LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN TODAY'S CROATIA (1979)

CRISTOPHER SPALATIN

- - - -

Journal of Croatian Studies, XX, 1979, – Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of America, Inc. New York, N.Y., Electronic edition by Studia Croatica, by permission. All rights reserved by the Croatian Academy of America.

- - - -

In the fall of 1978 Zagreb University Press "Liber" published a volume of 750 pages containing thirty papers dealing with the history of Croatian literature under the title Croatian Literature Within the West European Context.[1] For about two months only a few papers were politically discussed and attacked on Radio, TV, a special symposium[2] and in the Zagreb and Belgrade press.[3]'

In late spring of 1979 a reference grammar of the Croatian literary language[4] compiled by a team of young linguists was recommended by Zagreb daily Vjesnik and then attacked by Dr. Stipe Šuvar, the Secretary for Education in the Socialist Republic of Croatia. In both cases the main issue was not literary criticism or linguistics but the fear of the regime that Croatians might stress too much their national peculiarity to the detriment of their "brotherhood" with Serbs.

I

We shall first describe very succinctly the volume published by "Liber", and then in more detail Professor Dalibor Brozović's treatise in it.

Following a too short preface, Brozović's article and Eduard Hercigonja's survey of the medieval Croatian literature head the remaining twenty-eight papers, whose length goes from eight to thirty pages. Brozović's article with its seventy-four pages is by far the longest and Hercigonja's with fifty-two pages the second longest. Except for Brozović who deals with language, all other writers deal with the history of various sections of Croatian literature in West European context, hence the title of the collection. After Hercigonja described the oldest Croatian literature "within the frame of Slavic medieval literatures," Vladimir Vratović presents the Croatian latinists within the European context. Following, chronologically the names of outstanding writers or the literary movements, the contributors treated their subjects under these headings: Marko Marulić, Renaissance, Marin Držić, Baroque, Ivan Gundulić, Age of Enlightenment, Illyrian Movement, Ivan Mažuranić, August Šenoa, Realism, Modern, Ivo Vojnović, A. G. Matoš, Vladimir Nazor, Expressionism, Socially Committed Literature, Tin Ujević, Kranjčević and Krleža, Miroslav Krleža, Partisan Literature during World War II, Theater from Moderna to 1941, Prose from 1945 to 1960, Prose from 1960 to 1970, Poetry in the Twentieth Century, and After-War Poetry. Nobody wrote about the literary activity in the Independent State of Croatia from 1941 to 1945. This omission cannot be unintentional.

As we already observed, these papers present the Croatian literature in its relationship with the West, so that the East, especially the Serbs, seem to be ignored. In its editorial Vjesnik deplores that attitude. "Throughout this book one can detect a politically detrimental and unacceptable basic attitude pervading the entire volume: its exclusive orientation towards greater and more developed European literatures, thus isolating the Croatian literature from other South Slavic and Yugoslav literatures. Few are the papers which at least partially deal with the Croatian literature in that context... That way an essential level of the study of our literature in the European context is missing. That very level could have shown how the values of the Croatian literature irradiated beyond the Croatian boundaries. For if at any time and in any place the Croatian literature had any influence (and that is not controversial, we hope), that was and has been first in the Yugoslav spiritual domain."[5] During the above mentioned symposium Slavko Goldstein, the director of the Zagreb University Press, informed the discussants that his Press is in the process of preparing the volume "Croatian Literature in the South Slavic Context". Characteristic is the statement of another discussant, Dr. Ivan Krtalić, a high official in the Department of Education: "Since 1971 the division into 'we' and 'they' has been manifest in Croatian literature. Who are 'we' and who 'they' has never been either written or said, but it seems that we all know them without saying."[6] In reality, national tensions are being constantly suppressed in public, in one way or another, and the main national rivalry (the Serbo-Croatian conflict), if and when discussed, is always dealt with extreme caution through veiled allusions. This is why the very language of the discussants involved is not readily understood by the uninitiated.

Brozović's treatise has a rather long title: "The Croatian language, its place within the South Slavic and other Slavic languages, its historical changes as the language of Croatian literature." The average length of each article in this collective work is twenty-two pages. With its seventy-four pages Brozović's article is three and a half times longer than the average. This too shows its importance! Two commas in the title divide the article in three unequal parts. In the first part the expression "the Croatian language" is taken as the linguistic medium of the whole Croatian literary history from the Tablet of Baška (1100) to the present day. In the second, the writer defines the place of that language in the South Slavic group of languages. In the third, by far the longest, Brozović describes the historical changes of the language of Croatian literature, that he divides into six unequal periods.

To understand the main, third part, over some ten pages the writer discusses the subject matter of the second part, which is sub-divided into two: geneto-linguistic (genetskolingvistički) and socio-linguistic aspect of the Croatian linguistic reality. Let Brozović describe that second part:

"From the historic and comparative point of view (Indoeuropean, Slavic), those South Slavic dialects which are neither Slovenian, Macedonian, nor Bulgarian, i.e. the dialects between the Croatian-Slovenian border on one side and the Serbian-Macedonian and Serbian-Bulgarian on the other, represent, in a genetic sense, one Slavic language, i.e. a language-diasystem. That means we deal here with a system of Slavic dialects which, like other language-diasystems, descendants from the Protoslavic language, forms a specific unit. There is no satisfactory name .for that language-diasystem, and this is why in the study of Slavic languages and in comparative linguistics the compound term Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian is used. Although instead of one we have two terms and their formation is far from good, we need them to express the existence of that specific unit, for instance when we list the Slavic language-diasystems." (11)[7]

From the dialectal point of view the Croatian language covers the territory of a part of the Štokavian area and the whole of Čakavian and Kajkavian areas, whereas the Serbian language covers an-other part of the Štokavian area and the whole of the Torlakian area. Montenegrins and Bosnia-Hercegovina Moslems also occupy a part of the Štokavian area. These two points of view, historic-comparative and dialectal, taken together represent the genetic-linguistic aspect of the Croatian linguistic reality, i.e. the foundation of the Croatian standard.

A standard language can be built only on an organic linguistic basis. "Its sounds, accents, forms, basic syntactic and formation rules, basic thesaurus must be taken from a dialect. We shall refer to all these elements together as the dialectal foundation of the standard language. Those elements are the only thing a standard language has in common with the organic idioms which belong to the sphere of genetic linguistics. Yet they do not make the standard language what it really is; it needs also a linguistic superstructure, i.e. codification, a script, spelling, orthography, and intellectual stock of words, scientific terminology, sentence structures, new linguistic habits, etc." (16-17)

Brozović goes on to a further elaboration of the terms linguistic foundation and linguistic superstructure. Between the two World Wars up until the 1960's that distinction was not made. Thus the genetic aspect of the standard language was its very essence, whereas the rest, the other aspect, was unimportant, it was considered negligible. The linguistic unity of Croatians and Serbs was built on such premises. This is why Brozović and other contemporary Croatian linguists insist so much on superstructure. It is on that linguistic aspect that contemporary Croatians resist the hegemony of their Serbian "brothers", just as their forefathers fought the linguistic encroachments of the Austrians and the Hungarians. When the linguistic principles of the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure were applied to the Croato-Serbian case, "the rest or the negligible aspect" became much more important. Besides Brozović, Radoslav Katičić, a professor of the University of Vienna, contributed also to the elaboration of that new theory. He writes: "A literary language is not determined only by the organic dialect on which it was built, as it is often thought, but also by the way how that dialect was developed for the manifold usages of a standard, as well as by the principle of distinguishing ethnic or national peculiarities (vrijednosne značajke)."[8] And farther: "The question of correctness or incorrectness of a word, form or usage is not a linguistic question. The science of language studies all that is spoken, the phenomenon of language in its entirety. This science teaches us that a society starts codifying its language as soon as it starts forming a linguistic standard distinguishing what is correct from what is incorrect. Yet the very science of language can-not supply the criterion according to which a word, form or construction is correct or incorrect. A ,form is correct in as much as it agrees with the norm, and a norm is arbitrary and determined by extras linguistic reasons."[9] At the end Professor Katičić concludes: "The basic problem of the codification of a standard language is not of a linguistic but social character."[10]

After describing the genetic and sociolinguistic component of the standard language, Professor Brozović goes on to propose a, division of the Croatian linguistic history.

"Throughout the Croatian linguistic and literary history we en-counter several different languages: a Croatian Church Slavonic language, several regional literary languages, two concurrent literary languages in the process of their standardization, and the all-Croatian Neo-Štokavian standard language. In the past, that history was viewed lopsidedly and idealistically, as a shift of two big, monolithic and unconnected periods, with an insurmountable precipice gaping between them: one up until the Croatian National Movement of the 1830's containing hardly anything good and worthwhile, and the other after that Movement, idealized and embellished. That traditional approach, of course, is false and untrue as well as in many aspects detrimental. For if we encompass the literary languages and the standard language among Croatians with a common not strictly scientific appellation 'the Croatian literary language', its history can be divided into six periods, of which some can be subdivided into several phases. In that case, it will not be the National Movement but the middle of the eighteenth century that in many ways will represent perhaps the most important demarcation line. That is the divide between the first three pre-standard periods and the next three periods, during which the present Croatian linguistic standard was gradually built up. That whole historical onward movement could be described this way:

A. Pre-Standard Periods

First period — medieval literature, going from the beginning of Glagolitic writings of the ninth/tenth centuries up until the end of the fifteenth century, domination of the Čakavian dialect and a strong influence of the Croatian Church Slavonic language, subsequent appearance of the Cyrillic script in the middle of the twelfth century and of the Latin script in the fourteenth century.

Second period — origin and development of Croatian regional literatures and their linguistic media in the sixteenth century, a balanced usage of Čakavian, Štokavian and Kajkavian dialects in general writings and the Čakavian and Štokavian dialects in the fiction, formation of two Croatian territorial complexes: northwestern (North-Čakavian and Štokavian), retreat of Glagolitic script, formation of several Croatian regional literary languages and regional literatures.

Third period — evolution and multiplication of Croatian regional literatures and regional literary languages in the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century, strengthening of mutual relations within the two complexes, retreat of the Čakavian dialect and western Cyrillic script in the second phase (first half of the eighteenth century), consolidation of the Kajkavian literary language, Neo-Štokavian influence in the southeastern complex.

B. Periods in Which the Standard Developed

Fourth period — Ikavian and Ijekavian Neo-Štokavian dialect as only literary language in the southeastern complex in the second half of the eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth century, beginnings of the standardization of that language and its growing influence in the northwestern complex, comparatively swift although insufficiently wide standardization of the Kajkavian literary language and its orthographic stabilization, victory of the Latin script in the southeastern complex accompanied by conscious efforts towards an orthographic rapprochement, growing functional ability and poly-valence of the two Croatian super-regional literary languages in their development towards standardization accompanied by a weakening or a stagnation of belletristic functions and by more persistent conscious efforts to eliminate critical points.

Fifth period — Croatian National Movement and the linguistic development to the end of the nineteenth century, annexation of the northwestern to the southeastern complex, essential progress of the Neo-Štokavian standard as the only Croatian standard language, all-Croatian orthographic reform, gradual disappearance of the Ijekavian-ikavian duality in the middle of the fifth period, conflict among various solutions for the optimal type of standardization for the Neo-Štokavian dialect, struggle against the remnants of linguistic regionalism, rivalry between etymological and phonetic principles in orthography, a sliding in the appearance of the Neo-Štokavian dialect, and victory of the phonetic orthography at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

Sixth period — development in the twentieth century: consolidation of the standard language, false orthographic oscillations, in the 1860's prevalent understanding that the Croatian Neo-Štokavian standard needs a stable norm, birth of Neo-čakavian and Neo-Kajkavian dialectal belles-lettres at the beginning of the twentieth century and their development." (21-22)

If we carefully read the description of each period, we shall see that according to Brozović the beginnings of the contemporary Croatian standard are moved back for some eighty years: the Croatian standard did not appear first in the 1830's but in the middle of the eighteenth century. Its origins do not go to the time of Romanticism, Ljudevit Gaj and Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, but to the Age of Enlightenment, to the Dalmatian Andrija Kačić, Bosnian Stjepan Margitić, Slavonians Matija Antun Reljković and Antun Kanižlić, and others.[11] As Brozović put it in English as early as in 1970: "The middle of the 18th century can be ... considered as the very period of the forming of the language standard in Croatia. The literary language of the new provincial literatures (in the 18th century) in Dalmatia and Slavonia was essentially different from the language of the classic literature in Dalmatia (in the 16th and 17th centuries) and much closer to the present day standard. The actual founders of the Croatian variant of the standard Serbocroatian were Kačić and Reljković, while the part (i.e. role) of the "Illyrians" and their successors was much more modest: they merely unified the (ortho)-graphy and widened the territorial, social and functional use of a literary language that was already existing."[12]

In the 1970's the language of the Croatian writers between 1750 and 1830 was reexamined.[13] In these terms Brozović describes the linguistic situation in Croatian lands before the 1830's: ".Developments, started in the second phase of the third period [1700 to 1750), continue with growing intensity in the fourth period [1750 to 1830) showing some concrete achievements. Some completely new tendencies appear: organized drives are begun to regulate the spoken and the written language on the line Dubrovnik-Slavonia and Dubrovnik-Dalmatia; committees are formed; terminologies are worked out; resolutions are made and applied manuals, stylebooks, and grammars are compiled and used in schooIs; dictionaries are composed by special committees; linguistic regulations are provided, etc. Yet in spite of it, the traditional Croatian philology visualized this fourth period as a sterile one — not only as an epoch without great belletristic achievements but also as a period of complete stagnation in all areas. It was represented as a passive and hopeless expectation of a possible revival, not based on anything existing in the Croatian cultural life, which in an idealistic way could produce a radical change; and then overnight all the problems would disappear. In other words, after the twilight of the third period, the fourth period were the dark ages, the ultimate degree of regress in the wake of the brilliant sixteenth century and the literary golden age in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia. And after that eclipse suddenly appears 'the Illyrian light', Gaj appears like a deus ex machina, and after only fifteen years the so-called Vienna Agreement {of 1850) solves all the linguistic problems once and for all." (40) Brozović goes on to diminish the importance of the Vienna Agreement, which the Yugoslav unitarists extolled for the last sixty years. "At that meeting," Brozović continues, "several resolutions were agreed upon as to what should be the standard language of Croatians and Serbs according to Karadžić's ideas. Since the participants did not have any mandate from either the official Serbia, the Serbian institutions in Vojvodina or the National Movement in Croatia, those resolutions did not have practical consequences. The Serbs did not accept the resolution concerning the sound h and the majority remained attached to the Ekaviain dialect or retained it, whereas the Croatians continued using the language as it was shaped by Gaj, [Vjekoslav] Babukić, Antun Mažuranić and [Bogoslav] Šulek. Thus, the so-called Vienna Agreement had had an incidental character and meaning, and in the twentieth century it acquired the importance of a turning point." (63)

The exponents of the present Yugoslav regime were especially struck by Brozović's attack on the Croatian followers of Karadžić (hrvatski Vukovci), Pero Budmani, Ivan Broz, Franjo Iveković and Tomo Maretić: "In spite of all its merits" Brozović writes, "that school was in many aspects detrimental to the Croatian linguistic culture, it caused unnecessary shocks and brought Croatian philology a negative spirit with extended consequences." (55) The above mentioned editorialist in Vjesnik does not refute that important statement, but describes it as "rather intolerant." Brozović himself, in using expressions "detrimental ... unnecessary shocks ... negative spirit ... extended consequences" stated very much but did not elaborate.[14] The writer will refer once more to the victory of Croatian followers of Karadžić. He acknowledges their conformity to the organic development of the Croatian Neo-Štokavian standard with only two essential exceptions: "Many positive achievements in the linguistic super-structure in the second part of the nineteenth century were rejected and a certain unorganic shift was made in the material linguistic basis, a shift not warranted in the Croatian linguistic reality." (67) Again the writer did not elaborate! At the same time, fall 1978, the article "Merits and Weaknesses of the Croatian Followers of Karadžić" by Professor Ljudevit Jonke appeared in the periodical Jezik. On seven pages Jonke exposed the weaknesses of the 'followers of Karadžić to conclude with these cautious words. "It is obvious, however, that the merits of Vukovci by far outweigh their weaknesses. They cannot even be compared, but the time has come to submit them to criticism."[15]

None of the critics of the "Round Table" dared to defend either Maretić, the Magyaron, or the educational policies of the ban Dragutin Khuen Hedervary, so that Brozović's following judgement of the Croatian followers of Karadžić remained unchallenged. Referring to their most important works,[16] Brozović writes: "By themselves these works were of paramount importance; yet, except for Broz's orthography, they excelled in a doctrinary and intolerant one-sidedness. Tomo Maretić, a Magyaron representative in 1892-97 and again in 1900-1906, in his history of Croatian orthography (really, mostly a history of writing), in his ahistorical and unsystematic presentation, tried to suggest that the whole Croatian inheritance up to the 1830's was only an amorphous anarchy, not a basis on which something could be built. At that time the Zagreb Linguistic School was al-ready compromised by philological critics and before that by conflicts among schools where differences in linguistic levels were not observed. Thus, if the Croatian Neo-Štokavian tradition before the 1830's and the achievements of the Zagreb Linguistic School amount to nothing, it is obvious that one should start from scratch. By simply appropriating Ljudevit Gaj's fame and declaring themselves as the successors of his work, the Croatian Vukovci set out to complete his work on a new foundation, no other existing basis having any validity. Ironically, Zagreb Linguistic School fostered Gaj's traditions! The new basis was found exclusively in the works of Karadžić and Daničić. That new concept was brought into being by Maretić's grammar and Iveković-Broz's dictionary, two enviable scholarly achievements, yet not so excellent as it was thought afterwards (this refers especially to Iveković s work, who after Broz's death completed the work on the dictionary).

Maretić's and Iveković's concepts in those works were severely criticized by Vatroslav Jagić, but they did not flinch: Jagić was far away (in Vienna), while they were supported by Khuen Hedervary's apparatus. They rightly hoped that Jagić's criticism as well as the fierce opposition of the almost entire Croatian literature and the Croatian public would be forgotten, because the authorities, favoring Maretić and his small circle of followers, put to their disposal schools, manuals and the university chair for the education of future teachers of the Croatian language." (65—66)

The Croatian linguistic standardization was completed by the victory of the Croatian followers of Karadžić. After that the sixth period starts in the beginning of the twentieth century. Brozović summarizes: "The process of standardization among the Croatians lasted comparatively a very long time, one and a half centuries from about 1750 to 1900... For comparison, we can say that among the Serbs, thanks to Karadžić, the standardization of the Neo-Štokavian lasted only half a century, from 1818 to 1868." (66)

On the eve of World War I a Serb, Jovan Skerlić, with his well known questionnaire raised the question of linguistic unification of Croatians and Serbs. During that unitarist enthusiasm the first Croatian Ekavian writers appeared. But the war interrupted it all. After the war the royal Yugoslavia tried to impose the Serbian linguistic criteria onto the Croatians and others, so that "the Kingdom of Yugoslavia became not only a jail of nations but also a jail of languages." (69)

From 1918 till now we have been witnesses to continuous manipulations of the name of the language for strictly political purposes. Although various compound names were tried, the name of the language continues to be an unresolved problem. Croatians entered the twentieth century under Austria-Hungary with a stylebook for their language called Croatian Orthography. More than half a century later, in 1971, under second Yugoslavia, the printing of a stylebook for their language was brutally destroyed for the very reason that it was called Croatian Orthography. Brozović has an interesting footnote concerning the name of the language or languages spoken by Serbs. Croatians, Moslems and Montenegrins, representing the vast majority of Yugoslavs. He writes: "It would be correct to say 'a South Slavic, Non-Slovenian, Non-Macedonian and Non-Bulgarian language', which is impossible, of course. The compound appellations, with hyphen or without it, are not good ,for the very fact that they are compound. Moreover, the usual meanings of such compounds do not convey what it is intended: 'Croatoserbian' means really 'Serbian language Croatian style', 'Croato-Serbian' has the parallel meaning to 'Croatian-English' or 'Croatian-Russian', and 'Croatian or Serbian' is polysemantic according to the different meanings of 'or'; the same holds for the inverse order of national adjectives. From another point of view, those appellations are also incorrect because they contain only two national names, whereas a name including Montenegrins and Bosnia-Hercegovina Moslems would be too cumbersome. Worst of all is that all those appellations were compromised by several attempts to cover not the true linguistic reality for which we need a term so badly, but to cover fictitious notions."(11)

At the end the writer describes the development of the Croatian standard parallel with the Serbian standard up to World War II, during it and after it. In dealing with previous periods he felt more at ease, whereas in the presentation of the recent situation he is hampered. This is why he did not even mention the "Declaration Concerning the Name and the Position of the Croatian Literary Language" of March 17, 1967, although it represents the turning point in the history of the Croatian standard.

We shall add three more observations. For the first time we learn that before World War II Belgrade linguist, Radoslav Bošković, was the first 'Serb to speak of two "redactions" of the Serbocroatian literary language (69), i.e. of the language duality among Serbs and Croatians. Croatian linguists made a big issue of it much later, in the mid-1960's. "Secondly, Brozović when confronted with negative phenomena in the language development, labels them as idealistic, probably having in mind a certain philosophical system. He never explained the meaning of that adjective. Thirdly, we share Brozović's conviction that socio-linguistics, which appeared in the 1960's, helps solve some important difficulties concerning the Croatian and Serbian linguistic situation.

After Professor Vince's sizable study of the nineteen century language just out,[17] this short but first history of the Croatian language might prompt some other linguist to write an even more extensive one.

II

The publication of the Reference Grammar of the Croatian Literary Language provoked also a debate which lasted from the end of June to the middle of August, 1979, mostly in the Zagreb daily Vjesnik.[18]

In presenting Brozović's paper on language, we expressed our opinion that the seventh period in the history of the Croatian standard started in 1967 when "The Declaration Concerning the Name and the Position of the Croatian Literary Language" appeared in the Zagreb weekly Telegram. For almost a century, because of various political pressures especially since 1918, the codification of the Croatian standard used to take into consideration the Serbian standard. On that day, through that declaration, the Croatian intelligentsia in a rebellious mood, broke the linguistic ties with their Serbian counterpart. It is impossible for two standards to have one norm. This is why the Serbs and the Croatians had to have two grammars, two dictionaries and two stylebooks. Political authorities insisting on Yugoslav political and national unity thought that a linguistic duality would be too detrimental for the country. Royal Yugoslavia tolerated the existence of two different orthographies, but there were no grammars or dictionaries clearly separating the contemporary Serbian from the contemporary Croatian norm. In Tito's Yugoslavia a common Serbo-Croatian orthography was published in 1960, but in Croatia was never practically accepted. The attempts of a common dictionary failed in 1967, and the attempt of a separate Croatian orthography in 1971 was abortive. The Survey of the Grammar of the Croatian Literary Language by Stjepko Težak and Stepan Babić of 1973 could not be reprinted. Now The Reference Grammar the Croatian Literary Language of 1979, by a decree of the Secretary for Education cannot be used as a manual in the schools of Croatia. The grammar is still being sold in Zagreb bookstores especially after the debate. Again and again, the name of the language is the bone of contention, whereas the Croatian standard language continues living and developing following its own norm.

While the journalist Pavičić thinks that according to the constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia the language of the grammar should be referred to as Croatian, Secretary Šuvar, invoking the same constitution, thinks that the language should be referred to as Croatian or Serbian.[19]

The first paragraph of the Amendment V to the constitution, dealing with the language, reads:

"1. In the Socialist Republic of Croatia in public use is the Croatian Literary Language — a standard form of the folklore koine (narodni jezik) of Croatians and Serbs in Croatia, which is referred to as Croatian or Serbian...

Members of other nationalities and national minorities enjoy the privilege of using their own languages and respective scripts in carrying out their privileges while dealing with state authorities and organizations granting public authorizations.

2.         In the Socialist Republic of Croatia texts of federal laws and other general federal documents, published in the official paper of Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia in the Croatian literary language and Latin script, are authentic.

3.         Laws and regulations and other general documents issued from the Republican {Republic of Croatia) authorities and organizations are published in Narodne Novine in Latin and Cyrillic scripts."[20]

The first article names two languages, the Croatian literary language and narodni jezik (folklore koine). In Socialist Republic of Croatia the Croatian literary language is in public use, not the folklore koine, of course. In the third paragraph of the first article, (we omitted the second paragraph) we learn that other nationalities and national minorities may use their languages in dealing with state authorities and organizations granting public authorizations. Thus, they may use their own literary or standard languages in public life. We conclude that in Socialist Republic of Croatia several standard languages may be used in public life. It sounds very liberal but somewhat confusing.

According to the first paragraph of the first article, the Croatian literary or standard language is derived from the folklore koine. This folklore koine corresponds to Brozović's language-diasystem, which is an abstraction. Grammars, dictionaries and stylebooks are written for standard languages, which are concrete, not for linguistic abstractions. It is clear then that the title of this reference grammar should contain the adjective Croatian and not the adjectives Croatian or Serbian. Every knowledgeable Croatian knows it, Secretary Šuvar knows it too. Yet the main reason for having two national adjectives instead of one is the national susceptibility of the people involved. Secretary Šuvar gave that reason explicitly in his interview: "...the susceptibility of linguistic problems on our common historical life space."[21]

The preceding Težak and Babić grammar had a very long introduction, twenty three pages, under the title "Croatian and (sic) Serbian Language." The new reference grammar says nothing about that thorny question, and Secretary Šuvar was shocked by the fact that the authors did not explain, especially for the young users of the manual, what the Croatian literary language is in relation to the Serbian literary language and how these two languages are the same and different.[22] Mijo Lončarić and Mirko Peti, two of the authors of the reference grammar, answered the Secretary that his own Committee for Textbooks, after examining their grammar, thought that such an introduction was not necessary.[23]

The above-mentioned debate on the reference grammar was not centered on scientific or educational merits of the book but on the name of the language. The Croatians want to refer to their language as Croatian, so that dictionaries, stylebooks and grammars of that language would be Croatian, and nothing else. On the contrary, Yugoslav political authorities think they cannot allow any Croatian separatism nor Yugoslav unitarism, but mutual tolerance.[24] It is futile to summarize the rest of the debate because the discussants do not always feel free to express their ideas openly. The most competent publication in which such questions are scholarly discussed is the periodical Jezik, whose one of the main contributors is Brozović. But for Secretary Šuvar, Jezik is the main expression of militant nationalism, and such a publication, he says, "cannot be a road sign for our language scholars, teachers and all of us in Croatia."[25]

The orthography of 1971 containing the Croatian name solely was destroyed. The grammars of 1973 and 1979 containing the Croatian name solely were thwarted in one way or another. The day should come when Croatians will be free to publish their linguistic manuals under their own national name.

---

[1] Aleksandar Flaker and Krunoslav Pranjić (ed.), Hrvatska knijiževnost u evropskom kontekstu, Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1978. We translate the adjective evropski sometimes "West European" sometimes "European" because in Croatian it has the two meanings.

[2] Published in Zagreb Vjesnik of Dec. 3, 1978.

[3] On the same subject see our article in Hrvatska Revija (Munchen-Barcelona), vol. XXIX, No 2, June 1979, pp. 294-304.

[4] Eugenija Barić, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavelić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević, Marija Znika, Priručna gramatika hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1979.

[5] Vjesnik of Dec. 3, 1973. p. 8, c. 5.

[6] Vjesnik of Dec. 3, 1978, p. 8, c.1.

[7] From now on the numbers in parentheses will refer to the pages of Brozović's paper.

[8] Radoslav Katičić, Jezikoslovni ogled, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1971, p. 51.

[9] Ibidem, p. 61.

[10] lbidem, p. 60.

[11] Prof. Brozović has been developing these ideas for a certain time. He first brought them out in connection with the celebration of the 130th anniversary of the Croatian National Movement in 1966, in his article "Jezično značenje hrvatskoga narodnog preporoda", Kolo, Zagreb, IV (CXXIV), No 8-10, pp. 249-53. In October 1969 in Cleveland, he developed the same ideas in English at the Ninth Annual Conference on Slavic Studies (see my article in Journal of Croatian Studies, vol XVI, p. 3-18). The same approach was developed more in depth in his book Standardni jezik, Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 1970, pp. 127-58.

[12] O početku hrvatskog književnog standarda," Kritika (Zagreb), III (1970), No 10, p. 42 (English summary). This is the Croatian version of Brozović's paper delivered in Cleveland in October 1969. See note 11.

[13] Croatians and foreigners wrote about it: Stjepan Babić, Dalibor Brozović. Sante Graciotti, Radoslav Katičić, Herta Kuna, Milan Mogul, Benjamin A. Stolz, Zlatko Vince, Josip Vončina. (40) See also the bibliography of Brozović's article.

[14] The elaboration of statements which are politically unorthodox could appear to be too daring in today's Yugoslav political situation.

[15] "Zasluge i slabosti hrvatskih Vukovaca," Jezik, XXVI (1978), p. 12.

[16] Maretić's history of orthography of 1889, Broz's orthography of 1892. Maretić's grammar of 1899, and Broz and lveković's dictionary of 1901.

[17] Zlatko Vince, Putovima hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Zagreb: Liber, 1978, XV + 629 pages.

[18] First mention was made by Joža Vlahović in the issue of June 24, 1979, p. 5, c. 6. Subsequently Josip Pavičić published his short review on June 26, p. 13, c. 1,2. In the same issue and on the same page and column appeared a letter signed by the collective that compiled the grammar. The Secretary for Education, Dr. Stipe Šuvar, during a lengthy interview, in the column "Weekly Review" of July 21, took exception to Pavičić's rather favorable review of the grammar. From then on for four Saturdays the journalist, the secretary, and some other correspondents continued debating.

[19] Vjesnik of August 4, 1979, p. 2, c. 3

[20] Ustav Socijalističke Republike Hrvatska, Zagreb: Narodne Novine, 1972, p.175.

[21] " ... s obzirom na osjetljivost jezične problematike na našem zajedničkom životnom prostoru" (Vjesnik of July 21, 1978, p. 7, c. 4).

[22] Vjesnik of July 21, p. 7, c. 4.

[23] Vjesnik of August 18, p. 2/14, c. 3. By the way, Dr. Šuvar's Committee for Textbooks approved the grammar; even before Dr. Šuvar's criticism, the authors of the grammar sent a letter to Vjesnik (June 26, p. 13, c. 1,2) explaining in it what they meant by Croatian literary language in accordance with the Croatian constitution.

[24] According to Secretary Šuvar, Vjesnik of July 21, 1979, p. 7, c. 4.

[25] Vjesnik of August 4, 1979, c. 3