Content

Nikola Zečević, Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans in:

Adam Bence Balazs, Christina Griessler (Ed.)

The Visegrad Four and the Western Balkans, page 231 - 258

Framing Regional Identities

1. Edition 2020, ISBN print: 978-3-8487-5999-6, ISBN online: 978-3-7489-0113-6, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748901136-231

Series: Andrássy Studien zur Europaforschung, vol. 25

Bibliographic information
Citation download Share
Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans Nikola Zečević, University of Donja Gorica, Montenegro Abstract: This chapter explains the process of politicisation and ethnicisation of languagenaming practices in the Western Balkans, predominately in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. Additionally, this chapter analyses the impact of nationalism on contemporary linguistic identity and linguistic standpoints in the region. Its goal is not to deny or negate any linguistic idiom, but to address the reasons for the non-scientific differentiation of four standardised variants of the same polycentric language. Keywords: Western Balkans, Serbo-Croatian language, Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language, Serbian language, nationalism Introduction Serbo-Croatian,1 as a language, was principally used in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1991). It was considered an official language in four of the six federal states (Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia),2 while (North) Macedonia and Slovenia used Macedonian and Slovenian respectively as their national language. The Serbo- Croatian language was conceived after signing the Vienna Literary Agreement (March 28, 1850) and the Novi Sad Agreement (December 10, 1954). Within the Vienna Literary Agreement, it was initially agreed that all South Slavs should have a commonly accepted language. Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (Serbia), Ivan Mažuranić (Croatia) and Franc Miklošič (Slovenia) are among the notable signatories of this agreement. In view of its general divergence, later revisions removed the Slovenian language from this stan- 1 The terms: a) Serbo-Croatian, b) Croato-Serbian, c) Serbian or Croatian, d) Croatian or Serbian, are used equally. 2 Minority languages such as Hungarian or Albanian were in official use in the Serbian autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo. 231 dardisation, even though the official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1945) was formally called Serbo-Croato-Slovenian.3 The Serbo- Croatian language was commonly spoken by 73 percent of the population of Socialist Yugoslavia, which leads to it being safely categorised as a lingua franca. With the Novi Sad Agreement, it was decided that the national language of Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins4 is a single language and that “within the name of the language it is always paramount to emphasise both of its set pieces (Croatian and Serbian).” It had two scripts: Cyrillic and Latin; three pronunciations: Ekavica (Aekavitsa, Ekavian), Ijekavica (Aeykavitsa, Iyekavian) and Ikavica (Ekavitsa, Ikavian); and three dialects: Štokavian, Kajkavian and Čakavian. After the breakup of Yugoslavia (1991-1995), the Serbo-Croatian language fell apart and its remains were used as the foundations for the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin languages. Despite the different naming standards, it can be said with certainty that there was no crucial difference between them,5 so it comes to essentially one polycentric language, with four different names. Bernhard Gröschel states that “In addition, the constitutional declaration of some idiom as official language and the constitutional fixing of its name do not have a sociolinguistic character, but a political one [...] Since the constitutional declaration of the official language is managed by non-scientific motives, it does not affect the sociolinguistics.”6 History of Language-Naming Practices Contemporary nationalist narratives most often seek the historical foundation of the modern languages in historical sources and practice. This section of the chapter will not observe the elements of the historical appearance and the “justification” of the terms Serbian or Croatian language, 3 Although the Slovenian language differs from Serbo-Croatian, the official state ideology in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia insisted on the idea that Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are “three tribes of one Yugoslav nation.” 4 Bosniaks at the time were not yet recognised as a separate nation. They were recognised under the national name “Muslims” in 1968, while in 1993 “Bosniaks” was declared as their official national name. 5 Attempts at linguistic purism, the archaisation of language and the introduction of new letters had a minimal impact on the criterion of mutual intelligibility. 6 Snježana Kordić, Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism], (Zagreb: Durieux, 2010), 110. Nikola Zečević 232 due to their indisputable historical background, but will refer to the terms Bosnian and Montenegrin language. However, it is equally important to recall the historical foundation of the two-part names “Serbo-Croatian” or “Croato-Serbian,” which was used by Jacob Grimm in 1824, followed by Jernej Kopitar in 1836, and which from 1854 was regularly used in grammar books published in Zagreb.7 Pero Budmani published in Vienna his Grammatica della lingua serbo-croatica (illirica) as a result of his work in the Dubrovnik High School, where Serbo-Croatian was also taught as a first language.8 It is particularly interesting to note that, in 1861, the Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor) voted to name the official language as Yugoslavian: “Let the gentlemen arise who wish the language to be called ‘People’s’ (a small minority). – Who wish the language to be called ‘Croato-Slavonian’? (Nobody). – Who wish the language to be called ‘Croatian or Serbian’? (Minority) – Who wish the language to be called ‘Yugoslavian’? (Majority).”9 At the very end, officials from Vienna refused this request, so the Parliament in 1867 declared the name of the official language to be “Croatian or Serbian,” which was acceptable. Ten years later, the Dalmatian Parliament voted for the name “Croato-Serbian” or “Serbo-Croatian” as the official language. The idea of a total linguistic unification between the Serbian and Croatian standard was presented by Jovan Skerlić in 1913: in his text Istočno ili južno narečje (The Eastern or Southern Dialect), published in two volumes in Srpski književni glasnik (Serbian Literary Messenger), he pointed out the historical necessity according to which “Croats will accept the Eastern dialect (Ekavian pronunciation), and the Serbs will abandon the Cyrillic script” while “the Latin will become a general literary alphabet.”10 And indeed, after the creation of the Yugoslav state (initially the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), some of the most distinguished Croatian writers (such as Tin Ujević, Miroslav Krleža and Gustav Krklec) accepted Skerlić’s formula and practiced it until the end of the twenties, after which 7 Kordić, Jezik, 127-128. 8 Milan Rešetar, Izvješće o C.K. Višoj Dubrovačkoj Gimnaziji, koncem školske 1872-73 [Report on C.K. Dubrovnik High School, Late School Year 1872-73], (Dubrovnik: 1873), 49. 9 Kordić, Jezik, 274. 10 Mehmed Šator, Bosanski/hrvatski/srpski jezik u BiH do 1914. godine [Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Language in BiH until 1914], (Mostar: FHN, 2004), 201. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 233 it became apparent that the Serbian intellectual elite was not ready to make concessions regarding the Cyrillic script.11 The term Bosnian language can be found in sources from different historical periods, such as with Bartol Kašić (1599)12 and Franjo Glavinić (1585-1652), who marked the Bosnian language as universal for the printing of liturgical books;13 Matija Mažuranić, in his 1842 travel book Pogled u Bosnu, ili kratak put u onu krajinu (A Look at Bosnia, or a Short Road to That Province), wrote that he found out, from conversations with different people, that they speak the “Bosniak language.” In the popular magazine Bosanski prijatelj (Bosnian Friend) in 1850, in the chapter “Bosnian Literature,” we can read about the practice of “interpreting from Roman into Bosnian language, with Serbian letters.”14 Immediately after the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, the country was proclaimed a crown land or condominium, which meant that Austria and Hungary would manage it together. At the beginning of 1879, Croatian was declared the official language, but it was soon renamed as State language (Landessprache),15 then considered to be a more neutral term, to avoid dissonance between ethnic groups. In the following years, at different levels, the language received different names including “Bosnian state language”, “State language (Croatian, Serbian)”, and “State language (Bosnian or Serbo-Croatian).” At the very beginning, the Latin had primacy over the Cyrillic script, but in 1880 they became equal. In June 1879 Luka Zore, the Cavtat-born former school counsellor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sent his opinion to the Provincial government regarding this question: “Croats name their own language Croatian, Serbs – Serbian, and Muslims name it Bosnian.”16 In the wake of Benjamin von Kállay’s ideas of interconfessional Bosnianhood and Bosnian nation, the Provincial government of Bosnia and Herzegovina published a Bosnian Grammar in 1890. This act of the government was criticised in an ironic manner by the pro-Serbian magazine Bosanska vila: “And now we greeted for the books to be written and 11 Ivo Banac, Nacionalno pitanje u Jugoslaviji [The National Question in Yugoslavia], (Zagreb: Durieux, 1995), 172-173. 12 Vladimir Horvat, “Afterword,” in Ritval Rimski [Roman Ritual], Bartol Kašić (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1993), 17. 13 Horvat, “Afterword,” 17. 14 “Književnost bosanska” [Bosnian Literature], Bosanski prijatelj, no. 1 (1850): 26. 15 Šator, Bosanski/hrvatski/srpski, 71. 16 Vojislav Bogićević, Pismenost u Bosni i Hercegovini [Literacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina], (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1975), 251. Nikola Zečević 234 printed with the inscription ‘Bosnian language’. A grammar of the Herzegovinian language will surely appear from somewhere, as equality is required. Otherwise, the Herzegovinians are right to protest about learning Bosnian, and not Herzegovinian.”17 Serbian confessional schools refused the use of the term Bosnian language, while Croatian schools accepted it peacefully. This situation lasted until October 1907, when the Serbo-Croatian language came back in official usage. From then on and until the end of the 1960s, the Bosnian language was not a relevant topic, although it was treated colloquially, as for instance in David Bogdanović’s Pregled književnosti hrvatske i srpske, Vol. 1 (Review of the Croatian and Serbian Literature, Vol. 1) of 1932. In his 1970 book Tokovi i otpori (Courses and Resistances), Enver Redžić described the Bosnian language as historically grounded, adding that “the charters and donations of Bosnian bans, grandees and kings were written in Bosnian script (...), and this name of the language was preserved in Bosnia over centuries, even after the adoption of the Serbo-Croatian literary language.”18 Mustafa Imamović, in his book Pravni položaj i unutrašnji politički razvitak Bosne i Hercegovine od 1878. do 1914. (Status and Internal Political Development of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1878 to 1914), which was published in Sarajevo in 1976, affirms the idea of the Bosnian language, noting that this name “was deeply entrenched among the Muslims.”19 Similarly, Alija Isaković, in his 1986 book Neminovnosti (Inevitabilities), also writes about the justification of the name “Bosnian language,” although he concludes that “Muslims speak the same language as Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins.”20 On the other hand, before the 1960s, the term Montenegrin language was referred to as colloquial only in certain travelogues (such as those of Viala de Somier, Ljubomir Nenadović and Ante Mažuranić). In the period of the existence of the Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro, later Principality and then Kingdom of Montenegro, the Serbian language had official status. In the period of Prince-Bishop Petar II Petrović Njegoš’ rule, the official school textbooks were the 1838 Srbski bukvar (Serbian Elementary 17 Šator, Bosanski/hrvatski/srpski, 110. 18 Enver Redžić, Tokovi i otpori [Courses and Resistances], (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1970), 88. 19 Mustafa Imamović, Pravni položaj i unutrašnji politički razvitak Bosne i Hercegovine od 1878. do 1914. [Status and Internal Political Development of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1878 to 1914], (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1976), 79. 20 Alija Isaković, Neminovnosti: baština, kritika, jezik, intervjui [Inevitabilities: Heritage, Criticism, Language, Interviews], (Tuzla: Izdavačka djelatnost, 1987), 154. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 235 Reader) and the 1838 Srbska gramatika (Serbian grammar), and these were printed and published in Cetinje (which was then the capital of Montenegro). This practice continued in the following years and was also reflected in the Law on High Schools in the Principality of Montenegro (1890) and the Law on Public Schools in the Principality of Montenegro (1907), where Serbian was proclaimed as the official language. The idea that Montenegrins should name their language with their own national name was first put forward by Hungarian poet József Bajza in his book The Montenegrin Question (1927); Montenegrin esperantist Bogić Noveljić also subtly wrote, during the 1930s, about the “Montenegrin provincial literary language.”21 It is interesting to mention that there was an attempt to introduce the Montenegrin language as the official one, through the adoption of the socalled Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom of Montenegro, referring to the World War II fascist puppet state formed on July 12, 1941. Article 3 of this constitution (which was never adopted) envisaged that the official languages should be Montenegrin and Italian. The mass uprising of July 13, 1941 prevented the adoption of this constitutional document.22 During World War II, the Montenegrin quisling Sekula Drljević advocated the affirmation of the Montenegrin language in his 1944 work Balkanski sukobi (Balkan Conflicts). From that time until the end of the 1960s, the controversy regarding the Montenegrin language was almost banned. Although the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Montenegro (1946) did not define the official language, its Article 113 decisively specified that “the court proceedings are conducted in the Serbian language.” But already in 1969, the Montenegrin philologist Radoje Radojević, in one polemical text in the magazine Kritika, stated that the official name of the Serbo-Croatian (Croato-Serbian) language was unsustainable and that the roots of the Montenegrin type of literary language were to be found already in the 11th century. In the same text he asked the following question: “Why should Montenegrins (and who can force them to do that?!) name their own native language with the names of other nations, and repress and forget, and thus impoverish and crush their national integrity?”23 Vojislav P. Nikčević, in several of his works published in 1970 and 1971, advocated the official introduction of the Montenegrin language, with two 21 Bogić Noveljić, “Brisanje crnogorskoga književnog jezika” [Deletion of Montenegrin Literary Language], Zeta 14 (1937). 22 Slavko Burzanović, “Crnogorski ustav iz 1941.” [Montenegrin Constitution, 1941], Matica (Zima, 2010), 264. 23 Radoje Radojević, Osporavana kultura: kritike i polemike [Contested Culture: Criticism and Polemics], (Danilo Radojević, 2006), 99-101. Nikola Zečević 236 contradictory conclusions: a) This [Montenegrin] language is not a linguistically separate language, but Montenegrins deserve to name their native language with their own national name, adding that the Novi Sad Agreement was anti-historical and anti-linguistic; b) It is an unjustified claim that the national language of the Serbs, Croats and Montenegrins is one language.24 Two Montenegrin intellectuals who agreed with this view were Milorad Stojović and Radoslav Rotković. After the Third Conference of the League of Communists of Montenegro, the special party commission made the decision that the statements regarding the existence of the Montenegrin language were scientifically unfounded, so the propagators of this idea suffered political sanctions.25 In the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Montenegro, the Serbo-Croatian language (of the Iyeakvian pronunciation) was nominated as the official one. Thus, the topics regarding the Montenegrin language were silenced until 1988 and the appearance of the book Etnogenezofobija (Ethnogenophobia) by Savo Brković, in which the author pleaded for the constitutional introduction of the Montenegrin language. This book was officially condemned by the Presidency of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Montenegro. We can conclude from this that the initiatives for defining new idioms (Bosnian and Montenegrin language) were inspired by the famous “Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language,” published in Zagreb in 1967, which was dominantly promoted by Matica hrvatska26 and the Croatian Writers’ Association. This declaration was also signed by the famous writer Miroslav Krleža. The message of the declaration was that “it is the inalienable right of every nation to name its native language with its own national name” and that by imposing a “state language” (Serbo-Croatian), the Croatian literary language will be suppressed. The rest of the declaration says that the Serbian and Croatian language should be separated and nominated as equal constitutional categories, since “the previous constitutional provision on the Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language, by its inaccuracy, caused these two comparative names to be understood as synonyms rather than as the basis for the equality of the Croatian and Serbian literary language.” The declaration was also supported by the Writers’ Association of Serbia, which formulated the in- 24 Dragutin Papović, “Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990.” [Intellectuals and Power in Montenegro, 1945-1990], (Niksic: PhD diss., University of Montenegro, 2013), 168-169. 25 Papović, “Intelektualci,” 173. 26 Matica hrvatska is an institute for the promotion of Croatian language and culture. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 237 formal counter-declaration “Proposal for Thinking,” demanding that the Croatian and Serbian language should be developed in full autonomy and equality. The signatories of this declaration were famous Serbian writers such as Antonije Isaković, Brana Crnčević, Matija Bećković, Mira Alečković, Milorad Pavić and Momo Kapor. Both declarations were strongly condemned by the Communist establishment, so this topic was temporarily pushed to the side. It is important to emphasise that both declarations were politically motivated. The Croatian declaration was an introduction to the so-called Croatian Spring (1971-1972), and aimed to re-actualise the Croatian national question, especially after the Brijuni plenum, when Aleksandar Ranković, a leading politician in socialist Serbia, was removed from power. After that event, Croatian political and cultural circles gained the confidence to open the issue of Croatian identity in Yugoslavia, while the Croatian declaration received enormous public attention because it was supported by Miroslav Krleža, the most influential Croatian writer and Tito’s personal friend. During the Croatian Spring, these requirements were expanded, but were condemned by Tito and the federal government. On the other hand, the Serbian declaration did not obtain noticeable public attention, since its signatories were still insufficiently reputed writers at the time. However, both declarations formed the basis for the events that would follow later. Constitutional Break-up of the Language In order to weaken the nationalistic tendencies that began to awaken in Yugoslavia in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the new constitutional reform of 1974 transformed Yugoslavia into a soft federation (with a set of confederal elements), especially if we take into account that the federal units (‘republics’ and autonomous provinces) received significant competencies. Thus, Article 138 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1972/1974) stated that “[i]n the Socialist Republic of Croatia, in official use is the Croatian literary language – the standard form of the national language of Croats and Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian or Serbian.”27 Such a pronouncement represented an essential compromise: the distinctive features of the Croatian standard language were recognised, 27 Ustav Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske [Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia], (Zagreb: Narodne novine, 1972), 175. Nikola Zečević 238 but this also implied that Croatian and Serbian are actually different names for the same language. However, after the Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica) and its leader Franjo Tuđman28 came to power in 1990, a new language policy was introduced. By adopting amendment LXVIII in July 1990, the Croatian Parliament proclaimed the Latin script to be the only official script in the country, with the addition that the use of Cyrillic is guaranteed in those administrative units where a majority of the population uses the Cyrillic script. Ultimately, Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (December 1990) states that “the Croatian language and the Latin script are in official use,” with the emphasis that in some local units another language or script (without specifying which one) can be introduced. This act ended the practice of studying the Cyrillic script in all elementary schools in Croatia. The aim was to achieve a clear differentiation between the Croatian and Serbian languages, and to standardise the Cyrillic script as minor and non- Croatian. The reasons for this were articulated through the political view that Croatian independence also implies the independence of the Croatian language, and that obvious similarities with the standard Serbian language must be minimised for this purpose. In the following years, this differentiation was enforced both intensively and persistently. In September 1990, the Republic of Serbia adopted a new constitution, its Article 8 stating that the “Serbo-Croatian language and Cyrillic script are in official use in the Republic of Serbia, while the Latin script is in official use in accordance with the determined law.”29 In principle, this provision followed the tradition established by the previous 1974 Constitution, although this time the preference was given to the Cyrillic script. The aforementioned preference correlated with the nationalistic and Serbocentric political matrix of Slobodan Milošević, who followed the ideas of the SANU Memorandum (1986) regarding the “impaired equality of Serbia and the Serbs in Yugoslavia.” For the purpose of the “consolidation” and “defence” of Serbian identity, the Cyrillic script was presented as one of its essential components. The Serbian Constitution of 1990 can in part be labelled as independence-oriented, since its Article 135 states that the Republic of Serbia has the right to proclaim legislation for the protection of its own interests, should federal acts violate Serbia’s equality within the 28 Franjo Tuđman signed the “Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language” (1967), after which he was expelled from the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. 29 Ustav Republike Srbije [Constitution of the Republic of Serbia], (Belgrade: IRO Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 1994), 8. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 239 federation. In this way, the primacy of the Serbian constitution over the federal one was emphasised. In October 1992, the Republic of Montenegro adopted a new constitution, its Article 9 stating that “the Serbian language, of the Iyeakavian pronunciation, is in official use,” while the Cyrillic and Latin script were equal. It follows from this that the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Montenegro were the first to leave the platform of a common polycentric language. However, we can add two important facts with certainty: a) the Republic of Montenegro only harmonised its own constitution with the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which came into force in April 1992, and whose Article 15 said that in the newly formed state “the Serbian language of Ekavian and Iyeakavian pronunciation and Cyrillic script is in official use, while the Latin script is in official use, in accordance with the constitution and law.”30 b) Bearing in mind that this state was formed by the Republic of Serbia as well, we can also say that Serbia abandoned a common language platform, at least on a federal (constitutional) level. Political instances in Serbia and Montenegro, in accordance with the new political circumstances (the dissolution of socialist Yugoslavia, the war in Croatia) and the rising nationalistic narrative, rendered the use of “Croatian” in the name “Serbo-Croatian” unacceptable. It is interesting to note that, in the wartime Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992/1993), Article 4 stated that the “Serbo- Croatian or Croato-Serbian language, of the Iyeakavian pronunciation, is in official use. Both Latin and Cyrillic scripts are equal.”31 The updated version of the constitution was signed personally by President Alija Izetbegović. Izetbegović even outwitted the request of the War Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals (December 1992) to change this article and to declare a “common Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language, of the Iyeakavian pronunciation” as the official language in the country.32 It is important to emphasise that this constitutional document was adopted only a few months before the First Bosniak Assembly, when the Bosnian language was officially declared as the national language of Bosniaks. This abandonment of the common language platform by Bosniak intellectual 30 Ustav Savezne Republike Jugoslavije [Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia], (Belgrade: JP Službeni list SRJ, 1998), 5. 31 Službeni list Republike Bosne i Hercegovine [Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina], (Sarajevo: No. 5, March 14, 1993), 85. 32 Husnija Kamberović, Ratni kongres bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca: 22. decembar 1992 [War Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals, 22 December 1992], (Sarajevo: Vijeće bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca, 1994), 81. Nikola Zečević 240 circles was conditioned by the new political and war circumstances, especially if the Serbian and Croatian war crimes against Muslims (Bosniaks) are taken into account. In this way, any identification with the term Serbo- Croatian language, from the Bosniak perspective, became impossible. This certainly served as an excuse for political elites in Sarajevo to more firmly establish the Bosnian standard language. Nevertheless, in December 1995, the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed, with one of its integral parts, Annex 4, laying down the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The text of the Constitution does not mention the official languages, but they are mentioned in the entities’ constitutions (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Republika Srpska). Thus, Article 6 of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina states that the official languages in this entity are Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, while the Latin and Cyrillic script are equal.33 The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a very complex state entity consisting of cantons, which each have their own constitutions. In its four cantons (Herzegovina-Neretva, West Herzegovina, Posavina and Canton 10), the cantonal constitutions do not recognise the Serbian language and Cyrillic script. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared the constitutions of these cantons as “unconstitutional.”34 The constitution of the other entity states that “the official languages of the Republika Srpska are the language of the Serbian nation, the language of the Bosniak nation and the language of the Croatian nation. The official scripts are Cyrillic and Latin.”35 The definition of this provision, although seemingly confusing, has a political background. Namely, the Serbian political forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with part of the Croatian political forces, do not recognise the term Bosnian language. Their argu- 33 Parlament Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine (Predstavnički dom), “Ustav Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine” [Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina], https://predstavnickidom-pfbih.gov.ba/upload/file/ustav/ustav_precisceni_te kst.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019). 34 N1 Portal, “Odluka o konstitutivnosti Srba u tri kantona u FBiH” [Decision on the Constitutionality of Serbs in the Three Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina], May 29, 2018, http://ba.n1info.com/Vijesti/a263281/Odluka-okonstitutivnosti-Srba-u-tri-kantona-u-FBiH.htmlhttp://ba.n1info.com/Vijesti/a263 281/Odluka-o-konstitutivnosti-Srba-u-tri-kantona-u-FBiH.html (accessed September 29, 2019). 35 Narodna skupština Republike Srpske, “Ustav Republike Srpske” [Constitution of the Republika Srpska], https://www.narodnaskupstinars.net/sites/default/files/upl oad/dokumenti/ustav/lat/ustav_republike_srpske.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019). Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 241 ment is that Bosniaks cannot name their national language with a state name, only with their national name (Bosniak language). Otherwise, this would mean that the Bosnian language, as the language of Bosniaks, is at the same time the state language. Therefore, from the Serbian and Croatian political perspective, the Bosnian language, as the official idiom, has been designated as a possible means of assimilation of Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This problem escalated in the school system of Republika Srpska, so the parents of Bosniak children in some municipalities (Zvornik, Srebrenica) refused to send their children to school until they were allowed to study the Bosnian language. On the other hand, in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the constitutions of three cantons with a Croatian ethnic majority (Posavina, West Herzegovina and Canton 10), the Bosniak language (instead of Bosnian) was recognised as a constitutional category. The Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also declared these constitutional provisions as unconstitutional in 1998, but they remained in force. The Institute for the Serbian Language of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts published a statement in 2015 which stated that, according to the “rules of word formation in the Serbian language, from the word ‘Serbian nation’ is derived the equivalent name of the language (‘Serbian language’), from the word ‘Croatian nation’ is derived the name ‘Croatian language’, and from the word ‘Bosniak nation’ it is only possible to derive the equivalent name ‘Bosniak language.’”36 This standpoint was literally and officially adopted by the Ministry of Education and Culture of Republika Srpska. This implies that the largest Serbian scientific institution (SANU) has become involved in another political controversy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although the Bosnian language is being studied legally in Serbia (more precisely in the region of Sandžak). After the dissolution of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia passed its new constitution in 2006. Its Article 10 states that the Serbian language and the Cyrillic script are official in the country, while the official use of other languages and scripts is regulated by law. From this point the Serbo-Croatian language ceased to exist as a constitutional category, while the new norm excluded the Latin script from broader official use. Montenegro adopted a new constitution in 2007, and its Article 13 states that the official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin, 36 Politika, “SANU: Ne postoji bosanski jezik” [SANU: There is no Bosnian Language], August 21, 2015, http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/336290/Kultura/SANU- Ne-postoji-bosanski-jezik (accessed September 29, 2019). Nikola Zečević 242 and that the Cyrillic and Latin script are equal. It was also stated that “Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian languages are also in official use.” According to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro (March 2011), this constitutional provision means that “the use of the Montenegrin language, as an official one, applies on the whole territory of Montenegro,” while “the right to official use of the Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian languages is an individual right.”37 Such constitutional solutions have deepened the traditional political dichotomy in Montenegrin society and produced dissatisfaction among the unionistic (pro-Serbian) oriented population, which voted against the independence of Montenegro (44.5 percent) in the 2006 referendum. On the basis of the political agreement of August 2011, the Parliament of Montenegro adopted amendments to the Law on General Education, which produced changes in Article 11. This article stated that classes in schools are conducted in the Montenegrin language as an official language, as well as in the Serbian language as a language in official use, taking into account “the same linguistic basis.” The following article also added the next statement: “With respect to the rights of national minorities, classes in the institutions are also conducted in Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian, as languages in official use.”38 The main consequence of this political agreement is that pupils in Montenegrin primary and secondary schools study one common language subject: Montenegrin – Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian language and literature. Two years later, these legal amendments were assessed as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, as the legislator in this case “used the Serbian language in a material sense in a manner contrary to the Constitution, both in relation to the Montenegrin language as the only official language in Montenegro, as well as in relation to other languages in official use.”39 Never- 37 It is interesting to mention another unusual fact: according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Montenegro, each defendant has the legal right to hear the proceedings in his native language. To this day there is no registered court interpreter in Montenegro for the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian languages. This would hypothetically mean that if a defendant (or his counsel) were to request proceedings in one of these three languages, it would be impossible for the judicial system to implement it on time, due to the complicated procedures for the registration of new court interpreters. 38 Ministarstvo prosvjete Crne Gore [Ministry of Education, Montenegro], http://w ww.mps.gov.me/biblioteka/zakoni (accessed September 29, 2019). 39 Ustavni sud Crne Gore [Constitutional Court of Montenegro], “Odluka U-I br. 39-11 i 3-12.,” www.ustavnisud.me (accessed September 29, 2019). Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 243 theless, despite this decision of the Constitutional Court, this legal provision remained unchanged. From the examples above, it is obvious that the language-naming issue in these four countries of the Western Balkans is considered a political question par excellence, or (from the perspective of nationalists) one of the basic conditions not only for political, but also for ethno-national independence. Such a matrix ignores scientific and linguistic conclusions, or at worst politicises, ethnicises and adapts it to its own narrative. It has established the idea that one of the most important conditions for full and unquestionable state independence is a separate national/state language, as an essential part of a separate national identity. Thus, the former Yugoslav federal entities, once linked by a common polycentric language and a common culture, became ethnic islands, in which the ethno-national prerogative (for basically everything related to identity) became a matter of life and death. Ethnicisation and Politicisation As was expected, the political and constitutional separation of the Croatian language was followed by its linguistic separation and differentiation. This was especially obvious through the promotion of the “newspeak” based on linguistic purism, or through the “de-serbisation” – i.e. “re-croatisation” of the Croatian language. Thus, Vladimir Brdonjak’s Razlikovni rječnik srpskog i hrvatskog jezika (Dictionary of Differences of Serbian and Croatian Language) was published in Zagreb in 1991, and relied on Petar Guberina and Kruno Krstić’s book Razlike između hrvatskoga i srpskoga književnoga jezika (Differences Between the Croatian and Serbian Literary Languages, 1940), but also on Ivan Esih’s Hrvatski pravopisni rječnik za pravilnost i čistoću hrvatskog jezika (Croatian Spelling Dictionary for Accuracy and the Purity of the Croatian Language, 1940). The idea of neologisms in the Croatian language was promoted in the 19th century by the philologist Bogoslav Šulek, but it mostly referred to the scientific terminology. The escalation of neologisms and language purism occurred during the period of the Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945), the fascist puppet state. The Cyrillic script and “Serbian words” were legally banned, and it was also prohibited to swear. Thus, in August 1942, the Croatian newspaper Hrvatski list published an article which claimed that Serbs brought swearing to Croatia: “It is a miserable and low habit, which has been introduced to our nation for the pur- Nikola Zečević 244 pose of lowering its cultural level.”40 On the other hand, Croatian linguistic purism, in the early 1990s, wanted to achieve structural differentiation of the Croatian standard from the Serbian, through the hyper-production of neologisms and the thesis that the Serbian language is much more inclined towards foreign words. Examples include the words “history” (srb. istorija – cro. povijest), “geography” (srb. geografija – cro. zemljopis), “director” (srb. direktor – cro. ravnatelj), “computer” (srb. kompjuter – cro. računalo), “composer” (srb. kompozitor – cro. skladatelj), “music” (srb. muzika – cro. glazba), “passport” (srb. pasoš – cro. putovnica), “secretary” (srb. sekretar – cro. tajnik), “university” (srb. univerzitet – cro. sveučilište), “football” (srb. fudbal – cro. nogomet), and “date” (srb. datum – cro. nadnevak). However, according to the claims of Croatian linguists such as Dubravka Sesar and Ivana Vidović, the “newspeak” disrupted the structure of the Croatian language, restricted the vital functions of the Croatian literary tradition, degraded some of the lexicon, compromised part of the phraseological treasure, and overlooked the meanings of the words.41 In this regard, we are testifying to the paradox that some words that are typical for some Croatian regions, such as “hiljada” (in Dalmatia) or “komšija” (in Slavonia), have been thrown out of the Croatian standard language, having been proclaimed to be “Serbian words.” Language purism is still present in today’s Croatia, and its manifestations are additionally burlesque. For example, the Croatian linguistic magazine Jezik institutionalised in 1993 the Dr. Ivan Šreter award for the “best new Croatian word,” which is up-to-date until now. Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein wrote about this phenomenon in a very suggestive manner: “After the establishment of a democratic Croatia, we hoped this was exactly the time when the language should be completely free. But, as in many other things, everything went wrong [...] Although no one said it in that way, for many invited and uninvited participants in this debate, the Croatian language began to be defined not as a ‘Croatian language’ but as ‘a language different from the Serbian.’ The complex that appears among part of the (mostly ‘ultra’) Croats is wider than the linguistic problem; it stems from a 40 Maja Vonić and Perica Vujić, “Jezična politika u NDH” [Language Politics in the NDH], Essehist (2009): 49. 41 Dubravka Sesar and Ivana Vidović, “Što je novogovor učinio hrvatskomu jeziku?” [What has the Newspeak Done to the Croatian Language?], Jezik – časopis za kulturu hrvatskog književnog jezika, 47, no. 3 (2000): 92. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 245 psychological phenomenon called ‘narcissism of small differences’ in relation to Serbs.”42 Another sensitive issue regarding language in Croatia is the introduction of “bilingual signs” in Vukovar in 2013, i.e. the introduction of Cyrillic inscriptions in public places, and the right to the official use of the Cyrillic script. According to the Croatian Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities, those national groups that constitute more than one third of the total population of a particular municipality or city are entitled to the official use of their mother tongue. However, the attempt to introduce the Cyrillic script in Vukovar ended unsuccessfully, due to sharp protests by war veterans and to the destruction and desecration of Cyrillic inscriptions. However, it is important to point out that Cyrillic inscriptions exist in other Croatian municipalities with a Serb majority, but that the issue of Vukovar became problematic because of its symbolic significance (during the war in Croatia, 1991-1995, the city was shelled and besieged by the Serbian forces). Due to this, in November 2013 Vukovar was declared a place of special piety by decision of the local parliament and the amendments to the city statute which stipulated that the law on minorities cannot be applied to this city. However, in 2019 the Constitutional Court of Croatia declared this decision unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić assessed in one interview that the Cyrillic script in Vukovar is not a sign of bilingualism: “A different script does not mean that it is a different language. For example, if the text in Russian is switched from Cyrillic to Latin, it will remain in Russian. After all, if the letter signifies another language, the Serbs within Serbia would be bilingual, because they use both Latin and Cyrillic scripts.”43 Despite the constitutional paradox in the Republic of Serbia (the Serbo- Croatian language was a constitutional category in the Serbian constitution, and the Serbian language was official in the FRY Constitution), an obvious compromise was made within the school system. If we analyse the Grammar of the Serbian Language for Secondary Schools from 1992, which was prescribed in the school systems of Serbia and Montenegro, re- 42 Jutarnji list, Globus, “Jesmo li u strahu od ‘srbizama’ zaboravili na hrvatski?” [Have We Forgotten Croatian from the Fear of Serbian Words?], May 28, 2018, https://www.jutarnji.hr/globus/Globus-komentari/jesmo-li-u-strahu-od-srbizama-z aboravili-na-hrvatski-evo-koje-su-sve-rijeci-izgnane-iz-naseg-jezika-zbog-nakazne-lo gike-samozvanih-jezicnih-cistaca/7410537/ (accessed September 29, 2019). 43 Snježana Kordić, “Ćirilica u Vukovaru nije znak dvojezičnosti” [Cyrillic in Vukovar is not a Sign of Bilingualism], Novi list, January 19, 2013. Nikola Zečević 246 gardless of the dominant idiom (Serbian language), there was a chapter in the grammar with the title “Serbo-Croatian language,” in which the first sentence states: “In South Slavic countries, the Serbo-Croatian language, which [...] takes the shape and name of the ‘Serbian’ and ‘Croatian’ language [...] today is spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro.”44 It follows from this that the official linguistic standpoint in Serbia (and Montenegro) was that the Serbian language is a variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. Nevertheless, regardless of such a standpoint, there has been a visible trend of “cyrillisation” of the Serbian standard language, or rather the peripheralisation of the Latin script as an equal one. A constitutional provision from 2006, which treats Cyrillic as the only official script in the Republic of Serbia, additionally contributes to this trend. In the draft of the national Strategy for the Development of Culture in the Republic of Serbia from 2017 to 2027, it is even stated that “in the circumstances of the dominance of anglophone global communication and the Latin script, it is necessary to foresee, by law and other acts, incentives for the affirmation of the Serbian language and of Cyrillic in public use.”45 The above-mentioned draft also envisages a reduction in taxes for publishing newspapers, magazines and books in Cyrillic, and giving priority to translations published in Cyrillic. This document has actualised opposing standpoints among Serbian linguists on this issue. Thus, Sreto Tanasić,46 in his interview for the newspaper Politika (August 2018), stated that the “Latin script is not a Serbian script [...] However, it was imported, especially after the Second World War, in the name of the unity of the Serbo-Croatian language.”47 On the other hand, Ranko Bugarski, in his interview for the newspaper Danas, stated that both scripts are equally Serbian, adding: “However, it turns out that it is more important to say that the Latin script is not Serbian, which then turns us to another unpro- 44 Živojin Stanojčić and Ljubomir Popović, Gramatika srpskoga jezika. Udžbenik za I, II, III i IV razred srednje škole [Grammar of the Serbian language. A Textbook for High School, I, II, III and IV Grades] (Belgrade – Novi Sad: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva – Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika, 1992), 6. 45 Sonja Ćirić, “Ćirilica – Latinica” [Cyrillic – Latin], Vreme, February 2018. 46 Scientific advisor at the Institute for Serbian Language (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) and President of the Committee for the Standardisation of the Serbian Language. 47 Politika, “Latinica nije srpsko pismo” [Latin is not a Serbian Script], August 15, 2018, http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/409356/Latinica-nije-srpsko-pismo (accessed September 29, 2019). Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 247 ductive field, where we are arguing whether it is, which is completely irrelevant and only draws attention away from the fundamental questions. Actually, it is not a question of whether the Latin script is Serbian, but the question is whether both of the scripts, Latin and Cyrillic, belong to the Serbian language. [...] Linguistically, the script in which a language is written is also the script of that language, although it may even be used primarily as a script of another language. Scripts do not belong to the nations, but to languages, if we can even speak about such a type of belonging at all.”48 The process of standardisation of the Bosnian language was initiated with two publications: Alija Isaković’s Rječnik bosanskog jezika (Dictionary of the Bosnian Language, 1995) and Senahid Halilović’s Pravopis bosanskoga jezika (Orthography of the Bosnian Language, 1996). It is not hard to notice, in both publications, an obvious orientalisation of the Bosnian standard language and its archaicisation through the forcing of turkisms; and a noticeable emphasis on the letter h in certain words. The (ideological) upgrade of this linguistic paradigm has been represented in the works of Dževad Jahić, who insists on the differences between the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian standard language. In his book Bosanski jezik u 100 pitanja i 100 odgovora (The Bosnian Language in 100 Questions and 100 Responses), he introduces the principle of the linguistic merhamet (spirit, compassion), linking it to the merhamet as one of the typical characteristics and features of the Bosniak mentality. Therefore, he says that turkisms in the Bosnian language, versus Serbian and Croatian, do not sound sharp and foreign, but that on the contrary they sound natural and organic, they have a softer and finer content.49 With this Jahić tries, in a burlesque way, to bring into organic connection the ethno-national “spirit” of one nation and the compatibility of its language with turkisms. On the other hand, the Government and the National Assembly of Republika Srpska proclaimed in 1996 the legal decision of the (obligatory) official use of the Ekavian pronunciation on the whole territory of this entity, with the aim of “equalising” the Serbian standard language. Although the Iyekavian pronunciation has not been abolished, 48 Danas, “I latinica i ćirilica su pisma srpskog jezika” [Both Latin and Cyrillic Are Script of the Serbian Language], November 11, 2018, https://www.danas.rs/drustv o/i-latinica-i-cirilica-su-pisma-srpskog-jezika/ (accessed September 29, 2019). 49 Dževad Jahić, Bosanski jezik u 100 pitanja i 100 odgovora [The Bosnian Language in 100 Questions and 100 Responses] (Sarajevo: Dom štampe, 1999), 64-66. Nikola Zečević 248 the advantage is given to the Ekavian one. However, this norm lasted only two years, although its initial intention was political: to emphasise the difference between Bosnian (Bosniak) and the Serbian standard language. In this regard, Enver Kazaz states that the Serbian and Croatian political oligarchy in Bosnia and Herzegovina autocolonised and “debosnificated” (sic.) their own language expressions by accepting official language policies from Belgrade and Zagreb, adding: “Bosniaks debosnificated their language and they bosniakised it to the maximum, since the ‘Orthography’ by Senahid Halilović, who tried to emphasise the differences with the Croatian and Serbian language. The Bosniakisation of the Bosnian language destroyed its multicultural tradition. [...] The interrupted tradition of the Bosnian language within its modern standardisation is reflected above all in the archaicisation of the orthographical norm, its dialectisation, orientalisation, turkisation, derussification, deserbisation, and also noticeable croatisation. Archaisms literally overwhelmed the orthographical norm.”50 The milestone in the re-actualisation of the Montenegrin linguistic question was 1990 and the formation of the Liberal Alliance of Montenegro (a political party), the Montenegrin PEN Center and the Montenegrin Society of Independent Writers. These three organisations were the main promoters of the Montenegrin language, and their members were the earliest propagators of this idea: Vojislav P. Nikčević and Radoslav Rotković. Nikčević’s 1993 books Piši kao što zboriš (Write as You Speak) and Crnogorski jezik 1 (Montenegrin Language 1) were the first step toward the standardisation of the Montenegrin language. In them, the author promoted three new letters of the Montenegrin language, ś, ź and з, implying that the Montenegrin language had a special and different phonological system from the other three standards of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. Croatian linguist Dubravko Škiljan, in his interview for the Serbian magazine Vreme (1996), said that if these phonemes (letters) were to become standardised, then it would be possible to single out the Montenegrin language as, typo- 50 Jutarnji list, “Novi pravopis bosanskog jezika” [The New Orthography of the Bosnian Language], February 5, 2017, https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/novi-pr avopis-bosanskog-jezika-prije-rata-svi-su-u-bih-pili-kafu-nakon-rata-kafu-piju-jos-sa mo-srbi-hrvati-piju-kavu-a-bosnjaci-kahvu/5591475/ (accessed September 29, 2019). Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 249 logically and structurally, a separate language.51 Particularly comical is the fact that the letters ź and з are used (colloquially) in only a few words, but very rarely in broader Montenegrin speech. However, from the perspective of Montenegrin nationalists, it was quite desirable, for political purposes, to give legitimacy to the idiomatic Montenegrin language, by emphasising the phonological differences with the (primarily) Serbian standard language and with the other two standards as well. Nikčević’s Phonological System was supplemented with the “Declaration of the Montenegrin PEN Center on the Constitutional Position of the Montenegrin Language” (1994), but also by Radoslav Rotković’s 1995 book Odakle su došli preci Crnogoraca (Where the Ancestors of the Montenegrins Came From). In this book, the author explained that the old homeland of the Montenegrins is the geographical area between the river Elbe and the Baltic Sea, which implies that Montenegrins have Western Slavic origins, unlike other South Slavic people, and therefore explains why the Montenegrin and Polish phonological systems are so similar. Rotković further stated in his book that there are 865 identical toponyms in the region between the Elbe and the Baltic Sea and in the region of today’s Montenegro.52 From this it follows that Rotković sought the justification for Montenegrin linguistic features in historical categories that date back to the Middle Ages (!). Vojislav P. Nikčević soon published Pravopis crnogorskog jezika (Orthography of the Montenegrin Language) in 1997 and Crnogorska gramatika (Montenegrin Grammar) in 2001. The government’s official policy in Montenegro was that the Serbian language should be preserved as a constitutional category, until 2004. In the same year, the statement of Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Đukanović that his native language is Montenegrin, symbolically heralded the change of the constitutional position of the Serbian language in Montenegro. Therefore, the following thesis of Jaak Kölhi from the University of Helsinki should be treated as very grounded: “At this point, at the latest, promoting the Montenegrin language became associated with certain political groupings that aimed at strengthening a separate Montenegrin identity and with the ultimate goal of complete po- 51 Inoslav Bešker, Adriatico orientale, identità e globalizzazione. Lezioni per l’Adriatico. Argomenti in favore di una nuova euroregione [Eastern Adriatic, Identity and Globalisation. Lessons for the Adriatic. Arguments for a New Euroregion] (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2010), 61. 52 Radoslav Rotković, Odakle su došli preci Crnogoraca [Where the Ancestors of the Montenegrins Came From] (Podgorica: Matica Crnogorska, 1992). Nikola Zečević 250 litical independence from Serbia.”53 In 2009 the Ministry of Education approved the official Orthography of the Montenegrin Language, which included two new letters, ś and ź, and whose authors are the Montenegrin philosopher Milenko Perović, the Ukrainian philologist Ljudmila Vasiljeva, and the Croatian linguist Josip Silić. Silić is also the author of a Grammar of the Montenegrin Language, along with Adnan Čirgić and the linguist Ivo Pranjković. The Grammar was approved in 2010, so the official standardisation of the Montenegrin language was ultimately completed. However, this standardisation was preceded by a conceptual breakdown in the Council for the Standardisation and Codification of the Montenegrin Language, which is currently reflected in the existence of two parallel programmes for the study of the idiom. The circle of linguists around Adnan Čirgić, current Dean of the Faculty of Montenegrin language, advocated a version of the Montenegrin language with jotations and new letters (ś, ź). The circle around Tatjana Bečanović and Rajka Glušica, from the Study Programme for Montenegrin Language and South Slavic Literature (University of Montenegro, Faculty of Philology), advocated the adoption of the idiom, but with the reliance on the previous Serbo-Croatian linguistic form (with possible compromise regarding the introduction of one new letter, ś). The circle around Bečanović and Glušica accused Čirgić of linguistic nationalism and archaisation of the language, while Čirgić estimated that Bečanović and Glušica actually wanted Montenegrins to learn and speak the Serbian language, and just to call it Montenegrin. He accused them of ignoring Montenegrin linguistic features. In that sense, Čirgić further clarified his position: “The separate standardisation of the Montenegrin language is often shown as a process that will ghettoise Montenegro and its literature. One of the main arguments is that others will not read us because they will not understand us. Should one language be standardised according to the understanding of those who do not speak it? The Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks naturally did not standardise their languages in accordance with the Montenegrin taste, 53 Jaako Kölhi, “Language and Identity in Montenegro: A Study among University Students,” in Balkan Encounters – Old and New Identities in South-Eastern Europe, ed. Jouko Lindstedt and Max Wahlstörm (Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia, 2012), 87. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 251 nor in accordance with how many Montenegrins will read them. Montenegrins cannot act differently either.”54 The conflict between the two linguistic circles escalated at the time of the publication of the first volume of the Dictionary of the Vernacular and Literary Montenegrin Language by the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts. The creation of the dictionary was coordinated by Tatjana Bečanović. Adnan Čirgić assessed the dictionary as a copy of the Dictionary of the Serbo-Croatian Literary and Vernacular Language (published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts). Čirgić further characterised as a crimen the fact that the Dictionary included some words from the books of Montenegrin writers who wrote in the Serbian language (!), such as Borislav Pekić or Miodrag Bulatović.55 After the adoption of the political agreement in August 2011 and of amendments to the Law on General Education, by which pupils in Montenegrin primary and secondary schools began to study Montenegrin – Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian Language and Literature, it turned out that the official state policy had abandoned the principle of ethnic language. Although he opposed the above-mentioned political agreement, the then President Milo Đukanović stated that Montenegrin is not the language of ethnic Montenegrins, but the language of the Montenegrin state (the state language), pointing out that “[i]f Montenegro is independent, and if every state from the Serbo-Croatian speaking region named their own official languages with the name of the country, Montenegro should do the same.”56 However, the data from the latest census in Montenegro (2011) remains indicative: 42.88 percent of citizens declared that their native language is Serbian, while 36.97 percent declared it to be the Montenegrin language. It is also important to note the obvious prevalence of the Latin script in official use in Montenegro, although the Cyrillic script is equal (in a for- 54 Adnan Čirgić, “Povodom standardizacije crnogorskog jezika” [Regarding the Standardisation of the Montenegrin Language], Matica (autumn, 2010): 9. 55 Portal Analitika, “Čirgić: Rječnik CANU – crnogorskoj nezavisnosti na dar” [Čirgić: CANU Dictionary – Gift for Montenegrin Independence], April 18, 2016, https://portalanalitika.me/clanak/226286/cirgic-rjecnik-canu-crnogorskoj-nezavisn osti-na-dar (accessed September 29, 2019). 56 Vijesti, “Đukanović: Crnogorski nije jezik etničkih Crnogoraca, već jezik države Crne Gore” [Đukanović: Montenegrin is not the Language of Ethnic Montenegrins, but the Language of the State of Montenegro], August 25, 2011, https://ww w.vijesti.me/vijesti/politika/dukanovic-crnogorski-nije-jezik-etnickih-crnogoraca-v ec-jezik-drzave-crne-gore (accessed September 29, 2019). Nikola Zečević 252 mal sense). While this can be explained by the intention of adapting the Montenegrin language to contemporary global trends, the issue of the script is often posed as a political and ideological one. In today’s Montenegro it articulates the following perception: it usually indicates that those people, publishers, organisations and institutions that predominantly use the Latin script are liberal and pro-Montenegrin (pro-Western), while those who use the Cyrillic script are mostly conservative, traditionalists and pro-Serbian (pro-Russian). This is only one of the segments of the split between Montenegrins and Montenegrin Serbs, which initially began (in the words of Montenegrin sociologist Bojan Baća) “as a political/ideological (rather than ethnic) split.”57 Instead of promoting the common polycentric language as the basis for cultural and economic cooperation between these four countries, and therefore the rest of the Western Balkans, it became a symbolic point of disagreement. Adding to this the fact that in Slovenia, North Macedonia and Kosovo, the common language had the status of a lingua franca, and that even today a significant part of the population of these three countries speaks it fluently, we can conclude that the common language has the potential to be one of the fundamental bases for multilateral cooperation and regional linkage in the Western Balkans. The so-called linguistic question suggests that the Western Balkans, and its four (central) countries are burdened with similar ethnocentric nationalisms that are producing hopeless politicisation and ethnicisation, starting with banal interpretation of profanity (swearing), all the way to the misunderstanding of the most complex identity categories. Instead of promoting cultural and historical similarities (in the same way as evident diversity), political elites in these four countries are producing a “fascinating” paradox: that apparently similar or identical things are named, categorised and interpreted as significantly different. Conclusion These examples do not imply that today’s idioms (the Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language, and Serbian language) are in 57 Bojan Baća, “Forging Civic Bonds ‘from Below’. Montenegrin Activist Youth between Ethnonational Disidentification and Political Subjectivation,” in Changing Youth Values in Southeast Europe. Beyond Ethnicity, ed. Tamara Trošt and Danilo Mandić (Routledge: 2018), 130. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 253 any way disputable. However, they certainly suggest that the naming of these idioms is articulated by political reasons, and not by scientific and linguistic ones. In that sense we are facing ideas that the Serbian and Croatian language are actually ethnic languages, or languages of ethnic groups: Serbs and Croats. It is usually interpreted in this way: if your native language (mother tongue) is Serbian or Croatian, you are an ethnic Serb or an ethnic Croat, with small exceptions. This idea has been broadly accepted among Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. On the other side, we are facing the idea that through the concept of “state language” in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro and the tendency of creating a common national identity, these processes could be interpreted as a possible tool of assimilation. Accordingly, we can say that the idea of “state language” could not be broadly accepted in multi-ethnic countries like Montenegro or Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is therefore important to mention the “Declaration of the Common Language” (2017) signed by liberal and left-oriented linguists, university professors, writers, intellectuals and public figures from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia.58 The idea of the Declaration is that insisting on a small number of existing differences and the violent separation of these four standard variants leads to a series of negative social, cultural and political circumstances, such as the use of language as an argument for segregating children in some multinational environments, unnecessary “translation” in administrative use or in the media, as well as censorship (and necessarily auto-censorship), in which linguistic expression is imposed as a criterion of ethno-national affiliation and a means of proving political loyalty. The declaration was mostly attacked by nationalists and conservative linguists such as Željko Jozić, Miloš Kovačević and Dževad Jahić. Accordingly, if we take into account that there are four languages which have been standardised on the basis of the Serbo-Croatian language, we can say with complete certainty that these are only four standardised variants of one polycentric standard language, especially because the differences between the standards are inessential and not systemic and do not affect the criterion of mutual intelligibility. 58 The author of this chapter is also a signatory of this declaration. Nikola Zečević 254 Bibliography Baća, Bojan. “Forging Civic Bonds ‘from Below’. Montenegrin Activist Youth Between Ethnonational Disidentification and Political Subjectivation.” In Changing Youth Values in Southeast Europe. Beyond Ethnicity, edited by Tamara Trošt and Danilo Mandić. Routledge, 2018. Banac, Ivo. Nacionalno pitanje u Jugoslaviji [The National Question in Yugoslavia]. Zagreb: Durieux, 1995. Bešker, Inoslav. Adriatico orientale, identità e globalizzazione. Lezioni per l’Adriatico. Argomenti in favore di una nuova euroregione [Eastern Adriatic, Identity and Globalisation. Lessons for the Adriatic. Arguments for a New Euroregion]. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2010. Bogićević, Vojislav. Pismenost u Bosni i Hercegovini [Literacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1975. Burzanović, Slavko. “Crnogorski ustav iz 1941.” [Montenegrin Constitution, 1941]. Matica (Zima, 2010): 261-278. Čirgić, Adnan. “Povodom standardizacije crnogorskog jezika” [Regarding the Standardisation of the Montenegrin Language]. Matica (Jesen, 2010): 7-48. Ćirić, Sonja. “Ćirilica – Latinica” [Cyrillic – Latin]. Vreme, February 2018. Horvat, Vladimir. “Afterword.” In Ritval Rimski [Roman Ritual], edited by Bartol Kašić. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1993. Imamović, Mustafa. Pravni položaj i unutrašnji politički razvitak Bosne i Hercegovine od 1878. do 1914. [Status and Internal Political Development of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1878 to 1914]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1976. Isaković, Alija. Neminovnosti: baština, kritika, jezik, intervjui [Inevitabilities: Heritage, Criticism, Language, Interviews]. Tuzla: Izd. djelatnost, 1987. Jahić, Dževad. Bosanski jezik u 100 pitanja i 100 odgovora [The Bosnian Language in 100 Questions and 100 Responses]. Sarajevo: Dom štampe, 1999. Kamberović, Husnija. Ratni kongres bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca: 22. decembar 1992. [War Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals, December 22, 1992]. Sarajevo: Vijeće bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca, 1994. “Književnost bosanska” [Bosnian Literature]. Bosanski prijatelj 1, 1850. Kölhi, Jaako. “Language and Identity in Montenegro: A Study among University Students.” In Balkan Encounters – Old and New Identities in South-Eastern Europe, edited by Jouko Lindstedt and Max Wahlstörm. Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia, 2012. Kordić, Snježana. Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism]. Zagreb: Durieux, 2010. Kordić, Snježana. “Ćirilica u Vukovaru nije znak dvojezičnosti” [Cyrillic in Vukovar is not a Sign of Bilingualism]. Novi list, January 19, 2013. Noveljić, Bogić. “Brisanje crnogorskoga književnog jezika” [Deletion of the Montenegrin Literary Language]. Zeta 14, 1937. Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 255 Papović, Dragutin. “Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990” [Intellectuals and Power in Montenegro, 1945-1990]. Niksic: PhD diss., University of Montenegro, 2013. Radojević, Radoje. Osporavana kultura: kritike i polemike [Contested Culture: Criticism and Polemics]. Danilo Radojević, 2006. Redžić, Enver, Tokovi i otpori [Courses and Resistances]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1970. Rešetar, Milan. Izvješće o C.K. Višoj Dubrovačkoj Gimnaziji, koncem školske 1872-73 [Report on C.K. Dubrovnik High School, Late School Year 1872-73]. Dubrovnik: 1873. Rotković, Radoslav. Odakle su došli preci Crnogoraca [Where the Ancestors of the Montenegrins Came From]. Podgorica: Matica Crnogorska, 1992. Sesar, Dubravka and Ivana Vidović. “Što je novogovor učinio hrvatskomu jeziku?” [What has the Newspeak Done to the Croatian Language?]. Jezik – časopis za kulturu hrvatskog književnog jezika, 47, no. 3 (2000): 81-94. Službeni list Republike Bosne i Hercegovine [Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Sarajevo: No. 5, March 14, 1993. Stanojčić, Živojin, and Ljubomir Popović. Gramatika srpskoga jezika. Udžbenik za I, II, III i IV razred srednje škole [Grammar of the Serbian language. A Textbook for High School, I, II, III and IV Grades]. Belgrade – Novi Sad: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva – Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika, 1992. Šator, Mehmed. Bosanski/hrvatski/srpski jezik u BiH do 1914. godine [Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Language in BiH until 1914]. Mostar: FHN, 2004. Ustav Republike Srbije [Constitution of the Republic of Serbia]. Belgrade: IRO Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 1994. Ustav Savezne Republike Jugoslavije [Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]. Belgrade: JP Službeni list SRJ, 1998. Ustav Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske [Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb: Narodne novine, 1972. Vonić, Maja, and Perica Vujić. “Jezična politika u NDH” [ Language Politics in the NDH]. Essehist (2009): 46-51. Online Sources Danas. “I latinica i ćirilica su pisma srpskog jezika” [Both Latin and Cyrillic Are Script of the Serbian Language]. November 11, 2018. https://www.danas.rs/drus tvo/i-latinica-i-cirilica-su-pisma-srpskog-jezika/ (accessed September 29, 2019). Jutarnji list. Globus, “Jesmo li u strahu od ‘srbizama’ zaboravili na hrvatski?” [Have We Forgotten Croatian from the Fear of Serbian Words?]. May 28, 2018. https:// www.jutarnji.hr/globus/Globus-komentari/jesmo-li-u-strahu-od-srbizama-zabora vili-na-hrvatski-evo-koje-su-sve-rijeci-izgnane-iz-naseg-jezika-zbog-nakazne-logike -samozvanih-jezicnih-cistaca/7410537/ (accessed September 29, 2019). Nikola Zečević 256 Jutarnji list. “Novi pravopis bosanskog jezika” [The New Orthography of the Bosnian Language]. February 5, 2017. https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/novi-pr avopis-bosanskog-jezika-prije-rata-svi-su-u-bih-pili-kafu-nakon-rata-kafu-piju-jos-s amo-srbi-hrvati-piju-kavu-a-bosnjaci-kahvu/5591475/ (accessed September 29, 2019). Ministarstvo prosvjete Crne Gore [Ministry of Education, Montenegro]. http://ww w.mps.gov.me/biblioteka/zakoni (accessed September 29, 2019). Narodna skupština Republike Srpske. “Ustav Republike Srpske” [Constitution of the Republika Srpska]. https://www.narodnaskupstinars.net/sites/default/files/up load/dokumenti/ustav/lat/ustav_republike_srpske.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019). N1 Portal. “Odluka o konstitutivnosti Srba u tri kantona u FBiH” [Decision on the Constitutionality of Serbs in the Three Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. May 29, 2018. http://ba.n1info.com/Vijesti/a263281/Odluka-o-ko nstitutivnosti-Srba-u-tri-kantona-u-FBiH.html (accessed September 29, 2019). Parlament Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine (Predstavnički dom). “Ustav Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine” [Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. https://predstavnickidom-pfbih.gov.ba/upload/file/ustav/ustav_precisceni_t ekst.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019). Politika. “Latinica nije srpsko pismo” [Latin is not a Serbian Script]. August 15, 2018. http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/409356/Latinica-nije-srpsko-pismo (accessed September 29, 2019). Politika. “SANU: Ne postoji bosanski jezik” [SANU: There is no Bosnian Language]. August 21, 2015. http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/336290/Kultura/SAN U-Ne-postoji-bosanski-jezik (accessed September 29, 2019). Portal Analitika. “Čirgić: Rječnik CANU – crnogorskoj nezavisnosti na dar” [Čirgić: CANU Dictionary – Gift for Montenegrin Independence]. April 18, 2016. https://portalanalitika.me/clanak/226286/cirgic-rjecnik-canu-crnogorskoj-nezavis nosti-na-dar (accessed September 29, 2019). Ustavni sud Crne Gore [Constitutional Court of Montenegro]. “Odluka U-I br. 39-11 i 3-12.”, www.ustavnisud.me (accessed September 29, 2019). Vijesti. “Đukanović: Crnogorski nije jezik etničkih Crnogoraca, već jezik države Crne Gore” [Đukanović: Montenegrin is not the Language of Ethnic Montenegrins, but the Language of the State of Montenegro]. August 25, 2011. https://w ww.vijesti.me/vijesti/politika/dukanovic-crnogorski-nije-jezik-etnickih-crnogorac a-vec-jezik-drzave-crne-gore (accessed September 29, 2019). Contemporary Language-Naming Practices in the Western Balkans 257

Chapter Preview

References
Baća, Bojan. “Forging Civic Bonds ‘from Below’. Montenegrin Activist Youth Between Ethnonational Disidentification and Political Subjectivation.” In Changing Youth Values in Southeast Europe. Beyond Ethnicity, edited by Tamara Trošt and Danilo Mandić. Routledge, 2018.
Banac, Ivo. Nacionalno pitanje u Jugoslaviji [The National Question in Yugoslavia]. Zagreb: Durieux, 1995.
Bešker, Inoslav. Adriatico orientale, identità e globalizzazione. Lezioni per l’Adriatico. Argomenti in favore di una nuova euroregione [Eastern Adriatic, Identity and Globalisation. Lessons for the Adriatic. Arguments for a New Euroregion]. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2010.
Bogićević, Vojislav. Pismenost u Bosni i Hercegovini [Literacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1975.
Burzanović, Slavko. “Crnogorski ustav iz 1941.” [Montenegrin Constitution, 1941]. Matica (Zima, 2010): 261-278.
Čirgić, Adnan. “Povodom standardizacije crnogorskog jezika” [Regarding the Standardisation of the Montenegrin Language]. Matica (Jesen, 2010): 7-48.
Ćirić, Sonja. “Ćirilica - Latinica” [Cyrillic - Latin]. Vreme, February 2018.
Horvat, Vladimir. “Afterword.” In Ritval Rimski [Roman Ritual], edited by Bartol Kašić. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1993.
Imamović, Mustafa. Pravni položaj i unutrašnji politički razvitak Bosne i Hercegovine od 1878. do 1914. [Status and Internal Political Development of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1878 to 1914]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1976.
Isaković, Alija. Neminovnosti: baština, kritika, jezik, intervjui [Inevitabilities: Heritage, Criticism, Language, Interviews]. Tuzla: Izd. djelatnost, 1987.
Jahić, Dževad. Bosanski jezik u 100 pitanja i 100 odgovora [The Bosnian Language in 100 Questions and 100 Responses]. Sarajevo: Dom štampe, 1999.
Kamberović, Husnija. Ratni kongres bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca: 22. decembar 1992. [War Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals, December 22, 1992]. Sarajevo: Vijeće bosanskomuslimanskih intelektualaca, 1994.
“Književnost bosanska” [Bosnian Literature]. Bosanski prijatelj 1, 1850.
Kölhi, Jaako. “Language and Identity in Montenegro: A Study among University Students.” In Balkan Encounters - Old and New Identities in South-Eastern Europe, edited by Jouko Lindstedt and Max Wahlstörm. Helsinki: Slavica Helsingiensia, 2012.
Kordić, Snježana. Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism]. Zagreb: Durieux, 2010.
Kordić, Snježana. “Ćirilica u Vukovaru nije znak dvojezičnosti” [Cyrillic in Vukovar is not a Sign of Bilingualism]. Novi list, January 19, 2013.
Noveljić, Bogić. “Brisanje crnogorskoga književnog jezika” [Deletion of the Montenegrin Literary Language]. Zeta 14, 1937.
Papović, Dragutin. “Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990” [Intellectuals and Power in Montenegro, 1945-1990]. Niksic: PhD diss., University of Montenegro, 2013.
Radojević, Radoje. Osporavana kultura: kritike i polemike [Contested Culture: Criticism and Polemics]. Danilo Radojević, 2006.
Redžić, Enver, Tokovi i otpori [Courses and Resistances]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1970.
Rešetar, Milan. Izvješće o C.K. Višoj Dubrovačkoj Gimnaziji, koncem školske 1872-73 [Report on C.K. Dubrovnik High School, Late School Year 1872-73]. Dubrovnik: 1873.
Rotković, Radoslav. Odakle su došli preci Crnogoraca [Where the Ancestors of the Montenegrins Came From]. Podgorica: Matica Crnogorska, 1992.
Sesar, Dubravka and Ivana Vidović. “Što je novogovor učinio hrvatskomu jeziku?” [What has the Newspeak Done to the Croatian Language?]. Jezik - časopis za kulturu hrvatskog književnog jezika, 47, no. 3 (2000): 81-94.
Službeni list Republike Bosne i Hercegovine [Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Sarajevo: No. 5, March 14, 1993.
Stanojčić, Živojin, and Ljubomir Popović. Gramatika srpskoga jezika. Udžbenik za I, II, III i IV razred srednje škole [Grammar of the Serbian language. A Textbook for High School, I, II, III and IV Grades]. Belgrade - Novi Sad: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva - Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika, 1992.
Šator, Mehmed. Bosanski/hrvatski/srpski jezik u BiH do 1914. godine [Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Language in BiH until 1914]. Mostar: FHN, 2004.
Ustav Republike Srbije [Constitution of the Republic of Serbia]. Belgrade: IRO Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 1994.
Ustav Savezne Republike Jugoslavije [Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]. Belgrade: JP Službeni list SRJ, 1998.
Ustav Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske [Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia]. Zagreb: Narodne novine, 1972.
Vonić, Maja, and Perica Vujić. “Jezična politika u NDH” [ Language Politics in the NDH]. Essehist (2009): 46-51.
Online Sources
Danas. “I latinica i ćirilica su pisma srpskog jezika” [Both Latin and Cyrillic Are Script of the Serbian Language]. November 11, 2018. https://www.danas.rs/drustvo/i-latinica-i-cirilica-su-pisma-srpskog-jezika/ (accessed September 29, 2019).
Jutarnji list. Globus, “Jesmo li u strahu od ‘srbizama’ zaboravili na hrvatski?” [Have We Forgotten Croatian from the Fear of Serbian Words?]. May 28, 2018. https://www.jutarnji.hr/globus/Globus-komentari/jesmo-li-u-strahu-od-srbizama-zaboravili-na-hrvatski-evo-koje-su-sve-rijeci-izgnane-iz-naseg-jezika-zbog-nakazne-logike-samozvanih-jezicnih-cistaca/7410537/ (accessed September 29, 2019).
Jutarnji list. “Novi pravopis bosanskog jezika” [The New Orthography of the Bosnian Language]. February 5, 2017. https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/novi-pravopis-bosanskog-jezika-prije-rata-svi-su-u-bih-pili-kafu-nakon-rata-kafu-piju-jos-samo-srbi-hrvati-piju-kavu-a-bosnjaci-kahvu/5591475/ (accessed September 29, 2019).
Ministarstvo prosvjete Crne Gore [Ministry of Education, Montenegro]. http://www.mps.gov.me/biblioteka/zakoni (accessed September 29, 2019).
Narodna skupština Republike Srpske. “Ustav Republike Srpske” [Constitution of the Republika Srpska]. https://www.narodnaskupstinars.net/sites/default/files/upload/dokumenti/ustav/lat/ustav_republike_srpske.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019).
N1 Portal. “Odluka o konstitutivnosti Srba u tri kantona u FBiH” [Decision on the Constitutionality of Serbs in the Three Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. May 29, 2018. http://ba.n1info.com/Vijesti/a263281/Odluka-o-konstitutivnosti-Srba-u-tri-kantona-u-FBiH.html (accessed September 29, 2019).
Parlament Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine (Predstavnički dom). “Ustav Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine” [Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. https://predstavnickidom-pfbih.gov.ba/upload/file/ustav/ustav_precisceni_tekst.pdf (accessed September 29, 2019).
Politika. “Latinica nije srpsko pismo” [Latin is not a Serbian Script]. August 15, 2018. http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/409356/Latinica-nije-srpsko-pismo (accessed September 29, 2019).
Politika. “SANU: Ne postoji bosanski jezik” [SANU: There is no Bosnian Language]. August 21, 2015. http://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/336290/Kultura/SANU-Ne-postoji-bosanski-jezik (accessed September 29, 2019).
Portal Analitika. “Čirgić: Rječnik CANU - crnogorskoj nezavisnosti na dar” [Čirgić: CANU Dictionary - Gift for Montenegrin Independence]. April 18, 2016. https://portalanalitika.me/clanak/226286/cirgic-rjecnik-canu-crnogorskoj-nezavisnosti-na-dar (accessed September 29, 2019).
Ustavni sud Crne Gore [Constitutional Court of Montenegro]. “Odluka U-I br. 39-11 i 3-12.”, www.ustavnisud.me (accessed September 29, 2019).
Vijesti. “Đukanović: Crnogorski nije jezik etničkih Crnogoraca, već jezik države Crne Gore” [Đukanović: Montenegrin is not the Language of Ethnic Montenegrins, but the Language of the State of Montenegro]. August 25, 2011. https://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/politika/dukanovic-crnogorski-nije-jezik-etnickih-crnogoraca-vec-jezik-drzave-crne-gore (accessed September 29, 2019).

Abstract

The Western Balkans and the Visegrad Group are two macro-regions within the larger Eastern European area. Geographically and historically close, both regions share comparable characteristics on a macro-regional level as well as among the region's individual countries on a national level. However, when it comes to identities, the national level seems unavoidable: politically speaking, identity means national identity first and foremost. The authors of this book, who come from both regions, examine the ways in which the very sense of regional belonging might—or might not—override the shortcomings of and the obstacles erected by national identity. The varied case studies in the book focus on aspects of identity and their political (mis)use by actors in the regions under study. With contributions by Adam Bence Balazs, Adam Balcer, Ladislav Cabada, Ondřej Daniel, Kinga Anna Gajda, Kamil Glinka, Christina Griessler, Adis Maksic, Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc, Ešref Kenan Rašidagić, Andrea Schmidt, Tamara Trošt, Robert Wiszniowski, Nikola Zečević.

Zusammenfassung

Der Westbalkan und die Visegrad-Gruppe sind zwei Makroregionen innerhalb eines größeren osteuropäischen Raums. Geografisch und historisch nahe beieinander weisen beide Regionen sowohl auf makroregionaler als auch auf nationaler Ebene vergleichbare Merkmale auf. Kommt man zur Frage der Identität, scheint die nationale Ebene jedoch unumstößlich: Politisch gesehen bedeutet Identität zuallererst nationale Identität. Die aus den Regionen stammenden AutorenInnen untersuchen, auf welche Weise das Gefühl der Zugehörigkeit zu einer Region die Unzulänglichkeiten und Blockaden der nationalen Identität überwinden könnte - oder auch nicht. Die Vielfalt der Fallstudien konzentriert sich auf Identitätsaspekte und deren politischen (Missbrauch) durch Akteure in den untersuchten Regionen. Mit Beiträgen von Adam Bence Balazs, Adam Balcer, Ladislav Cabada, Ondřej Daniel, Kinga Anna Gajda, Kamil Glinka, Christina Griessler, Adis Maksic, Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc, Ešref Kenan Rašidagić, Andrea Schmidt, Tamara Trošt, Robert Wiszniowski, Nikola Zečević.