Discursive Construction of Language Identity through Disputes in Croatian and Montenegrin Media

Abstract

This article addresses various constructions of language identity in disputes in the Croatian media in 2006, and in the Croatian and Montenegrin media in 2010 and 2011. In Croatia, the language disputes during these periods were triggered by the publication of two linguistics books perceived to be threats to Croatian identity. In Montenegro, there were intensified efforts in 2010 and 2011 to standardize Montenegrin, which aroused animosity between promoters of Montenegrin and promoters of Serbian. During this time both Croatia and Montenegro were pursuing EU accession, which also implies implementing European values. These values include tolerance in various areas, including public discourse. Thus, one would expect tolerant and nuanced public debates about identity issues, including language. However, this article shows that the main narratives that underpin language disputes are realized through a metaphorical scenario of defensive war. The analysis also identifies discourse strategies of (de-)legitimization enacted through discrimination towards the Other on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and professional credibility. Despite some contextual differences, the structure of language disputes in the Croatian and Montenegrin media exhibit striking similarities.

Memory in the margins: The connecting and colliding of vernacular war memories

“…As a consequence, ethnicity is imbued with nationalism, which is palpable on both state and individual levels. These language politics find their way into national media discourse that delegitimizes the war memories of individuals from other ethnicities or Balkan states (Felberg and Šarić, 2013). More importantly, in everyday local interactions, language is used to identify words that are ‘typically’ Croat or Bosniak (Palmberger, 2016: 29).…”

Metaphor, Nation and Discourse

“…The abundance of language debates within the territory of the former Yugoslavia might be attributed to the fact that the nations living there are situated in a relatively small area and that they strive to keep their individual integrity by emphasizing their differences. In doing so, language issues have long been an arena where national borders and national identities have been asserted, disputed, and denied among national and ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia (e.g., Škiljan 2002, Greenberg 2008, Peti-Stantić 2008, Čolović 2008, Kordić 2010, Bugarski 2012, Radanović Felberg & Šarić 2013, Langston & Peti-Stantić 2014. Simply put, language ideologies have been intimately related primarily to national ideologies, and discussions about standard Croatian or standard Serbian are hardly imaginable without considering an intra-national and/or territorial dimension.…”

“…Four standard langauges have gradually emerged in the territory of the former Serbo-Croatian area: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian. However, as it is well known in sociolingusitics, language as a standardized, idealized entity is always partly a matter of conscious planning, codification, prestige of one variant over another, and evaluation of the members of a speech community (e.g., Langston & Peti-Stantić 2014, Radanović Felberg & Šarić 2013, Škiljan 2002. This means that a standard language is always partly a matter of language planning, language policies, and discursive agreement.…”

“…Accoding to Greenberg,43 The disagreement over language names date back centuries and is intertwined with the different routes of standardization of what are nowadays modern Croatian and Serbian: "Illyrian" (or "South-Slavic") was the name proposed by the most notable Croatian language reformer Ljudevit Gaj; "Croatian or Serbian" by Croat Vukovites; "Serbian" by Vuk Karadžić, the famous Serbian language reformer (Greenberg 2008: 25-27). 44 Apart from Novi Sad Agreement (1954), Vienna Literary Agreement (1850) was another political cornerstone and attempt at defining a common language of Croats and Serbs (Radanović Felberg & Šarić 2013). However, despite the official narratives about the common language formulated in documents and agreements, divergences in the standardization process (and, consequently, differences in naming the language) have been present throughout.…”

Means of Expressing and Implying Emotions and Impoliteness in Croatian and Montenegrin Public Discourse

“…These offending situations include offending events that trigger discussions and intensify impoliteness. The offending events in our material relate "to particular attitudes to different language narratives" (Felberg, Šarić 2013). Supporters of a specific narrative (e.g., the narrative about Croatian and Montenegrin as separate standard languages) engage in public discussions with supporters of a different narrative (e.g., the narrative about Croatian and Montenegrin as variants of the same pluricentric standard language), trying to disqualify their opponents.…”