznanaca koji se spore oko jezika, koje sam spominjala u primjerima iz svakodnevice, moramo promatrati kao drustveni, kulturni, lingvisticki i folklorni dogadaj, a pricu o tom dogadaju ne samo kao prikladnu formu za izrazavanje identiteta nego kao njegov sadrzaj. Istrazivaci jezicne socijalizacije (npr. Ochs 1993; Schiffrin 1996) reci ce da subjektivnost, uostalom, zapocinje usvajanjem jezika te da je njegova uporaba povezana s konstrukcijama identiteta, samoodredenjem i samooblikovanjem. Tom analogijom, cini se da su nasi identiteti i price koje ga sadrze i proizvode jos krhkiji kada se jezik mijenja u neskladu s njemu svojstvenom dinamikom. Na tim se krhkim postajama, na propusima koje proizvodi politika, jasnije vidi koliko je konstrukcija identiteta ovisna podjednako o povijesnom vremenu kao i o vremenu pojedine interakcije te da je nase sebstvo relacijsko (konstruirano u odnosu s drugima), te da je privremeno i ovisno o svakoj pojedinoj interakciji i prici o sebi i drugima.

Za kraj, jedno od kljucnih pitanja koje bi se iz perspektive etnologije i/ili kulturne antropologije moglo ili se vec trebalo otvoriti jest pitanje jezicnih, ali s tim u vezi i znanstvenih politika. Kljucno pitanje je i, naravno, pitanje posljedica znanstvenoga rada i djelovanja te njegove usmjerenosti u ocuvanje opceg dobra ili, s druge strane, u pristajanje da se pozicija znanstvenika, u ovom slucaju lingvista, barem dijelom zamijeni ulogom jezicnog savjetnika te time omoguci toliko zeljeni izlazak na trziste, ma koliko to zacudno bilo. U tom smislu, zelim skrenuti pozornost na zakljucak dviju reportaza koje slijede spominjani skec. Ugledni znanstvenik koji nam je pojasnjavao razlike me du jezicima uvodi nas u dvije reportaze. U prvoj djevojka koja govori bosanski u trgovini zelikupiti caj, ali je prodavac koji govori gorski ne razumije. Sef trgovine poseze za razlikovnim rjecnikom te se oni na koncu uspiju sporazumjeti. Slijedi reportaza u kojoj mladic, govornik hercegovackog zeli djevojku koja govori srpski odvesti na kavu. U to se niotkuda pojavljuje jezicni savjetnik koji pomaze djevojci i mladicu da se sporazumiju, a na odlasku kaze: "Ovo ce vas stajati osamnaest dinara. Imali ste dva subjekta, tri predikata i jednu prilosku odredbu za vrijeme. (...) Zato narucite nase rjecnike. (^) Idealan za mjesovite brakove"

Tanja Petrovic

Institut za kulturalne studije i studije secanja, Naucnoistrazivacki centar Slovenacke akademije nauka i umetnosti (ZRC SAZU), Ljubljana

Preskriptivizam u standardizaciji jezika i drzavljanstvo na post-jugoslovenskim prostorima

Andrew Hodges u svom clanku skrece paznju na vaznu povezanost izmedu rezima standardizacije jezika i drustvenih promena do kojih je doslo posle etnickih sukoba koji su pratili raspad socijalisticke Jugoslavije. Kao i standardizacija jezika kojom upravljaju nacionalne elite, politike zastite manjinskih jezika koje artikulise Evropska unija doprinose nacionalizaciji govornikâ i jezikâ na post-jugoslovenskim prostorima, narocito kada su u pitanju drustva u kojima je za vreme Jugoslavije standardni jezik bio srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski. Ove jezicke politike zapravo slede premise jezicke ideologije koja preovladuje u danasnjoj Evropi i prema kojoj se jezik razume kao diskretna, jasno odredena forma, kao komunikacijski kôd koji ima ime i koji se simbolicki izjednacava sa drzavom ili etnickom grupom (Gal 2006b). Nacionalizacija je proces do kojeg je doslo u svim sferama drustvenog i politickog zivota u drzavama naslednicama Jugoslavije od devedesetih godina dvadesetog veka. Taj proces, koji su cesto istovremeno podrzavale i nacionalisticke elite i medunarodna zajednica, doveo je do nastanka odvojenih skola i vrtica (v. Madacki i Karamehic 2012) i do brojnih politickih apsurda kojima je blokiran rad drzavnih institucija - najizrazitije u Bosni i Hercegovini (v. Curak 2004; Jansen 2015; Mujkic 2007) - sto ostavlja duboke posledice na svakodnevni zivot drzavljanki i drzavljana.50

U ovom cu komentaru blize osvetliti tri vazna aspekta tekucih procesa karakteristicnih za jezicku politiku na prostoru bivse Jugoslavije; pri tome cu se fokusirati na situaciju u Srbiji, na drustvo kome je posvecen najveci deo vlastitih istrazivanja jezickih praksi i ideologija. Ova tri aspekta su usko povezana sa rezimima drzavljanstva post-jugoslovenskim drustvima. Njima veliku paznju posvecuje i Andrew Hodges u svom tekstu. Najpre cu se pozabaviti posledicama koje za drzavljane Srbije ima nacionalizacija jezika i osvetlicu nacine na koje ona doprinosi iskljucivanju i hijerarhizaciji. Zatim cu jedan deo rasprave posvetiti pojmu objektivnosti, kako u istrazivanju jezika tako i u procesu njegove standardizacije, te pitanju raskoraka izmedu propisanih normi i oblika s jedne strane te stvarne upotrebe jezika sa druge strane. Na kraju isticem znacaj pojave novih oblika jezickog aktivizma i otvaranja novih prostora za angazovane pristupe preskriptivizmu u standardizaciji jezika koje su omogucili. Nalazimo se, naime, u trenutku kada dolazi do fragmentacije i demokratizacije javne sfere i pluralizacije glasova koji se mogu cuti iz akademske zajednice lingvista i ostalih naucnika zainteresovanih za pitanja povezana sa jezikom.

Unutrasnja iskljucivanja

Iako je najveci deo napora u standardizaciji jezika jos uvek usmeren na razlike izmedu pojedinih standarnih jezikâ nastalih iz srpskohrvatskog, narocito izmedu srpskog i hrvatskog, ne smemo zanemariti ni posledice preskriptivizma u normiranju jezika na drzavljanstvo unutar post-jugoslovenskih drustava. U jezickoj ideologiji koja preovladuje u Srbiji standardni jezik se dozivljava kao hijerarhijski nadreden ostalim jezickim kodovima, dok se uopsteni pojam "srpski jezik" u velikoj meri poistovecuje sa jezickim standardom. U tom kontekstu se dijalekti ne dozivljavaju kao jezicki izrazi koji imaju kulturnu vrednost te njihova upotreba ostaje ogranicena na lokalne okvire komunikacije (Petrovic 2015).51 S druge strane, specificna istorija jezicke standardizacije ucinila je standardni jezik nejednako dostupnim svim govornicima i drzavljanima Srbije: rasireno je uverenje da govornici dijalekata zapadne Srbije govore "cisto" i "pravilno",52 dok je govor stanovnika jugoistocne Srbije "nepravilan" i "pokvaren" te da oni uopste nisu u stanju da u potpunosti usvoje standardni jezik. Ovakve poglede, iako su oni u suprotnosti sa samom idejom standardnog jezika, koji bi morao biti sredstvo sporazumevanja dostupno svim drzavljanima i omogucava im anonimnost (Woolard 2008; Gal i Woolard 2001), iznose i propagiraju cak i lingvisti u Srbiji: tako je Pavle Ivic zapisao da je za govornike dijalekata jugoistocne Srbije usvajanje standarda "mucan proces" i "zadatak koji se po pravilu nikada ne moze izvrsiti u potpunosti" (1988: 11). Sandra Sare i Stanislav Stankovic (2011) navode brojne primere nipodastavajuceg odnosa profesora na katedrama sa srpski jezik prema studentima koji dolaze iz jugoistocne Srbije i njihove izjave kako studenti iz ovog dela zemlje zbog svog maternjeg jezika ne treba da studiraju srpski jezik.

Upotreba jezika i jezicka pravila

Kako istice Hodges, objektivnost je vazan ideoloski koncept koji se nalazi u osnovi i istrazivanja jezikâ, i procesâ, i politikâ njihove standardizacije. Poseban status lingvistike medu humanistickim i drustvenim naukama kao "objektivne" i "naucne" discipline svakako zasluzuje dekonstrukciju. Ni u lingvistickim poddisciplinama koje se bave "jezickim faktima" (Hodges) ne moze se zagovarati nedvosmisleno neutralna pozicija koja bi bila neosetljiva na ideologiju: na primer, Howard Aronson (2007) pokazuje da cak ni discipline poput lingvisticke tipologije nisu neosetljive na "drustvenu faktografiju": u dugoj istoriji istrazivanja balkanskog jezickog saveza (Balkan Sprachbund) kao zatvorenog, jedinstvenog i specificnog podrucja lingvisti su znacajno doprineli zapadnim pogledima na Balkan, kojima dominiraju orijentalizam (Said 2008) i balkanizam (Todorova 1999).

Kao sto Hodges primecuje, hrvatski lingvisti koji su kriticni prema preovladujucim preskriptivistickim praksama standardizacije cesto posezu za "naucnim argumentima" Isto vazi i za Srbiju. Marko Simonovic, na primer, istice da "ono sto se na podrucju naseg jezika naziva normativnom lingvistikom iscrpljuje se u stigmatizaciji i proterivanju jezickih pojava, iduci tako protiv temeljnih nacela nauke" (Simonovic 2015; videti i izjave Bobana Arsenijevica u Stevanovic 2015). Ovakva tvrdenja potrebno je razumeti ne toliko kao zahtev za objektivnoscu i cvrsto verovanje u neupitnost te objektivnosti, nego pre kao zahtev da pravila standardizacije i izbori koji se u njoj prave budu zasnovani na realnim praksama upotrebe jezika i na jezickoj i drustvenoj realnosti. Nezainteresovanost glavnih aktera standardizacije za ovu realnost mozemo oznaciti kao najvazniju karakteristiku preskriptivisticke standardizacije od devedesetih godina 20. veka naovamo. Govornici jezika nastalih iz srpskohrvatskog cesto se nalaze u situaciji da ono s to je od strane lingvista proglaseno za "jedino ispravno" ima malo ili nimalo veze sa njihovom realnoscu. Cesto je odnos izmedu realnosti i farse, izmedu ozbiljnog i apsurdnog, zamagljen ili izokrenut. Krajem osamdesetih i pocetkom devedesetih godina 20. veka autori programa Top lista nadrealista snimili su nekoliko skeceva u kojima pokazuju apsurdnost tada sve cescih stavova da Srbi, Hrvati, Muslimani i Crnogorci govore razlicitim, jasno odvojenim i cak medusobno ne sasvim razumljivim jezicima. Ono cemu su se ovi skecevi podsmevali tada je izgledalo apsurdno i smesno. Medutim, jezicke politike u post-jugoslovenskim drustvima dovele su do toga da ti isti zahtevi danas izgledaju normalno, ozbiljno i opravdano. Politicke elite u Republici Srpskoj su 1995. godine ekavski izgovor proglasile za zvanican u javnoj komunikaciji u ovom delu Bosne i Hercegovine, sa namerom da jezicki ujedine Srbe sa obe strane reke Drine. Lingvista Ranko Bugarski istice da "se neuspesni pokusaji vodstva bosanskih Srba za vreme rata da nametnu ekavski izgovor stanovnistvu koje govori ijekavski i tako ga ucine vise 'srpskim' isticu kao najdrasticniji medu pokusajima de se jezik promeni dekretom i zato su bili unapred osudeni na propast" (Bugarski 2002-2003: 74). Visi cilj "nacionalnog interesa" nije jedini razlog zbog kojeg normativisti cesto ignorisu govornike i njihove stvarne prakse upotrebe jezika. To moze biti i tradicija, kao u slucaju aktuelne debate koju je izazvalo "uputstvo" da capuccino na srpskom treba pisati i izgovarati kao kapucino i ne kao kapucino, sto je zapravo jedina forma koju govornici u Srbiji upotrebljavaju.53

Drugaciji glasovi

Sredinom devedesetih godina 20. veka Srbi u Republici Srpskoj nisu pokazali spremnost da se odreknu svog maternjeg ijekavskog izgovora zaradi "visih politickih ciljeva" i zamene ga ekavskim te je ovaj radikalni pokusaj intervencije u jezicku praksu propao. Uprkos dugotrajnoj nacionalizaciji jezikâ na prostorima gde je koriscen srpskohrvatski, sirenje digitalnih medija tokom poslednjih dvadeset godina pruzio je govornicima raznovrsne mogucnosti da preispituju i izazivaju preskriptivisticke rezime standardizacije jezikâ ciji je cilj njihova nacionalizacija. Internet i drustvene mreze su doprineli pluralizaciji i fragmentaciji javne sfere, otvarajuci prostor za mnostvo razlicitih glasova i stavova prema jezicima, kao i prostor za koegzistenciju i cirkulaciju razlicitih jezickih formi. Standardizacija i normiranje nisu vise podrucje o kojem odlucuju iskljucivo sveznajuci predstavnici akademske elite - u raspravu o jeziku ukljucuju se razlicite grupe gradana i zainteresovani pojedinci, sto dovodi do pojave novih oblika jezickog aktivizma. Medijska kampanja "Negujmo srpski jezik", koju su 2015. godine pokrenuli grad Beograd i Filoloski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu (koja se u 2016. godini pod nazivom "Njegujmo srpski jezik" prosirila i na Banja Luku) bila je povod za ovakav jezicki aktivizam (videti npr. grupu na Facebooku "Neguj mo srbski jezik" sa skoro 200.000 pratilaca u novembru 2016; videti takode http://www.tarzanija.com/negujmo-srpski-jezik-al-aj-ne-ovako/). Jos jedna grupa na Facebooku pod nazivom "Kako biste vi rekli?" okuplja lingviste, lektore, prevodioce, kao i "obicne" govornike koji testiraju preferencije drugih govornika kada su u pitanju odredene jezicke forme, izrazi i konstrukcije - neki iz ciste radoznalosti, neki da bi na taj nacin resili sopstvenu (licnu ili profesionalnu) jezicku dilemu, a neki za potrebe istrazivanja. Ove aktivnosti na internetu otkrivaju da su sami govornici i njihovi jezicki izbori i stvarna jezicka praksa postali vazan izvor za razlicite grupe govornika kada je u pitanju ocena prihvatljivosti odredenih jezickih formi.

U toku poslednje dve decenije smo takode svedoci pluralizacije same akademske sfere; rasprave o normiranju jezika prestale su da budu privilegija vrlo uskog kruga onih koji zauVideti: zimaju vazne pozicije na nacionalnim akademskim institucijama. Pojavila se nova generacija lingvista i lingvistkinja sa bogatim medunarodnim iskustvom, koji se bave istrazivanjem jezika u okviru razlicitih pod-disciplina lingvistike (ali i istrazivaca iz drugih oblasti koji se bave pitanjima jezika - videti npr. Brkovic 2014). Oni se kompetentno ukljucuju u rasprave o standardizaciji jezika. Projekti i istrazivanja koji se bave jezickim i drustvenim fenomenima na prostorima bivse Jugoslavije u kojima ucestvuje ova nova generacija istrazivaca znacajno su doprineli dekonstrukciji esencijalistickih i preskriptivistickih pogleda na nacionalne jezike na ovim prostorima kao na homogene, jasno omedene i sustinski povezane sa etnicki definisanim zajednicama (videti Arsenijevic 2016; kao i projekat "Regionalna inicijativa o jezickim podacima" - Samardzic u Stevanovic 2016). Sve ove aktivnosti problematizuju opravdanost pristupa odozgo-nadole kada je u pitanju standardizacija jezika i ukazuju na sve vecu svest o tome da je standardizacija jezika na prostorima bivse Jugoslavije sustinski povezana sa politikom drzavljanstva.

Ivana Spasic

Odeljenje za sociologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu

Nekoliko paradoksa

Iz Hodgesovog informativnog i inspirativnog uvodnog teksta, s kojim se slazem u svim bitnim tackama, zelela bih da izdvojim i dodatno naglasim jednu poentu: koliko je, naime, jezicka situacija na nekadasnjem srpskohrvatskom govornom podrucju prozeta paradoksima. Nekih od njih Hodges se dotice u svom clanku, no cini mi se korisnim izloziti ih u zaostrenijem obliku. Paradoksalna priroda predmeta znaci da se, na njegovim razlicitim nivoima, uspostavljaju pozicije koje se uprkos suprotstavljenosti mogu (gotovo podjednako dobro) braniti teorijskim, politickim, prakticnim ili moralnim razlozima. Bez ambicije da ponudim iscrpan popis, u nastavku cu identifikovati nekoliko takvih paradoksa.

1)Prvi i najopstiji jeste paradoks preskriptivne opsesije. Preskriptivizam je tradicionalno jak u jezickoj kulturi ovog regiona. Znatan ugled koji uzivaju jezicki strucnjaci, vecita glad javnosti za autoritativnim ocenama o tome sto je u jeziku "pravilno" a sto nije, pisma citalaca posvecena jezickim temama kao redovna novinska rubrika, nastava jezika u s koli koja se gotovo u potpunosti svodi na utuvljivanje jezickih normi u glave ucenika i kaznjavanje "gresaka" - sve to ukazuje na razumevanje jezika kao blaga, kao neke vrste dragocenog, ali krhkog i pomalo nepredvidljivog stvora. Umesto da se jezik shvata kao sredstvo koje pripada svima nama i koje zajednicki koristimo, mi smo ti koji treba da vode brigu o njemu i da paze da mu ne naude.

To nije zapo c elo s raspadom srpskohrvatskog posle 1990. godine. Takvo shvatanje vu ce korene iz devetnaestovekovnog romanticarskog poistovecivanja jezika i nacije. Nije posredi ni tek nacionalisticki motivisan purizam: preskriptivisticka tendencija sira je od jezickog sovinizma. U njoj se jezik kao zaloga nacionalnog identiteta cesto kombinuje sa bourdieuovskim (Bourdieu 1982) simbolickim nasiljem "legitimnog jezika" koje substandardne teritorijalne ili klasne varijetete automatski i nepravedno stavlja u nepovoljan polozaj.

Tu opsesiju normom lako je kritikovati i otpisati je kao posledicu niza nesrecnih kulturnoistorijskih, politickih i psiholoskih okolnosti. Pa ipak, obicni ljudi, govornici nasih jezika masovno i s poletom gaje upravo takav odnos prema vlastitom jeziku. Nije to samo neka elitna zanimacija, jer istovremeno postoji mnogo iskrene narodske idolatrije jezicke ispravnosti. Ko je onda ovlascen da ustvrdi kako narod gresi? Ako je ljudima toliko stalo do tih stvari - a mnogima od njih izgleda da jeste - ko je taj koji im moze reci da su jednostavno glupi? Kapovicev (2011a) antipreskriptivisticki poklic "jezik pripada svojim govornicima" ovde bi se mogao okrenuti naglavce.

Uzgred, taj tradicionalni normativizam mozda je (ali samo mozda) poceo da slabi. U Srbiji se u poslednje vreme pojavilo vise znakova koji se mogu tumaciti na taj nacin. Jedan od njih je javna reakcija na ambicioznu kampanju "Negujmo srpski jezik", koju je pokrenula Biblioteka grada Beograda u saradnji sa gradskim vlastima, uz ucesce brojnih javnih licnosti iz oblasti kulture i sporta. U debati koja je usledila izreceno je iznenadujuce mnogo antipreskriptivistickih stavova.54 Nadalje, knjiga srpsko-slovenacke antropoloskinje Tanje Petrovic Srbija i njen jug (2015), u kojoj se ostro kritikuje uobicajena stigmatizacija juznosrbijanskih govora, izazvala je veliko interesovanje. Takode, u javnosti je sve prisutniji glas jedne nove generacije lingvista savremenijih pogleda (i mozda ne slucajno s iskustvom skolovanja u inostranstvu), kao sto su Jelena Filipovic u Beogradu (v. npr. Filipovic 2015), Boban Arsenijevic u Nisu i drugi. Ipak, oni ostaju donekle marginalni u odnosu na jezgro profesionalnog polja srbistike i njegov institucionalni aparat.

2)Paradoks nacionalistickog nenacionalizma odnosi se na jezicku situaciju u Srbiji posle raspada srpskohrvatskog. Za razliku od Hrvatske, ovde se jezik (osim sto je preimenovan iz srpskohrvatskog u srpski) nije mnogo promenio. Nekadasnja srpska (istocna) varijanta uglavnom je ostala kakva je i bila ili, kako kaze Bugarski (2012: 51), ona je "stajala u mestu" dok su se drugi udaljavali od dotadasnjeg zajednickog standarda, stavljajuci u prvi plan razlike i varijantne osobenosti. Premda se na neke reci i forme koje se osecaju kao "hrvatske" sada gleda s neodobravanjem, u Srbiji nije bilo pandana dalekoseznom jezickom inzenjeringu kakav je sa strascu sprovoden u Hrvatskoj.

To nije tesko protumaciti kao "manje nacionalisticki" odgovor na raspad zajednickog jezika: on deluje umerenije, razboritije, tolerantnije. I u tome ima istine. Medutim, takav stav se moze citati i kao jezicki izraz jedne druge vrste nacionalizma. U povesti odnosa medu juznoslovenskim narodima srpski nacionalizam je tradicionalno ekspanzivan (a ne separatisticki) i cesto se ispoljava kroz neosetljivost za razlike i nespremnost da se tudi zahtevi i interesi uzmu u obzir. Stoga je u oblasti jezika postojala manja potreba da se afirmise poseban srpski jezik. Ideja "jednog zajednickog jezika" je ionako dovoljno maglovita i lako prema potrebi poprima vise nacionalisticku ili pak vise nenacionalisticko-jugoslovensku konotaciju. Mnogi Srbi, implicitno ili rede eksplicitno, smatraju da su post-srpskohrvatski jezici na neki nacin vestacki, nasilno stvoreni i da stoga ne zasluzuju status punopravnih jezika.

Jedina oblast nedvosmisleno nacionalisticke jezicke nervoze medu Srbima jeste pismo. Odbrana srpske cirilice, koju navodno ugrozavaju globalizacija, EU, Hrvati i komunisticki izrodi, cest je predmet javnih rasprava, zakonske regulacije55 i aktivizma konzervativnih grupa. Zagovornici zastite cirilice pozivaju drzavu, kao i ostatak drustva, da poradi na spasavanju cirilice od propasti podsticanjem njene upotrebe i zabranom javnog koriscenja (srpske) lati54 nice. Cinjenicu da Srbi vec decenijama uporedo koriste dva pisma56 i da bi se moralo uloziti mnogo vremena i prinude da od jednoga od njih odustanu, ti pobornici vide upravo kao razlog za preduzimanje takvih mera, a neprotiv njih.

3) Svest o mnogostrukosti nacionalizma u jezickim pitanjima upozorava nas da situaciju od pre 1990. godine treba sagledati u svoj njenoj ambivalentnosti. O tome svedoci paradoks neprozirnog zajednistva.

Hrvatski antisrpski jezicki purizam - razmahan tokom devedesetih, a i danas prisutan u umerenijim vidovima - s njegovim neumornim radom na ciscenju jezika od svih podozrevanih "srbizama" takode nije tesko izvrgnuti ruglu. Smesne kovanice i losi recnici, kao sto je onaj Brodnjakov (1992), predstavljaju u tom smislu lake mete. Pa ipak, to ne mora znaciti da je prethodno stanje stvari, kada je srpskohrvatski vazio kao zajednicki standard, bilo idealno. Da li je hrvatski kao varijanta srpskohrvatskog bio ugrozen prodorom srpskih jezickih oblika i norme - zahvaljujuci sili vecine, jugoslovenskoj institucionalnoj strukturi i centralistickim tendencijama u vladajucoj ideologiji? Pitanje je i dalje otvoreno. Dominantni hrvatski odgovor je odlucno "da", ali on se moze ozbiljno dovesti u pitanje. Ipak, autori koji to argumentovano cine, poput Kordic (2010), istovremeno ne pokazuju nikakvo razumevanje za bilo kakvo eventualno hrvatsko osecanje sputanosti i uskracenosti za priznanje i postovanje. Sa druge strane, vecina srpskih lingvista sâmo to pitanje smatra cistom gluposcu. Argumenata, dakle, ima na obe strane. Uostalom, kako bismo definisali i operacionalizovali "ugrozenost"? I, ponovo, ko je taj ko ce doneti konacnu presudu da li je uistinu bilo jezickog ugnjetavanja ili nije?

Pokazalo se da opcija policentricnog standardnog jezika kojim se sluze srodni narodi s istorijatom medusobnih sukoba, u federaciji koja u bitnom funkcionise po principima etnickog takmicenja, ima brojne prednosti i mane. Takav aranzman pociva na uzajamnom poverenju i dobroj volji. Ako su oni tu, rezultat je izvesna opustena i dobrodosla neodredenost: govornici ne moraju neopozivo birati me du varijantama, na raspolaganju im je citav spektar obrazaca koji su u upotrebi na citavom srpskohrvatskom podrucju, jezicke forme nisu strogo etnicki markirane itd. Ali, s druge strane, takvo okruzenje moze biti plodno tlo za bujanje raznih vrsta uzajamnih sumnjicenja, s razlogom ili bez. Takode, ono pogoduje sprovodenju suptilnijih formi vecinskog pritiska, koje se lako zaodevaju u ruho zajednistva.

4) U tom smislu je priznavanje statusa punopravnih standardnih jezika dotadasnjim varijantama i regionalnim izrazima u mnogome rascistilo teren. Nema vise prostora za prikrivenu dominaciju - svako je svoj na svome. A manjine u toj novoj konstelaciji napokon mogu racunati na punu zastitu svojih prava, ukljucujuci i ona jezicka, u skladu sa svim standardima EU i UN.

Medutim, paradoks prinudnog uüvanja prava kazuje nam da upravo politika koja omogucava manjinska prava istovremeno prisiljava manjine da biraju izmedu etnicki markiranih jezickih obrazaca. Vise nije moguce govoriti "neutralno" i utapati se u masu lokalnog zivlja kao jos jedan njegov neupadljiv pripadnik. Ako ste, na primer, Hrvat u Vojvodini, sada morate govoriti ili hrvatski ili srpski; ako ste Bosnjak u Sandzaku - ili bosanski ili srpski;57 ako ste Srbin u Hrvatskoj - ili hrvatski ili srpski itd. Osim toga, samim tim sto birate jedno ili drugo, birate i identitet. Tako vojvodanski Hrvati upotrebom hrvatskog jezika iz jednog ugla postaju "pravi Hrvati", dok iz drugog postaju "hrvatski manjinski nacionalisti". Upotrebom srpskog postaju "hrvatski izdajnici" ili pak "posteni Hrvati". Drugim recima, vise nije moguce koristiti jezik opusteno i bez razmisljanja.

Hodges u svom prilogu kroz etnografsko istrazivanje tako de pokazuje protivrecnu prirodu te promene u postjugoslovenskom kontekstu, gde su "nekriticko promovisanje jezicke raznolikosti" (zasnovano na smernicama EU) i "medunarodnopravni okvir sagledavanja situacije" nenamerno podstakli "artikulaciju nacionalno definisanih kolektiva oko kojih se ratovalo". Pitanje je, medutim, sta bi mogao biti izlaz na ovoj vec odmakloj tacki razvojnog puta. Korak unazad od okvira manjinskih prava tesko je zamisliti, a jos teze sprovesti u delo.

I uopste, ako se mene pita, lako resenje nijednog od navedenih paradoksa nije na vidiku.

OSVRT NA KOMENTARE

Andrew Hodges

Zelio bih prvo iskoristiti priliku i zahvaliti svim komentatorima na sudjelovanju u raspravi; iznesene spoznaje i razlicitost pristupa iznjedrile su puno novih pitanja, pojasnile i osnazile neke od argumenata, no s pravom su i odbacile i/ili iznijele kritiku drugih. Ova je rasprava takoder korisna za isticanje cijelog niza perspektiva na siroko definiranoj akademskoj ljevici. U svom odgovoru posebno cu se usredotociti na tri problema koja su se pojavila u vise navrata: (1) implikacije klasnog umjesto identitetskog pristupa (Kapovic, Abercrombie, Costa), (2) pitanja o tome ciji je glas legitiman i tko se ukljucuje i definira u ovim debatama i (3) kritike nacionalistickih "grupnosti" (groupness) (Kapovic, Costa) koje tvrde da one ne predstavljaju analiticku stvarnost, nego se odnose na moderne hegemonijske hijerarhijske sustave poretka (o tome je takoder raspravljala Spasic).

Isprva mi je namjera bila intervenirati, prvenstveno u Hrvatskoj, u debatu o jezicnoj standardizaciji iz antropoloske perspektive, s ciljem otvaranja dijaloga izmedu lingvista, znanstvenika drustvenih disciplina i antropologa o ocitom pitanju koje svi presucuju. Postoje naznake da se slicne diskusije pocinju voditi u postjugoslavenskim drzavama, ukljucujuci Hrvatsku, sto smatram ohrabrujucim. S druge strane, doslo je do nekih negativnih razvoja dogadaja otkad sam napisao uvodni tekst: iskusio sam iz prve ruke kako je zivjeti u Hrvatskoj pod konzervativnom vladom s elementima krajnje desnice. Iskusio sam posljedice napada na medije i sigurnosni aparat zajedno s pokusajima da se povijesni revizionizam Drugog svjetskog rata proturi u kulturni "mainstream", i to je produbilo moje razumijevanje toga kako atmosfera konformizma prevladava kroz stvaranje opee atmosfere straha u citavoj zemlji (komentar Jelene Markovic se implicitno na to odnosio), sto dovodi do zaobilazenja odredenih istina, barem u javnom diskursu. To je tema o kojoj su puno pisali Jelena Markovic i drugi hrvatski antropolozi (usp. primjerice Cale Feldman, Prica i Senjkovic 1993).

Moj je drugi cilj bio napraviti antropoloske usporedbe s lingvistickom i politickom situacijom u drugim, uglavnom evropskim kontekstima, jer se rasprave o standardnom jeziku cesto cine izolirajucima i ogranicenima, kao sto navodi i Kordic (2010) u svojoj knjizi o lingvistickom nacionalizmu. James Costa progovara o relativnoj nevainosti standardnog jezika u skotskom politickom kontekstu, povezujuci to s konceptom javne i privatne sfere, koje su u sredistu zapadne liberalne politicke teorije. Moglo bi se postaviti pitanje da li je moguce i, ako jest, kako takav koncept prenijeti u postjugoslavenski kontekst. Iz zapadne liberalne perspektive, hrvatska jezicna politika - a i politika u vezi tema koje ukljucuju prava LGBTQ populacije, abortus, referendum o definiranju braka kao heteroseksualnog itd. - opetovano napada "privatnu sferu" pojedinaca, od ispravljanja govora za vrijeme neobavezna ispijanja kave ili sustavnog interesa odredenih aktera da oduzimaju "privatna" prava drugih. Komentari Tanje Petrovic na posljedice standardizacijskih procesa, unutarnju raznolikost i stvaranje unutarnjeg Drugog dodali su jos jednu bitnu dimenziju tim kretanjima. Bez obzira na to primjenjuje li se pristup privatne/javne sfere na postjugoslavenski kontekst (a ja se zalazem protiv takvog pristupa), takve intervencije, ukljucujuci i lingvisticke prakse koje potpomazu progurati radikalne kulturne razlike, mogu se i trebaju preispitati. To nas dovodi do pitanja zabuna o liberalnom i lijevom koje su vezane uz jezik:

Bavljenje klasom kroz jezik?

I Abercrombie i Kapovic razmatraju negativne strane pristupa temeljenog na klasnim podjelama, u cemu sam se oslonio na Brutt-Griffler, i nakon pazljivog razmatranja s njima se u potpunosti slazem. Kapovic tvrdi da takav pristup ukljucuje "liberalni ideologem", sto i Abercrombie implicitno tvrdi kad naglasava kako bi usredotocenost na klasu nuzno ukljucivala pristup dominantnom jeziku i njegovu korisnost na trzistu rada - u (kapitalistickom) kontekstu gdje takva trzista postoje. Promicanje izjednacene startne pozicije tako sto ce se, na primjer, ponuditi dodatna pomoc, vrijeme i sredstva za ucenike ciji se govor ne podudara sa standardom koji promice drzava (i koliko je taj standard blizak sociolektu primjerice radnicke ili vise klase) moglo bi se smatrati politicki analogno promociji blairisticke meritokracije, koja zeli stvoriti "jednake mogucnosti za sve", odnosno jednake mogucnosti pristupa, sto bi promicalo klasnu mobilnost, a ne propitivanje klasnog sustava. To ne znaci da u svakodnevnoj praksi skretanje pozornosti te isticanje i kritika klasnih razlika ili pretpostavljene hijerarhije u razredu i opcenito nije progresivan potez - ocito je da moze biti. Takve intervencije, slicne psihoterapijskim intervencijama, mogu biti oslobadajuce i vazne na osobnoj razini, no nemaju direktnog politickog ucinka u promjeni nepravednog sustava koji proizvodi i odrzava goleme ekonomske nejednakosti medu ljudima. Ako promotrimo jezik, kako predlaze Kapovic, a sto sam i ja nagovijestio u polaznom tekstu rasprave, kao plocu na kojoj su zapisani politicki procesi i promjene, kako prosli tako i sadasnji, onda drustveni aktivizam uvijek stoji ispred bilo koje vrste jezicnog aktivizma. Naime, materijalni procesi, kao sto je stvaranje klasa, unaprijed ce pobijediti ili zaustaviti bilo koju jezicnu protuintervenciju i, kao sto je Kapovic primijetio, u svakom bi se slucaju javili novi oblici jezicne diskriminacije (u oba smisla rijeci). To je razlog zbog kojeg bi, kao sto je Costa (2013) ustvrdio, sociolingvistika i jezicni aktivizam mogli imati koristi od pojacanog dijaloga sa socijalnim antropolozima. S time u vezi, kako je komentirala Abercrombie, predlazuci da se osvrnemo na povijesne procese kroz koje odredeni "govornici" postaju minorizirani, "manjinski jezici nisu sami po sebi manje korisni, nego su takvima postali zbog drustvene i ekonomske iskljucenosti njihovih govornika" Mogli bismo, tako der, kritizirati pristup koji se previse usredotocuje na "politiku" Upotrijebivsi metaforu lingvisticke antropologije, ako jezicna standardizacija ima za posljedicu oznacavanje pojedinih lingvistickih oblika i njihovo uvodenje u registar, cin koje je istodobno hijerarhizirajuci i tematski, mogli bismo shvatiti politiku kao upisivanje u registar (enregisterment, usp. Agha 2005) odredenih oblika politicke prakse, tako der hijerarhizirajucih i tematskih, kroz njihovo promoviranje koje vrse institucije koje rade na hijerarhijskom principu kao sto su to, primjerice, moderne drzave. Bas kao sto jezicna standardizacija zahtijeva tijela koja ce je uciniti legitimnom, tako se i politika oslanja na institucije s materijalnim resursima koje ce ozakoniti privilegiranje odredenih politickih pristupa/praksi u odnosu na druge i kroz osiguravanje materijalnih resursa i kroz diskurzivnu legitimizaciju.

Usredotocenost na odabir odgovarajucih politika takoder nas udaljuje od situacije na terenu i uvida u to kako se takve politike razvijaju u raznim kontekstima (Clarke et al. 2015) i procijepe izmedu teorije i stvarnog stanja, kako je istaknula Balazev. Ako ostavimo po strani teorijske brige oko okvira manjinskih jezicnih prava, stvarne su prilike u Vojvodini mnogo slozenije i prije donosenja bilo kakvih sirih zakljucaka o tome sto bi "moglo" ili "trebalo" biti dopusteno vazno je razumjeti pojedine aktere, njihove odnose i motivacijske dinamike. Ne uzimajuci u obzir jezicna pitanja, poucavanje hrvatskog u Srbiji nudi spektar resursa i mo- gucnosti, od kojih su neki korisni svim ucenicima u skoli. Imajuci na umu te kritike, mozda bi senzibilnija perspektiva dopustila pojedincima da izaberu jezik ne samo na bazi "korisnih vjestina", nego i u skladu s "jezicnim afinitetima" ili mozda labavijim "identifikacijama". Naime, u Vojvodini su u skolski smjer na hrvatskom koji sam promatrao bili ukljuceni i nehrvatski identificirani ijekavaci (tj. oni iz Bosne i Hercegovine), kao i ucenici ciji su roditelji zeljeli da djeca pohadaju razred s manjim brojem ucenika. Sto se tice Kapoviceva prijedloga da se osnuju mijesani razredi, koliko je meni poznato, u Vojvodini su postojali pokusaji takve naravi u vidu pilot-programa, no doslo je do prigovora nekih aktivista hrvatske manjine koji su tvrdili da bi to dovelo do asimilacije, o cijoj je logici raspravljala Spasic u svome odgovoru. Na pomolu nema jednostavnog rjesenja tog problema.

Drugo pitanje, koje se rijetko spominje u odgovorima, cini diskusija o mjeri do koje je klasa prisutna u odredenim nacionalistickim diskursima (koji se uvijek ticu "grupnog identiteta", no samo ponekad ukljucuju i klase). Komentar Marine Balazev, kroz raspravu o studiji slucaja koja se izravno tice mog rada na terenu i podcrtavanje nekoliko zajednickih momenata koji nas oboje zanimaju, takoder je iznjedrio mnogo pitanja svojim "neesencijalistickim pristupom" nacionalnom identitetu, koji shvaca takve identitete kao narative. U tom bi se smislu, odbacujuci korijene, biolosko odredenje nacije ili znanstvene ideje rasa, svatko (ukljucujuci i mene) mogao smatrati Hrvatom zbog izlozenosti narativima hrvatskog nacionalnog identiteta i zauzimanja stava prema tim istim narativima. To bi ukljucivalo kognitivnu (svjesnost i znanje) komponentu i neku vrstu afektivnog prihvacanja vaznosti/vrijednosti tih narativa. Njezin pristup izostavlja, a ne mora, fokus na materijalne ucinke zivljenja u modernim drzavama, koji cesto dovode do proizvodnje takvih narativa.58 No, i dalje ostaje pitanje tko je taj koji ima moc definirati i nametnuti odredene narative. Tko je taj tko odreduje je li ili nije bunjevacki "hrvatska" jezicna varijanta; kako se odreduju granice "lingvistickog mozaika" i koje su implikacije fiksiranja tih granica - da li je takvo fiksiranje samo po sebi esencijalizirajuci potez? To nas dovodi do druge bitne teme:

Ciji je glas vazan i ciji se glas cuje?

Ovisno o ne cijoj perspektivi, a kako sam se i sâm uspio uvjeriti tokom terenskog istrazivanja, moguci odgovori na pitanje ciji se odgovori "broje" kao legitimni u debatama o hrvatskoj lingvistickoj situaciji ukljucuju kombinaciju sljedeceg: Hrvat, znanstvenik, znanstvenik s lingvistickim obrazovanjem ili obrazovanjem u disciplinama povezanima s jezikom, netko tko ziviu Hrvatskoj, netko tko ziviu Hrvatskoj odredeni broj godina, nastavnik hrvatskog jezika. U uvodnom tekstu osjecao sam potrebu istaknuti svoje pravo da sudjelujem u debati napominjuci da zivim u regiji vec mnogo godina i, osim toga, govorim tecno hrvatski.

No, bez obzira na to, neki od onih s kojima sam razgovarao iskljucili su me na temelju nacionalnosti, dok su me drugi tokom razgovora eksplicitno oznacili kao "autsajdera" i/ili "zapadnjaka". Drugi su pak smatrali da je moja pozicija napola insajderska ili gotovo potpuno insajderska. Iz antropoloske perspektive legitiman bi bio glas one osobe koja je stekla nuzno "znanje" ili duboko razumije kontekst zbog rada na terenu, sto joj omogucuje da bude politic58Mozemo ki pismena unutar danog konteksta, i moze se sporazumjeti uporabom relevantnog/ih jezika. Medijske rasprave o nedavnom predsjedniku Vlade Tihomiru Oreskovicu, koji je zivio u Kanadi vecinu svog zivota i lose govori hrvatski, iznjedrile su zanimljiva pitanja u tom smislu. Taj bi proces vjerojatno uzeo nekoliko godina uronjenosti u kontekst uz pokusaje da ga se razumije.59 Turisti koji su nakratko posjetili Hrvatsku u proljece 2016. nisu mogli iskusiti svakodnevni strah koji osjecaju pojedini gradani ili dugotrajni rezidenti (posebno oni koji se identificiraju kao manjina) koji se angaziraju drustveno, psiholoski i materijalno na prostoru koji omeduju hrvatske drzavne institucije. To je razlog zbog kojeg vjerujem da antropoloske metode, tj. dugotrajni rad na terenu, mogu dati vazne priloge spomenutim diskusijama.

To nas dovodi do tvrdnje koju je Spasic tako elokventno iznijela i ko je se dotic e i Kapovic: tko ima "pravo" ili, doista, "moc" definirati lingvisticke i/ili politicke situacije i tko moze "legitimno" intervenirati. Jezicni aktivizam u Hrvatskoj u velikoj se mjeri usredotocuje na pitanja koja se ticu standardnog jezika te na pristupe koji traze potporu i daju argumente za konsolidaciju nacionalistickog pristupa, koji su trenutno hegemonijski, s malom, ali glasnom grupom neistomisljenika, kao sto su Snjezana Kordic i Mate Kapovic. No, Spasic naglasava da postoje i preskriptivisticki stavovi koje dijeli veliki broj ljudi koji zive u zemljama nasljednicama Jugoslavije i, kako ona kaze, "tko je ovlasten utvrditi da su ti ljudi u krivu?" Na slican nacin mozemo pitati: ako vise milijuna ljudi sebe smatra "Hrvatima" ili "Englezima", tko je taj koji moze reci da su u krivu? Iako sam oprezan prema onima koji se zauzimaju za avangardne poglede, koji izgledaju kao najprogresivniji, s duznim postovanjem se ne slazem s njezinom karakterizacijom hegemonije. Mnoge drustveno prihvacene razlicitosti, kao sto su nacionalne kategorije, oslanjaju se na ideje koje su promicane i upijane od vrlo rane mladosti, sto omogucuje odredenu razinu kontrole u svijetu i nad njim. Stoga se vrlo tesko rijesiti hegemonijskih "navika", kako ih opisuje sociolog Michael Billig (1995). Usporedimo li to s psihoterapijskim procesom, proces dobivanja socioloskog uvida iz kategorija koje se najcesce upotrebljavaju (nasih "slijepih pjega") mozemo razumjeti kao istinski oslobadajuci i propitujuci u odnosu na nacin na koji se bavimo tim kategorijama i dozivljavamo ih.60 Na kraju, kako Markovic istice kroz zanr skeca,61 prepiranje oko takvih tvrdnji cesto nas nikamo ne vodi, jer su odredeni cvrsti stavovi duboko ukorijenjeni i izuzetno se rijetko mijenjaju.

Nacionalizam i "grupnost"

Mnogi su se marksisti zauzimali i promovirali nacionalnu pripadnost i odredene vrste nacionalnih pokreta, kako je ukratko pokazano na primjeru socijalisticke Jugoslavije. Kapovicev stav o toj temi slican je Lenjinovom: neke nacionalisticke pokrete smatra progresivnima, dok druge smatra opresivnima, ovisno o njihovom odnosu prema kolonijalnim strukturama moci i prema manjinskom/vecinskom statusu. Ni u kom slucaju ne vjerujem da manjinska pozicija, bez obzira na to ima li prijateljski ili neprijateljski odnos prema kolonijalnim silama, nuzno omogucava bolje razumijevanje opresije - postjugoslavenski slucaj pokazuje kako ne samo vanjski politicki cimbenici, nego i unutrasnji projekti i oblici podcinjavanja stvaraju opresiju i nasilje. Na primjer, iz mog iskustva, odredeni clanovi hrvatske manjine u Srbiji bili su opresivni u promoviranju razumijevanja hrvatstva kao usko povezanog s katolicizmom uz poznavanje jezika kao kulturnog nasljeda. Takvo usko shvacanje odbilo je neke koji su sudjelovali u manjinskim hrvatskim institucijama i aktivizmu, npr. LGBTQpojedince koji se smatraju Hrvatima.

Stav poput Lenjinovog ne osporava ono sto je zajednicko svim vrstama nacionalizma, a to je postavljanje neke vrste grupnog identiteta (bez obzira koliko tvrdog ili fleksibilnog) i grupni egoizam, s odredenim pojedincima (nacionalistima) koji tvrde da govore u ime takvih zamisljenih grupa. Te su karakteristike izravno povezane s politickom situacijom moderniteta i reprezentativnim oblicima demokracije. No, usprkos implicitnoj ili eksplicitnoj podrsci mnogih marksista banalnom ili drugim oblicima nacionalizma, zapravo je marksisticka "hermeneutika sumnje" (Ricoeur 2004) ta koja nudi mogucu interpretaciju antinacionalnih pozicija u smislu diskurzivnih hegemonija. Costa, pozivajuci se na Brubakera, oznacava to kao "grupnost" (groupness), sto se smatra projektom, a ne prethodno zadanom situacijom. Kad odabir politickih nacionalistickih alternativa na izborima (u konkretnom slucaju za skotsku neovisnost) moze imati pozitivne posljedice iz klasne perspektive, moguce je izabrati nacionalisticku opciju, a istodobno imati antinacionalisticke poglede. Analiticke pozicije tu moraju biti odvojene od etnografskih i diskurzivnih strategija - u polju gdje ce se covjek najvjerojatnije baviti trenutnom stvarnoscu nacionalnih kategorija i ondje traziti odgovarajuce intervencije koje mu se cine najprimjerenijima.

Note: I have not substantially altered the Croatian translation of the main text and my reply, and recognise that the texts do not always represent the (non-)standard lexical choices I may make when writing in Croatian. As regards all translated comments, the authors have been consulted as regards the final form of the texts. A substantial amount of flexibility with various standard and non-standard forms has also been permitted - subject to the authors' discretion - in the spirit of the broad approach I advocate in the main text.

Napomena: Buduci da su uvodni tekst i odgovor prijevodi s engleskog na hrvatski, u njima nisam napravio velike jezicne promjene te sam svjestan toga da tekstovi u tom smislu ne predstavljaju (ne)standardne jezicne izbore koje bih mozda napravio da sam pisao na hrvatskom. Konacna forma prevedenih komentara (i na engleski i na hrvatski) dogovorena je s autorima. U svim je tekstovima dozvoljena fleksibilnost u koristenju standardnih i nestandardnih oblika - ovisno o stajalistima autora - u skladu s pristupom koji zagovaram u tekstu.

Note from the Editors: In the texts translated from English into Croatian and in those which have been originally written in Croatian or Serbian, the Editors have decided to respect the authors' views regarding standardisation and all changes made by the editors have been agreed with each of the authors. As such the use of various lexical forms is visible in the texts.

Napomena Urednistva: U tekstovima koji su prevedeni s engleskog na hrvatski te u onima koji su izvorno napisani na hrvatskom i srpskom jeziku Urednistvo je odlucilo postovati stajalista autora o standardizaciji te su lektorski zahvati dogovarani sa svakim od autora. Stoga se u tekstovima moze zapaziti upotreba razlicitih jezicnih oblika.

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7 2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 291823 Marie Curie FP7-PEOPLE2011COFUND (The new International Fellowship Mobility Programme for Experienced Researchers in Croatia - NEWFELPRO). This paper has been written as a part of a project "Producing and Contesting the National Order of Things: Tracing How Language Standardisation Processes and State Effects Configure (Non)Users Near the Serbian/Croatian Border (BORDERSANTHLING)" which has received funding through NEWFELPRO project under grant agreement no. 4.

1 Slicni procesi su se dogadali, na razlicite nacine i u razlicitim opsezima, u mnogim drugim zemljama koje su nastale raspadom Jugoslavije (za pregled usp. Greenberg 2004).

2 Hrvatski je sada na popisu sluzbenih EU jezika. Vidihttps://euobserver.com/news/31340 (pristup 29. 10. 2015.). Tekst eksplicira: "Neki hrvatski duznosnici su u proslosti kazali da ce, ako EU ne prihvati hrvatski kao sluzbeni jezik, biti gotovo nemoguce dobiti potporu hrvatskih gradana na referendumu za pridruzivanje EU", naglasavajuci snaznu politizaciju jezicnog pitanja i legitimizirajuci vaznost za nacionaliste da hrvatski bude odreden kao "jezik".

3 primjerice Vecernji List (2014) : http://www.vecernji.hr/zg-vijesti/nazive-avenija-dubrovnik-i-patacickina-ulica-trebalo-biizbjegavati-963175 (pristup 30. 11. 2015.).

4 Izbjegavam uporabu rijeci diglosija kako ne bi bilo nesporazuma s obzirom na paletu nacina na koje je taj izraz u uporabi (usp. Jaffe 1999: 18 za raspravu). Umjesto toga odlucio sam se za "hijerarhije medu jezicnim varijetetima"

5 Jansen (2005) za kriticku diskusiju o opasnostima povezanim s uporabom karata i nacionalnih statistika u opísima jugoslavenskih ratova.

6 Jedan pristup u literaturi shvaca jezik kao "zamrznuta djelovanja" (Pietikäinen et al. 2011), pristup koji je upotrebljiv kod naglasavanja procesa i uvodenja vremenskog elementa. No, ovisno o pojedinacnom pristupu kojem su se priklonili autori, takav pogled bi mogao prenaglasiti vaznost diskursa i jezika u oblikovanju drustvenog zivota. Iz tog razloga preferiram opis jezika kao "zamrznutih tragova ili odjeka djelovanja".

7Tvrdim da svi nacionalisticki pokreti ukljucuju grupni identitet i (do odredene mjere) iskljucujuci "mi", dok se istodobno u mnogome razlikuju, primjerice u mjeri do koje se nacionalne kategorije odnose prema klasnom pozicioniranju razlicitih populacija. To znaci da bih branio, u nedostatku protunacionalnih/protunacionalistickih progresivnih politickih opcija, relativno progresivnu (na bazi klasne politike) "nacionalisticku" opciju, kao sto je glas "za" na nedavnom skotskom referendumu o samostalnosti, na pragmaticnim temeljima, dok progresivnija, protunacionalisticka politicka opcija ne bi postala dostupna.

8Ponekad oznacene kao "medunarodne" Izraz angloamericki takoder nije idealan jer, kao i epitet srpsko-hrvatski, sadrzava etnicke konotacije; stvar je u tome da se odnosi na drzavne utjecaje (Trouillot 2001) uglavnom Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva i Sjedinjenih Americkih Drzava.

9 Kako tvrdi Chomsky, "I-jezik je, u tom slucaju, neka sastavnica uma onoga koji zna jezik, naucen od ucenika i rabljen od govornika-slusaca. Ako jezik shvacamo kao i-jezik, gramatika bi tada bila teorija i-jezika, koji je upravo objekt istrazivanja" (Chomsky 1986: 22).

10 Vidi Pateman (1983) za raspravu o toj distinkciji. U tom kontekstu lingvisticke cinjenice nisu shvacene kao drustvene cinjenice, iako su mnoge cinjenice o jeziku drustvene cinjenice.

11 Koristenje razlike izmedu kognitivnih i jezicnih ideologija u pristupu jeziku dovelo je do nekih zanimljivih "mostova" stvorenih izmedu dvaju polja, kao sto je Zenkerov rad na ucenju drugog jezika kod ljudi u Belfastu (Zenker 2014).

12 Vidi http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/default_en.asp (pristup 30. 11. 2015.).

13Usp. Bowman (2001); Brubaker i Cooper (2000) za kritiku uporabe identiteta kao kategorije u drustvenim znanostima.

14 Usp. http://www.vecernji.hr/neredi-u-vukovaru/prosvjednici-cekicima-razbili-cirilicne-ploce-u-vukovaru-606963 (pristup 14. 11. 2014.).

15 Usp. http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/vukovar-i-cirilica-tribina/print:true (pristup 14. 11. 2014.).

16 Za vise informacija usp. Ljubojevic 2016.

17 Usp. Kapovic 2011b.

18 U ovom se radu detaljnije ne osvrcem na suvremena sociolingvisticka istrazivanja lingvista u Hrvatskoj, ukljucujuci i ona koja se ticu tema povezanih s ideologijom standardnog jezika. Neki radovi su: Kapovic, Starcevic i Saric 2016a; Muhvic-Dimanovski 1998; Novak 2012; Starcevic 2016; Simicic i Sujoldzic 2004.

19Iako je rijec o hrvatskom jeziku u Srbiji u radu cu izostaviti rasprave o kriterijima odredivanja standardnog jezika kao i rasprave o odnosu srpskog i hrvatskog jezika i o tomu je li rijec o jednom policentricnom jeziku s nekoliko nacionalnih standardnih varijanti (Kordic 2009: 85) ili pak o dva standardna jezika. Oslonit cu se na stanje na terenu koje je sluzbeno i zakonski regulirano te poci od postavke da postoje dva standardna jezika - hrvatski jezik i srpski jezik. Necu analizirati jezicnu udaljenost izmedu hrvatskoga i srpskoga ni s povijesnog ni sa strukturnog niti s komunikacijskog stajalista, nego iz sociolingvisticke perspektive smatram da je rijec o ausbau jezicima te da medu govornicima ne postoji prepreka u razumijevanju (barem kada su u pitanju standardni oblici jednog i drugog jezika). Vazno je i napomenuti kako smatram da vecina govornika prepoznaje i razlikuje jedan standard od drugoga iako sami nisu dvojezicni (u smislu da koriste oba standarda u govoru / pismu).

20 Uz "bunjevacku ikavicu" javlja se i problem pokusaja standardizacije bunjevackog govora, za vise o toj temi vidi npr. Vukovic 2010a, 2010b, 2011.

21 Autorica je porijeklom iz Vojvodine i tamo je zivjela i skolovala se do 1998. godine kada odlazi u Zagreb. Dio zakljucaka koje donosi rezultat su vlastitoga iskustva zivota u Vojvodini i to kao dio nacionalne (i jezicne) manjine, ali i naknadnih uvida stecenih tijekom cetvero go disnjeg boravka i rada na terenu (2011. - 2015. godine u nastavi u inozemstvu kao ucitelj MZOS-a).

22 http://www.Ytsnis.edu.rs/StrategijaObrazoyanja.pdf (pristup 4. 7. 2016.).

23 U trenutku pisanja rada (lipanj - srpanj 2016. godine) autorica nema sluzbenih saznanja o tomu je li Hrvatsko nacionalno vijece poduzelo korake u izradi udzbenika s odgovarajucim sadrzajima.

24 http://www.hnv.org.rs/onama.php (pristup 4. 7. 2016.).

25 Za popis sporazuma vidjeti Nadleznosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina (Grupa autora s. a.: 14-15).

26 Rehabilitacija je bila u svibnju 2015. Udzbenik je u hrvatskoj nastavi od 2014. godine, a u vecinskoj jos od 2010.

27 U pitanju su novcana sredstva dobivena od Ureda za Hrvate izvan Republike Hrvatske.

28 Slaven Bacic o udzbenicima na hrvatskom jeziku: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_sm8zNFb8 (pristup 4. 7. 2016.).

29 Za uvid u cjelokupnu proceduru koja se treba slijediti pri izradi udzbenika za nastavu na manjinskim jezicima vidjeti Nadleinosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina (Grupa autora s. a.: 20-23).

30Skotski se najcesce definira ili kao skupina dijalekata koji su nastali od staroengleskog i koji se govore u Skotskoj ili kao poseban jezik, blizak engleskom, no distinktivan.

31 Brojnost nije uvijek presudna u etnicko-vjerskim odnosima snagâ - npr. sunitska manjina u Bahreinu vlada nad siitskom vecinom, tako je bilo i u Sadamovu Iraku, a slicno i s alevitskom manjinom na vrhu u Asadovoj Siriji. Ne treba posebno ni spominjati kolonijalne i postkolonijalne situacije poput bijele manjine u Juznoj Africi (koja danas vise nema politicku, ali jos uvijek ima ekonomsku moc u svojim rukama).

32 Zanimljiva je cinjenica da je diskriminacija u jeziku jos uvijek vise-manje svugdje potpuno normalna (bilo da je rijec o necijem dijalektu ili rijecima "nepodobnog" porijekla) iako izvan jezika, bar u javnom diskursu, vise nije politicki korektna (usp. Milroy 2007: 135).

33 Nema nikakve sumnje da je engleski kao globalna lingua franca rezultat kolonijalizma, ekonomskog neoimperijalizma i nejednakog kapitalistickog ekonomskog razvoja u svijetu, te da engleski kao takav nikako ne moze biti "neutralan" s obzirom da i danas uvelike pociva na globalnoj - ekonomskoj, politickoj, vojnoj, a onda i kulturnoj, medijskoj i jezicnoj - hegemoniji SAD-a, koja politicko-ekonomski opada ali jezicno zasad ne. No navedeni radovi koji zastupaju koncept jezicnih prava (Phillipson 1992 i ostali), premda nesumnjivo pisani iz progresivne perspektive i premda mnogi dijelovi njihove kritike svakako stoje, predstavljaju zapravo, bar u prijedlogu svojih rjesenja, svojevrsni jezicni ludizam (tu se u dobroj mjeri javlja osnovni problem, i politicko-ekonomske i lingvisticke, progresivne misli - kako od uglavnom osnovane kritike statusa quo i njegova nastanka prijeci na operacionalizaciju rjesenjâ, medu ostalim i zato sto politicki uvjeti za rjesenja niti su na obzoru, niti su rjesenja jednostavna). To pak niposto ne znaci da se konzervativno-apologetske kritike toga pristupa, kao npr. Honey 1994, mogu prihvatiti. Usp. primjerice razornu Trudgillovu (1998) kritiku knjige Honey 1997, gdje ga kritizira, medu ostalim, i zbog preskriptivizma.

34 To napominje i Brutt-Griffler 2002: 231 (fusnota 9).

35 Takva se zabluda na ljevici vuce jos odavna - usp. npr. Gramscijeve (2000) komentare o jeziku, koji se tesko mogu nazvati progresivnima ili tekst "Borba za kulturu jezika" Trockoga (Pravda, 15. 5. 1923.), koji bi u mnogim dijelovima bez krzmanja potpisali i danasnji preskriptivisti. U tom kontekstu usp. i Trudgillovu (1998: 458) lucidnu opasku o tome da se vec spominjani konzervativac Honey (1997) u mnogim pogledima nalazi na istim stajalistima " w those (mostly German) Marxist linguists who espoused the 'let's empower the proletariat by giving them standard language line"', zanemarujuci tako klasnu narav samog standardnog dijalekta. I dandanas politicka ljevica najcesce pokazuje da je potpuno nesvjesna desne/konzervativne politicke agende koja se krije u preskriptivizmu, tj. ideologiji standardnog jezika (Milroy 2007), iako je njihova veza potpuno jasna (Kapovic 2013).

36 Poznat je, recimo, primjer americkog komicara Billa Cosbyja koji se u javnosti izrugivao crnackom "neznanju engleskog", kriveci potpuno naivno njihov vernakular (AAVE) za njihovo siromastvo i polozaj u drustvu.

37 Zanimljivo je da Brutt-Griffler (2002: 222-223) nesto slicno uocava kritizirajuci koncept jezicnih prava ("In constructing the solution, on the other hand, frameworks focusing on the establishment of language rights offer litile to correct the systemic source of the problem."), ali ne primjecuje da isto to vrijedi i za njezin pristup koji naglasava potrebu za pristupom dominantnom jeziku.

38Slicno kao sto i dvojezicni javni natpisi na talijanskom u Istri u Hrvatskoj takoder ne sluze tome da bi talijanska manjina ondje razumjela sto na njima pise (jer svi Talijani tamo znaju hrvatski), nego simbolicki ukazuju na njihovu manjinsku prisutnost i prava u regiji.

39 Bizarna je, a u siroj javnosti nepoznata, cinjenica da etnicki Hrvati u Vukovaru zapravo, na dijalektalnoj razini, govore sumadijsko-vojvodanskim dijalektom, kojim uglavnom govore etnicki Srbi u Srbiji, koji se u Hrvatskoj govori samo na krajnjem istoku zemlje (u Vukovaru i okolici), dok u Srbiji zauzima vecinu sjeverozapada zemlje. Odatle i anegdote iz vremena ratnih progonstava Vukovaraca 1991. kada su se govornici iz drugih dijelova Hrvatske znali cuditi sto ovi govore "srpski" Takvi primjeri samo govore o vrlo cesto potpunom nepoklapanju jezicne realnosti i nacionalistickih fantazama.

40 Tako je npr. grad Mostar u Hercegovini podijeljen na zapadni (katolicki/hrvatski) i istocni (muslimanski/bosnjacki) dio, a to nije jedini takav primjer na Balkanu.

41 Najindikativniji je mozda primjer izgradnje nacije putem jumbo-plakatâ s popisa stanovnistva 2013. u BiH, kada je bosnjacka politika u citavoj BiH postavila jumbo-plakate koji su Bosnjake (bosanskohercegovacke muslimane) instruirali kako se popisati (jer bi se inace, s obzirom na kompleksnost etnicko-vjersko-jezicnog nazivlja mogli pogubiti u svemu): vjera - islam, nacija - Bosnjak, jezik - bosanski jezik. Percipirani problem za bosnjacki nacionalisticki program je bio u tome sto bi se netko mogao zabuniti pa umjesto Bosnjak reci Bosanac ili Hercegovac (Musliman je, kao etnicka odrednica iz Jugoslavije, danas skroz potisnuta), a umjesto bosanski jezik bi se mogao javiti bosnjacki jezik (sto bi ponistilo njegove pretenzije na cijelu BiH) ili, nedajboze, srpskohrvatski jezik, ili eventualno neka narodska verzija poput naski jezik.

42 Usp. tu Dixonovu (2011: 167-187) tvrdnju da lingvisticka znanost (u smislu "osnovne lingvisticke teorije" i opisa i analize konkretnih jezika) zapravo spada u prirodne znanosti.

43 Tako hrvatski preskriptivist Stjepan Babic, pisuci o rijeci sport/sport (pri cemu je prvi oblik uobicajen, a drugi je nacionalistickopreskriptivisticka ozivljenica), bez ustezanja negoduje da je "mnogima Hrvatima (^) navika (^) vaznija od normalnoga nacionalnoga kriterija" (str. 71 u Babic, Stjepan. 2008. "Zagonetna prevlast jelovnika nad jestvenikom". 55/2: 70-72).

44 Zenski je rod genericki npr. u amazonskom jeziku jarawara, no to drustvo je ipak, kao i vecina ostalih, patrijarhalno (Dixon 2011: 14).

45 Za anatomiju preskriptivizma u Hrvatskoj, s brojnim konkretnim primjerima, usporedi sad Kapovic, Starcevic i Saric 2016b.

46Serijal je nastajao i prikazivao se tijekom 1980-ih i 1990-ih godina na podrucju bivse Jugoslavije pa tako i u Hrvatskoj.

47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztrX5dXmxU (pristup 20. 3. 2016.).

48Lozica smatra da: "Ono sto je folkloristici tekst, etnologiji je samo dio teksture. Kontekst folkloristike (ljudi i njihov zivot) jest tekst etnologije" (1979: 45).

49Takav pristup oznacio je i bitan zaokret folkloristike, a u sirem smislu i antropologije, ka izvedbi. Bauman smatra da usmjerenost na izvedbu moze oznaciti zaokret "nove folkloristike" koja ce biti oslobodena usmjerenosti na tradicijske prezitke nekih proslih vremena "i koja ce moci ukljuciti puno vise od cjelokupnosti ljudskog iskustva" (Bauman 1975: 306).

50Koliko dalekosezne posledice moze imati insistiranje na etnicki definisanom drzavljanstvu u Bosni i Hercegovini pokazalo se 2013. godine, kada predstavnici konstitutivnih naroda u skupstini nisu mogli da postignu dogovor oko dodeljivanja jedinstvenih maticnih brojeva - cime su novorodenu decu ostavili bez mogucnosti da dobiju dokument i putuju u inostranstvo radi lecenja. To je dovelo do masovnih protesta gradana u citavoj zemlji. Ovi protesti, kasnije nazvani bebolucija, bili su prvi nakon rata u devedesetim godinama 20. veka koji su gradane ujedinili bez obzira na njihovu etnicku pripadnost (videti Mujanovic 2013).

51 Nizak nivo prestiza koji uzivaju srpski lokalni govori te odsustvo njihovog razumevanja kao kulturne vrednosti i nasleda povezano je sa cinjenicom da u Srbiji pre standardizacije koju je sproveo Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic nije postojala tradicija lokalnih pisanih idioma zasnovanih na dijalektima - za raziliku od, recimo, Hrvatske, gde se srpskohrvatski kao novouvedeni standard "sukobio" sa nekoliko "narodnih" pisanih standarda (videti Alexander 2002-2003).

52 Videti: "Valjevci i Uzicani ne prestaju se raspravljaju ko govori pravilnijim srpskim jezikom: Evo sta su presudili filolozi", http:// bulevar.b92.net/srpska-posla.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=19&nav_id=1109529 (pristup 13. 7. 2016).

53 Videti:http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/195279/Kapucino-i-Pacino-protiY-kapucina-i-Pacina (pristup 13. 7. 2016).

54 Vise o kampanji moze se naci na adresi: http://www.bgb.rs/index.php/2011-11-14-21-00-27/n-gu-srps-i-zi (pristup 20. 3. 2016), a neke reakcije: http://pescanik.net/od-danas-pisem-neznam/, http://www.danas.rs/danasrs/kultura/malogradjanska_normativnost_naseg_mentaliteta.11.html?news_id=300264, http://www.tarzanija.com/negujmo-srpski-jezik-al-aj-ne-ovako/ (pristup 20. 3. 2016).

55 O sve neadekvatnijim odredbama o jeziku i pismu u sukcesivnim republickim ustavima pise Bugarski (2013: 91-97).

56 Ogromna vecina govornika srpskog podjednako dobro (ili podjednako lose) vlada obama pismima. Pri citanju se cesto i ne primecuje koje je pismo posredi, osim ako se ne obrati posebna paznja. Cirílica se uci u prvom, a latinica u drugom razredu osnovne skole. Uprkos predanom trudu zatocnika i sve vecoj zakonskoj zastiti cirilice, latinica preovladava u komercijalnom oglasavanju, stampi i na internetu. I eto jos jednog paradoksa - mozda vatreni cirilicari nisu bas sve izmislili.

57 Vec neko vreme traje spor oko obrazovanja na maternjem jeziku za pripadnike bosnjacke manjine. Bosnjacke organizacije insistiraju na nazivu bosanski jezik, dok ga srpski lingvisti i veci deo javnosti odbacuju kao neosnovan (vestacki, izmisljen itd.) i, uopste uzev, nemaju mnogo razumevanja za trazenje zasebne nastave namenjene bosnjackoj deci. Kao maksimum velikodusnosti nude bosnjacki kao jezik manjine (http://mondo.rs/a822776/Info/Drustvo/Odbor-za-standardizaciju-Bosanski-jezik-ne-postoji.html, pristup 30. 3. 2016). Drzava je za sada na strani Bosnjaka (http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/index.php/yu/vesti/1118-15-godinaobelezavanja-medunarodnog-dana-maternjeg-jezika, http://www.danas.rs/dodaci/sandzak/bosanski_jezik_na_vise_manifesta- cija.42.html?news_id=3l6609, pristup 30. 3. 2016). S obzirom na minimalne jezicke razlike, spor moze delovati trivijalno. On, medutim, drugacije izgleda ako ga sagledamo u svetlu viktimizacije srbijanskih Bosnjaka tokom devedesetih godina i njihovog i danas ranjivog polozaja.

58 Moemo usporediti koncept nacionalne mitske povijesti Liise Malkki (usp. Malkki 1995), zajednicke pripovijesti o "naciji", koja opisuje i objasnjava karakteristike nacionalne grupe i ima snazne moralne dimenzije, te koncept "zivotnih skripta" u transakcijskoj analizi, koji se odnose na internalizirani narativ buduceg zivota pojedinca, koji opisuje i objasnjava odredene obrasce ponasanja i osobne karakteristike i dovodi do ponavljanja odredenih ponasanja, ukljucujuci i psiholoske igre (usp. Steiner 1990). U tom se kontekstu mitska povijest, koja obicno ukljucuje vidove povijesti kako su tumaceni u skoli, predstavlja kljuc cementiranja nacionalnog identiteta kroz stvaranje osobne identifikacije s kolektivnim narativom s moralnom dimenzijom, moze smatrati "patoloskom" Postoje dvije mogucnosti: potpuno odustajanje od mitske povijesti i shvacanje da se ona odnosi na specificne povijesne uvjete (protunacionalno stajaliste) ili odredeno distanciranje od nje, kako ne bi bila dozivljena na direktan, afektivno snazan i manje svjestan nacin (taj bi se pristup mogao nazvati "liberalan" ili "liberalno lijevi").

59 Drukcije uvjete od ovog, na primjer na nacionalnoj osnovi ili tvrdnjom da samo netko tko ovdje zivi moze sudjelovati, smatram opresivnim.

60 O tim se pitanjima vodila obimna diskusija u okviru antropoloskog bavljenja tom temom, pri cemu je antropolog Robert Hayden (2007) optuzio odredene antropologe koji su se bavili postjugoslavenskom regijom da su dopustili da im "moralni pogled" temeljen na posvecenosti protunacionalnom iskrivi shvacanje o tome na koji nacin veliki broj ljudi koji zive u postjugoslavenskim drzavama (i izvan njih) zele da "njihova" drustva budu organizirana.

61 U dva odgovora (Markovic, Petrovic) spomenuta je emisija Top lista nadrealista i njezin satiricni pristup i vaznost humora kao istodobno i kritike promjena lingvistickog poretka i strategije za prezivljavanje kako bi ih se moglo podnijeti.

REFERENCES / LITERATURA

Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. 2012. Thematic Commentary No. 3. The Language Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities under the Framework Convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800c108d (accessed 30. 11. 2015).

Agha, Asif 2005. "Voice, Footing, Enregisterment". Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15/1: 38-59. [https://doi.org/10.1525/ jlin.2005.15.1.38]

Aitchison, Jean. 2001. Language Change. Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aitken, A. J. 1990. "The Good Old Scots Tongue. Does Scots have an Identity?". In/U Minority Languages Today. Einar Haugen, J. Derrick McClure and/i Derick S. Thomson, eds./ur. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 72-90.

Alexander, Ronelle. 2002-2003. "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. One Language or Three?" International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44-45: 1-35.

Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities. Refections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London - New York: Verso.

Aracil, Lluís V 1965. Confit linguistique et normalisation dans l'Europe nouvelle. Nancy.

Aronson, Howard. 2007. The Balkan Linguistic League, "Orientalism," and Linguistic The Kenneth E. Naylor Memorial Lecture Series, No. 4. Ann Arbor - New York: Beech Stave Press.

Arsenijevic, Boban. 2016. "Postsrpskohrvatski jezik ili jezici" Danas, February 5.

Babic, Stjepan, Bozidar Finka and/i Milan Mogus. 1984. Hrvatski pravopis. London: Nova Hrvatska.

Bakic-Hayden, Milica. 1995. "Nesting Orientalisms. The Case of Former Yugoslavia". Slavic Review 54/4: 917-931. [https://doi. org/10.2307/2501399]

Bauman, Richard. 1975. "Verbal Art as Performance". American Anthropologist. New Series 77/2: 290-311.

Bauman, Richard. 1986. Story, Performance, and Event. Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620935]

Bauman, Richard and/i Charles L. Briggs. 2000. "Language Philosophy and Language Ideology. John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder". In/U Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Paul V Kroskrity, ed./ur. Santa Fe - Oxford: SAR Press - James Currey, 139-204.

Bauman, Richard and/i Charles L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of Modernity. Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

Bezen, Ante and/i Milan Bosnjak, eds./ur. 2012. Hrvatska nastava u inozemstvu. Prirucnik za uciteljice i Zagreb: Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i sporta.

Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London et al.: Sage Publications Ltd.

Blommaert, Jan. 2003. "Commentary. A Sociolinguistics of Globalization". Journal of Sociolinguistics 7/4: 607-623. [https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00244.x]

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. "L'économie des échanges linguistiques". Langue Française 34: 17-34. [https://doi.org/10.3406/ lfr.1977.4815]

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1982. Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and/i John B. Thompson. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bowman, Glenn. 2001. "The Violence in Identity". In/U Anthropology of Violence and Confict. Bettina Schmidt and/i Ingo Schroeder, eds./ur. London: Routledge, 25-46.

Brkovic, Cama. 2014. "The Quest for Legitimacy. Discussing Language and Sexuality in Montenegro". In/U Mirroring Europe. Ideas of Europe and Europeanization in Balkan Societies. Tanja Petrovic, ed./ur. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 163-185.

Brodnjak, Vladimir. 1992. Razlikovni rjecnik srpskog i hrvatskogjezika. Zagreb: Skolske novine.

Brubaker, Rogers. 2002. "Ethnicity without Groups". Archives Européennes de Sociologie 43/2: 163-189. [https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003975602001066]

Brubaker, Rogers and/i Frederick Cooper. 2000. "Beyond 'Identity'". Theory and Society 29/1: 1-47.

Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. "Class, Ethnicity, and Language Rights. An Analysis of British Colonial Policy in Lesotho and Sri Lanka and Some Implications for Language Policy". Journal of Language, Identity & Education 1/3: 207-34. [https://doi. org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0103_3]

Bugarski, Ranko. 2002-2003. "Language and Ethnicity in Sarajevo. Some Recollections and Observations". XLVQ-XLVnI: 71-76.

Bugarski, Ranko. 2012. Portret jednog jezika. Beograd: XX vek.

Bugarski, Ranko. 2013. "Jezicka politika i jezicka stvarnost u Srbiji posle 1991. godine" In/U Jezik izmedu lingvistike i politike. Vesna Pozgaj Hadzi, ed./ur. Beograd: XX vek, 91-111.

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language. Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Clarke, John, Dave Bainton, Noémi Lendvai and/i Paul Stubbs. 2015. Making Policy Move. Towards a Politics of Translation and Assemblage. Bristol: Policy Press, University of Bristol.

Costa, James. 2013. "Language Endangerment and Revitalisation as Elements of Regimes of Truth. Shifting Terminology to Shift Perspective". Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34/4: 317-331. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.201 3.794807]

Creese, Angela, Arvind Bhatt, Nirmala Bhojani and/i Peter Martin. 2006. "Multicultural, Heritage and Learner Identities in Complementary Schools". Lunguageand Education 20/1: 23-43. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780608668708]

Czerwinski, Maciej. 2009. "Jezik - izvor nacionalne i drzavne homogenizacije: izabrani prilozi" In/U Jezicni varijeteti i nacionalni identiteti. Priloziproucavanju standardnih jezika utemeljenih na stokavstini. Lada Badurina, Ivo Pranjkovic and/i Josip Silic, eds./ ur. Zagreb: Disput, 11-27.

Cale Feldman, Lada, Ines Prica and/i Reana Senjkovic, eds./ur. 1993. Fear, Death and Resistance. An Ethnography of War: Croatia 1991 - 1992. Zagreb: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research - Matrix Croatica - X-Press.

Curak, Nerzuk. 2004. Dejtonski nacionalizam. Ogledi o politickom. Sarajevo: Buybook.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2011. I am a Linguist. Leiden - Boston: Brill.

Edwards, John. 1984. Minority Languages and Group Identity, Cases and Categories. Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Edwards, John. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Errington, Joseph. 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World. A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. Malden - Oxford - Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/default_en.asp (accessed 30. 11. 2015).

Filipovic, Jelena. 2015. Transdisciplinary Approach to Language Study. The Complexity Theory Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137538468]

Francis, Becky, Louise Archer and/i Ada Mau. 2009. "Language as Capital, or Language as Identity? Chinese Complementary School Pupils' Perspectives on the Purposes and Benefits of Complementary Schools". British Educational Research Journal 35/4: 519-538. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044586]

Gal, Susan. 2006a. "Contradictions of Standard Language in Europe. Implications for the Study of Practices and Publics". Social Anthropology 14/2: 163-181.

Gal, Susan. 2006b. "Migration, Minorities and Multilingualism. Language Ideologies in Europe". In/U Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Clare Mar-Molinero and/i Patrick Stewenson, eds./ur. Houndmills - New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 13-27.

Gal, Susan and/i Kathryn A. Woolard. 1995. "Constructing Languages and Publics. Authority and Representation". Pragmatics 5/2: 129-138.

Gal, Susan and/i Kathryn Woolard. 2001. "Constructing Languages and Publics. Authority and Representation". In/U Languages and Publics. The Making of Authority. Susan Gal and/i Kathryn Woolard, eds./ur. Manchester - Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing, 1-12.

Gluhak, Alemko. 1990. Podrijetlo imena Hrvat. Zagreb.

Graeber, David. 2003. "The Twilight of Vanguardism". Infoshop News, http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=03/05/31/3144995.

Gramsci, Antonio. 2000. The Gramsci Reader. Selected Writings 1916-1935. David Forgacs, ed./ur. New York: New York University Press.

Grbic, Jadranka. 1994. Identitet, jezik i razvoj. Istrazivanje o povezanosti etniciteta i jezika na primjeru hrvatske nacionalne manjine u Madarskoj. Zagreb: Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku.

Green, Sarah F. 1997. Urban Amazons: Lesbian Feminism and Beyond in the Gender, Sexuality and Identity Battles of London. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25750-8]

Greenberg, D. Robert. 2004. Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, D. Robert. 2005. Jezik i identitet na Balkanu. Raspad srpsko-hrvatskoga. Zagreb: Srednja Europa.

Haraway, Donna. 1988. "Situated Knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective". Feminist Studies 14/3: 575-599. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066]

Hayden, Robert M. 2007. "Moral Vision and Impaired Insight". Current Anthropology 48/1: 105-131. [https://doi. org/10.1086/508688]

Heller, Monica. 2010. Paths to Post-Nationalism. A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Honey, John. 1994. [review of Phillipson 1992]. MSK 1: 117-121.

Honey, John. 1997. Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies. London: Faber and Faber.

Hymes, Dell. 1971. "The Contribution of Folklore to Sociolinguistic Research". Journal of American Folklore. Special Issue: Toward New Perspectives in Folklore 84/331: 42-50.

Ivic, Pavle. 1988. "Predgovor". In/U Govori Nisa i okolnih sela, Pol-Luj Toma (Srpski dijalektoloski zbornik XLV). Beograd: SANU - Institut za srpski jezik, 11-13.

Jaffe, Alexandra. 1999. Ideologies in Action. Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110801064]

Jansen, Stef. 2005. "National Numbers in Context. Maps and Stats in Representations of the Post-Yugoslav Wars". Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power 12/1: 45-68. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10702890590914311]

Jansen, Stef. 2015. Yearnings in the Meantime. "Normal Lives' and the State in a Sarajevo Apartment Complex. Oxford - New York: Berghahn Books.

Kapovic, Mate. 2011a. Ciji je jezik? Zagreb: Algoritam.

Kapovic, Mate. 2011b. "Language, Ideology and Politics in Croatia". Slavia centralis 4/2: 45-56.

Kapovic, Mate. 2013. "Jezik i konzervativizam". In/U Komparativni postsocijalizam. Slavenska iskustva. Masa Kolanovic, ed./ur. Zagreb: Zagrebacka slavisticka skola, 391-400.

Kapovic, Mate, Andel Starcevic and/i Daliborka Saric. 2016a. "O preskripciji i preskriptivizmu u Hrvatskoj". In/U Jezicna politika. Izmedu norme i jezicnog liberalizma. Barbara Kryzan-Stanojevic, ed./ur. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 45-67.

Kapovic, Mate, Andel Starcevic and/i Daliborka Saric. 2016b. Jeziku je svejedno. Zagreb: Sandorf [in press].

Kontra, Miklos, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and/i Tibor Várady, eds./ur. 1999. Language. A Right and a Resource. Approaching Linguistic Human Rights. Budapest: Central European University Press.

Kordic, Snjezana. 2009. "Policentricni standardni jezik". In/U Jezicni varijeteti i nacionalni identiteti. Lada Badurina, Ivo Pranjkovic and/i Josip Silic, eds./ur. Zagreb: Disput, 83-108.

Kordic, Snjezana. 2010. Jezik i nacionalizam. Zagreb: Durieux.

Lane, Pia. 2011. "The Birth of the Kven Language in Norway. Emancipation through State Recognition". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 209: 57-74. [https://doi.org/10.1515/ij sl.2011.021]

Lane, Pia. 2014. "Minority Language Standardisation and the Role of Users". Language Policy 123.

Ljubojevic, Ana. 2016. "Speak Up, Write Out. Language and Populism in Croatia". In/U Narratives of Identity in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change. Landon E. Hancock, ed./ur. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 29-55.

Lozica, Ivan. 1979. "Metateorija u folkloristici i filozofija umjetnosti" Narodna umjetnost 16: 33-55. = 2008. In/U Zapisano i napisano. Folkloristicki spisi. Zagreb: AGM, 9-36.

Lytra, Vally. 2012. "Discursive Constructions of Language and Identity. Parents' Competing Perspectives in London Turkish Complementary Schools" Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33/1: 85-100. [https://doi.org/10.1080/014346 32.2011.638076]

Madacki, Sasa and/i Mia Karamehic, eds./ur. 2012. Dvijeskolepod jednim krovom. Studija o segregaciji u obrazovanju. Sarajevo: Centar za ljudska prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu - Asocijacija Alumni Centra za interdisciplinarne postdiplomske studije (ACIPS).

Malkki, Liisa. 1992. "National Geographic. The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees". Cultural Anthropology 7/1: 24-44. [https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1992.7T.02a00030]

Malkki, Liisa H. 1995. Purity and Exile. Violence, Memory and National Cosmology Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

May, Stephen. 2003. "Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights". Current Issues in Language Planning 4/2: 95-125. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200308668052]

McAdams, P. Dan. 2006. The Redmptive Self Stories Americans Live By. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195176933.001.0001]

McClure, J. Derrick. 2009. Why Scots Matters. Edinburgh: Saltire Society.

Milroy, James. 2001. "Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization". Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/4: 530-555. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00163]

Milroy, James. 2007. "The Ideology of the Standard Language". In/U The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. Carmen Llamas, Louise Mullany and/i Peter Stockwell, eds./ur. London - New York: Routledge, 133-139.

Muhvic-Dimanovski, Vesna. 1998. "Neologizmi na razmedi jezicne otvorenosti i jezicnoga purizma" Filologija 30-31: 495-499.

Mujanovic, Jasmin. 2013. "'Bebolucija!' The #Jmbg Movement In Bosnia-Herzegovina" http://politicsrespun.org/2013/06/bebolucija-the-jmbg-movement-in-bosnia-herzegovina/, June 11 (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

Mujkic, Asim. 2007. "We, the Citizens of Ethnopolis". Constellations 14/1: 112-128. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678675.2007.00425.x]

Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Novak, Kristian. 2012. "What can Language Biographies Reveal about Multilingualism in the Habsburg Monarchy? A Case Study on the Members of the Illyrian Movement". Jezikoslovlje 13/2: 395-417.

Ochs, Elinor. 1993. "Constructing Social Identity. A Language Socialization Perspective". Research on Language and Social Interaction 26/3: 287-306. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2603_3]

Pateman, Trevor. 1983. "What Is a Language?". Language & Communication 3/2: 101-127. [https://doi.org/10.1016/02715309(83)90009-5]

Pavlovic, Zoran and/i Jovo Bosnie. 2010. Mozaikproslosti 8. Udzbenik istorije za osmi razred osnovne skole. Beograd: BIGZ.

Pavlovic, Zoran and/i Jovo Bosnic. 2014. Mozaik proslosti 8. Udzbenik povijesti za osmi razred osnovne skole. Beograd: BIGZ.

Peti-Stantic, Anita and/i Keith Langston. 2013. Hrvatsko jezicnopitanje danas. Identiteti i ideologije. Zagreb: Srednja Europa.

Petrov, Miroslava and/i Dragana Grujic. 2013. Muzicka kultura 8. Udzbenik muzicke kulture za osmi razred osnovne skole. Beograd: BIGZ.

Petrov, Miroslava and/i Dragana Grujic. 2014. Glazbena kultura 8. Udzbenik glazbene kulture za osmi razred osnovne skole. Beograd: BIGZ.

Petrovic, Tanja. 2015. Srbija i njen jug. "Juznjacki dijalekti" izmedu jezika, kulture ipolitike. Beograd: Fabrika knjiga.

Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, Robert. 2009. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. New York - London: Routledge.

Pietikäinen, Sari, Pia Lane, Hanni Salo and/i Sirkka Laihiala-Kankainen. 2011. "Frozen Actions in the Arctic Linguistic Landscape. A Nexus Analysis of Language Processes in Visual Space". International Journal of Multilingualism 8/4: 277-298. [https://doi. org/10.1080/14790718.2011.555553]

Prakash, Gyan. 1999. Another Reason. Science and the Imagination of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Prica, Ines. 2001. "Etnologija ali antropologija! Prilog diskusiji na temu: etnologija i?, ili?, i/ili?, kroz?, versus?, (itd.) antropologija" Studia ethnologica Croatica 10/11: 201-213.

Pupavac, Vanessa. 2003. "Politics and Language Rights. A Case Study of Language Politics in Croatia". In/U Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects. Gabrielle Hogan-Brun and/i Stefan Wolff, eds./ur. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 138-154.

Rampton, Ben. 2007. "Neo-Hymesian Linguistic Ethnography in the United Kingdom". Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/5: 584-607.

Ricoeur, Paul. 2004. The Conflict of Interpretations. Essays in Hermeneutics. London - New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Robertson, James. 1994. "Introduction". In/U A Tongue in Yer Heid. James Robertson, ed./ur. Edinburgh: B&W Publishing, vii-xvi.

Roseberry, William. 1994. "Hegemony and the Language of Contention". In/U Everyday Forms of State Formation. Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Gilbert M. Joseph and/i Daniel Nugent, eds./ur. Durham: Duke University Press, 355-366.

Said, Edvard. 2008. Orijentalizam. Beograd: XX vek.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 1995. "The Primacy of the Ethical. Propositions for a Militant Anthropology". Current Anthropology 36/3: 409-440. [https://doi.org/10.1086/204378]

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1996. "Narrative as Self-portrait. Sociolinguistic Construction of Identity". Language in Society 25: 167-203. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020601]

Silverstein, Michael. 1996. "Monoglot 'Standard' in America. Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony". In/U The Matrix of Language. Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Donald Brenneis and/i Ronald H. S. Macaulay, eds./ur. Boulder: Westview Press, 284-306.

Silverstein, Michael. 2003. "Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life". Language and Communication 23/3-4: 193229. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2]

Simonovic, Marko. 2015. "Od danas pisem neznam" http://pescanik.net/od- danas-pisem-ne znam/, April 20 (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education - Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Starcevic, Andel. 2016. "Trenirka, diktafon i 'iskrivljen hrvatski. Metodoloski izazovi sociolingvistickog intervjua i sudionickog promatranja" In/U Metodologija iprimjena lingvistickih istrazivanja. Zbornik radova s medunarodnoga znanstvenogskupa Hrvatskoga drustva za primijenjenu lingvistiku odrzanoga od 24. do 26. travnja 2015. godine u Zadru. Sanda Lucija Udier and/i Kristina Cergol Kovacevic, eds./ur. Zagreb: Srednja Europa, 3-17.

Steiner, Claude. 1990. Scripts People Live. Transactional Analysis of Life Scripts. New York: Grove Press.

Stevanovic, Marjana 2015. "Malogradanska normativnost naseg mentaliteta" (interview with Boban Arsenijevic). Danas, April 13.

Stevanovic, Marjana. 2016. "Srpski i hrvatski lingvisti zajedno istrazuju". Danas, August 24.

Strategija razvoja obrazovanja u Srbiji do 2020. godine. http://www.vtsnis.edu.rs/StrategijaObrazovanja.pdf (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

Sujoldzic, Anita. 2008. "Istrian Identities and Languages in Contact" Suvremena lingvistika 65/1: 27-56.

Sare, Sandra and/i Stanislav Stankovic. 2011. "O fenomenu lingvicizma me du srbijskom akademskom filoloskom elitom". Dijalekat - dijalekatska knjizevnost (= Nase stvaranje LVIII/1-4). Leskovac: Leskovacki kulturni centar, 46-54.

Simicic, Lucija and Anita Sujoldzic. 2004. "Cultural Implications of Attitudes and Evaluative Reactions Toward Dialect Variation in Croatian Youth". Collegium Antropologicum 28/Suppl. 1: 97-107.

Skiljan, Dubravko. 2000. "From Croato-Serbian to Croatian. Croatian Linguistic Identity". Multilingua 19/1-2: 3-20. [https://doi. org/10.1515/mult.2000.19.1-2.3]

TNS-BMRB. 2010. Public Attitudes Towards the Scots Language. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.

Todorova, Marija. 1999. Imaginarni Balkan. Beograd: XX vek.

Todorova, Maria. 2009. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2001. "Th e Anthropology of the State in the Age of Globalization. Close Encounters of the Deceptive Kind". Current Anthropology 42/1: 125-138. [https://doi.org/10.1086/318437]

Trudgill, Peter. 1998. [review of Honey 1997]. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2/3: 457-461.

Urla, Jacqueline. 2012. Reclaiming Basque. Language, Nation, and Cultural Activism. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Ustav Republike Srbije. http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/139-100028/ustav-republike-srbije (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

Various Authors/Grupa autora. s. a. Nadleznosti nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina. Prirucnik za nacionalne savete nacionalnih manjina. Republika Srbija Ministarstvo za ljudska i manjinska prava, drzavnu upravu i lokalnu samoupravu Uprava za ljudska i manjinska prava - OEBS, organizacija za evropsku bezbednost i saradnju Misija u Srbiji - Ambasada Savezne Republike Nemacke.

Various Authors/Skupina autora. 2010. Nacionalni okvirni kurikulum za predskolski odgoj i obrazovanje te opee obvezno i srednjoskolsko obrazovanje. Zagreb: Ministarstvo znanosti, obrazovanja i sporta.

Vukovic, Petar. 2010a. "Kako skrbiti za hrvatski jezik u Vojvodini". Godisnjak za znanstvena istrazivanja 2: 79-103.

Vukovic, Petar. 2010b. "Konstrukcija identiteta u backih Bunjevaca" In/U Identitet Hrvata, Zbornik radova medunarodnog znanstvenog skupa. Robert Skenderovic, ed./ur. Zagreb - Subotica: Hrvatski institut za povijest - Hrvatsko akademsko drustvo, 263-289.

Vukovic, Petar. 2011. "Jednojezicnost ili visejezicnost - slucaj backih Bunjevaca". In/U Dani Balinta Vujkova. Zbornik sa znanstvenih skupova 2006.-2010. Katarina Celikovic, ed./ur. Subotica: Hrvatska citaonica, 29-43.

Woolard, Kathryn A. 2008. "Language and Identity Choice in Catalonia. The Interplay of Contrasting Ideologies of Linguistic Authority". In/U Lengua, nación e identidad. La regulación del plurilingüismo en España y América Latina. Kirsten Süselbeck, Ulrike Mühlschlegel and/i Peter Masson, eds./ur. Frankfurt am Main - Madrid: Vervuert - Iberoamericana, 303-323.

Zenker, Olaf. 2014. "Linguistic Relativity and Dialectical Idiomatization. Language Ideologies and Second Language Acquisition in the Irish Language Revival of Northern Ireland". Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 24/1: 63-83. [https://doi.org/10.1111/ jola.12037]

http://bulevar.b92.net/srpska-posla.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=19&nav_id=1109529 (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

http://mondo.rs/a822776/Info/Drustvo/Odbor-za-standardizaciju-Bosanski-jezik-ne-postoji.html (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://pescanik.net/od-danas-pisem-neznam/ (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://www.bgb.rs/index.php/2011-11-14-21-00-27/n-gu-srps-i-zi (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http: //wwwdanas.rs/danasrs /kultura/ malogradjanska_normativnost_naseg_mentaliteta. 11 .html?news_id=300264 (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://wwwdanas.rs/dodaci/sandzak/bosanski_jezik_na_vise_manifestacija.42.html?news_id=316609 (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/vukovar-i-cirilica-tribina/print:true (accessed 14. 11. 2014).

http://www.hnv.org.rs/onama.php (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/index.php/yu/vesti/1118-15-godina-obelezavanja-medunarodnog-dana-maternjeg-jezika (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/195279/Kapucino-i-Pacino-protiv-kapucina-i-Pacina (accessed 13. 7. 2016).

http://www.tarzanija.com/negujmo-srpski-jezik-al-aj-ne-ovako/ (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

http://www.vecernji.hr/neredi-u-vukovaru/prosvjednici-cekicima-razbili-cirilicne-ploce-u-vukovaru-606963 (accessed 14. 11. 2014).

http://wwwvecernji.hr/zg-vijesti/nazive-avenija-dubrovnik-i-patacickina-ulica-trebalo-bi-izbjegavati-963175 (accessed 30. 11. 2015).

http://www.vtsnis.edu.rs/StrategijaObrazovanja.pdf (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

https://euobserver.com/news/31340 (accessed 29. 10. 2015).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztrX5dXmxU (accessed 20. 3. 2016).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_sm8zNFb8 (accessed 4. 7. 2016).

Amelia Abercrombie

Department of Social Anthropology

University ofManchester

Oxford Rd

Manchester, M13 9PL

United Kingdom

[email protected]

Andrew Hodges

Center for Advanced Studies - Southeast Europe

(CAS SEE)

University of Rijeka

Radmile Matejcic 2

51000 Rijeka

Croatia

[email protected]

Marina Balazev

Ministry of Science and Education ofthe

Republic of Croatia

Donje Svetice 38

10000 Zagreb

Croatia

[email protected]

James Costa

Department ofLinguistics / LACITO Research

Laboratory (UMR CNRS 7107)

Université Sorbonne Paris Cité

ILPGA - 19 rue des Bernardins

75005 Paris

France

[email protected]

Mate Kapovic

Department of Linguistics

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,

University ofZagreb

Ivana Lucica 3

10000 Zagreb

Croatia

[email protected]

Jelena Markovic

Institute ofEthnology and Folklore Research

Subiceva 42

10000 Zagreb

Croatia

[email protected]

Tanja Petrovic

Institute of Culture and Memory Studies

Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of

Sciences and Arts

Novi trg 2

1000 Ljubljana

Slovenia

[email protected]

Word count: 52185

Show less

Abstract

Translate

This paper focuses on language policy and social changes which have taken place in Croatia during and since the 1991-5 war. I fi rst describe the historical background, the war and the nineties being marked by excesses of linguistic purism and prescriptivism, alongside the formation of post-Yugoslav states in which national belonging was key to defining citizenship. Through examining the relationship between changing linguistic and social orders, I raise a number of issues for discussion. I argue that the legal framework of minority language rights has consolidated and legitimated a nationalist imaginary, increasing social divisions and reinforcing hierarchies asserted by some nationalists between national categories. For this reason, I suggest that the uncritical endorsement of or promotion of linguistic diversity can be dangerous. Second, in an activist-anthropological vein, I discuss possible reasons why academics trained in the social sciences and humanities have rarely participated in sociolinguistic debates concerning the new Croatian standard. I suggest such discussions could greatly benefit from interventions by social scientists, so as to bring sociolinguistics into contact with other strands of the social sciences and humanities and move away from what I believe to be a problematic policy focus on "identity"./Ovaj se rad bavi jezicnom politikom i drustvenim promjenama koje su se dogodile u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme i nakon rata koji je trajao od 1991. do 1995. godine. Pocinjem opisom povijesne pozadine, rata i devedesetih godina 20. stoljeca, koje je obiljezila velika kolicina jezicnog purizma i preskriptivizma u Hrvatskoj te stvaranje postjugoslavenskih drzava u kojima je pripadanje naciji predstavljalo kljuc za definiranje drzavljanstva. Istrazivanjem odnosa izmedu promjena u jezicnom i drustvenom poretku, problematiziram vise tema. Tvrdim da je zakonski okvir prava manjinskog jezika osnazio i legitimizirao nacionalisticki imaginarij, stvarajuci daljnje drustvene podjele i ucvrscujuci hijerarhije koje medu nacionalnim kategorijama promoviraju odredeni nacionalisti. Iz tog razloga, tvrdim da nekriticko odobravanje ili promoviranje lingvisticke razlicitosti mogu biti opasni. Nadalje, u aktivistickoantropoloskom smislu, razlazem moguce razloge zbog kojih su znanstvenici drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti rijetko sudjelovali u sociolingvistickim raspravama koje se ticu novog hrvatskog standardnog jezika. Tvrdim da bi takvim raspravama u znatnoj mjeri doprinijelo sudjelovanje znanstvenika humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti, jer bi se stvorila veza izmedu sociolingvistike i ostalih grana humanistickih i drustvenih znanosti te bi se tako odmaknuli od, prema mojem sudu problematicne, politike usredotocene na "identitet".

Details

Title

CROATIAN LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION AND THE PRODUCTION OF NATIONALIZED POLITICAL SUBJECTS THROUGH LANGUAGE?: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities/COMMENTS/REPLY/STANDARDIZACIJA HRVATSKOG JEZIKA I STVARANJE NACIONALIZIRANIH POLITICKIH SUBJEKATA KROZ JEZIK?: Pogled iz ocista drustvenih i humanistickih znanosti

Author

Hodges, Andrew; Abercrombie, Amelia; Balazev, Marina; Costa, James; Kapovic, Mate; Markovic, Jelena; Petrovic, Tanja; Spasic, Ivana

Pages

3-91,251

Publication year

2016

Publication date

2016

Publisher

Hrvatsko Etnolosko Drustvo

ISSN

03511944

e-ISSN

13330993

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15378/1848-9540.2016.39.01

ProQuest document ID

1858617278

Jump to:

Full text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources