Croatian linguistic loyalty

RADOSLAV KATICIC

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the phenomenon of
Croatian linguistic loyalty and to oer some explanations concerning its
background, the dierent forms and expressions it has taken in the course of
time, and its present state. It is a major weakness of what is called SerboCroatian studies that it has failed so far to take this loyalty into account as
a factor in the central South-Slavic linguistic area. But the essential point
is that, when Karadzic's model was introduced into the nal stage of Croat
linguistic standardization as its supreme criterion, it was no longer the
supreme criterion of Serbian linguistic standardization. The prevalence of
heteronomy at that crucial point of Croatian standardization is therefore
only apparent.
If one looks in a matter-of-fact and unprejudiced way at the development
of standard linguistic usage in Croatia during the Yugoslav period of its
recent history, it becomes quite obvious that an overwhelming majority
of native speakers, in spite of the proclaimed and more or less forcibly
imposed doctrine according to which this standard was Serbo-Croatian,
insisted on calling and regarding their language as Croatian and distinguished it from Serbian as a recognizably dierent standard idiom. The
manifest closeness of the Croatian and Serbian linguistic standards made
it dicult for linguists, especially foreign ones, even to notice this fact,
let alone to pay full attention to it. And where they could not avoid being
confronted with this attitude, they were prone to dismiss it as purely
irrational, not worthy of closer consideration.
To some foreign observers, the unity of Serbo-Croatian even became
an issue of strong ideological involvement. On a students' excursion in
the spring of 1997, I witnessed the reaction of an American student at
the Central European University in Budapest, who in the town of Hvar
01652516/01/01470017
# Walter de Gruyter

Int'l. J. Soc. Lang. 147 (2001), pp. 1729

18 R. Katicic
on the beautiful Adriatic island bearing the same name, tried desperately
but with little success to nd a local person who would be ready to accept
that the language spoken there was Serbo-Croatian and not Croatian.
I remember how exasperated he was at that amount of ``nationalism,'' as
he preferred to call it, disclosing thereby an appalling lack of understanding for the phenomenon he was eager to explore. But it must be
admitted that the way to such an understanding had not been at all
adequately paved for him.
In fact, the phenomenon of Croatian linguistic loyalty almost does not
appear as a subject in the sociolinguistic literature concerned with the
complex usually referred to as Serbo-Croatian that has been published in
recent decades. This is quite remarkable, since the notion of language
loyalty is a current one in sociolinguistics, and the phenomenon itself is
of crucial importance for the understanding of past, present, and future
developments in this area. Writing more than fteen years ago, the acute
and well-informed observer and eminent American Serbo-Croatist
Thomas Magner emphasizes the perspective of international Slavic
scholarship on this topic in the following, highly signicant words:
The Croats, stimulated by feelings of nationalism, regionalism, desire for
economic and political equity, patriotism, or perhaps simple obstinacy (each
observer has his own explanation) have insisted on cultivating their own language
variant in such a way as to distance it from the Serbian variant. Separatism,
linguistic and political, has seemed to be a Croatian goal, but one thwarted by
the power of a charismatic leader, Tito. Now that Tito has died and the country
is governed by an amorphous collective leadership, I would expect that the
restraints on Croatian ambitions will be attenuated or even removed. It seems to
me quite possible that the government, in an eort to appease the Croats, will
allow them to go their own way, at least linguistically. If I am right, the result
would be a separate Croatian language with distinctive changes in its pravopis
[i.e. orthography; R. K.] and major changes in specialized lexicons. From such
a course of action two distinct Slavic languages would emerge: Croatian, and
Serbian (Magner 1981: 337338).

I think it pays to quote Magner extensively here, because this passage

of his interestingly anticipated developments that were to come. His
forecast proved to be remarkably accurate. He missed the point only in
overestimating the amount of rationality Belgrade would be prepared to
display in handling the situation. As to the outcome, he was quite correct.
In our context, however, it is essential to point out that it is beside the
point to ponder upon the question of whether the attitude of a relevant
majority of Croats toward their language is motivated by feelings of
nationalism, regionalism, desire for economic and political equity,

Croatian linguistic loyalty 19

patriotism, or perhaps simple obstinacy, because the mere fact that they
have this attitude and cling to it is solely relevant.
In order to realize the strength of feelings and the readiness to undergo
eorts that attitude implies it may prove useful to return once more to
Magner's statement quoted above. According to him the Croats have
insisted on cultivating their own language variant in such a way as to
distance it from the Serbian variant. If this view is correct, the implications
are more far-reaching than they may seem at rst glance perhaps more
far-reaching than they appeared at the time to the author himself. This
means that, from the very outset of this development, there was a difference between the usages that was marked enough to be perceived not
only by sophisticated philologists, but by the broader public too, and even
by ordinary people. Otherwise, it would have proved impossible to get
the amount of general support required to cultivate one's language in such
a way as to distance it from Serbian; people would not even understand
the intention, much less back it. In fact, political factors in Yugoslavia
tried again and again to alienate the less sophisticated and poorly
educated Croats from the intellectual elite, but had no success. This, of
course, is a relevant fact for sociolinguistics.
The armation of Croatian linguistic individuality in public use
remained for most Croats an issue of primary importance. It must further
be taken into account that this cultivation of a recognizable Croatian
standard usage took place under conditions that were anything but
propitious. The Yugoslav state did not encourage it; in fact the pursuit of
such language cultivation was not allowed to be really explicit, so much
had to be understood without saying. And it was understood, as we can see
from Magner's scenario.
Moreover, insisting on the cultivation of one's own Croatian language
in such a way as to distance it from Serbian usage, as Magner puts it,
meant exposing oneself to discrimination, if not to harassment. One
renounced plain sailing as far as career and material well being were
concerned and had to live in permanent tension, taking care not to overdo
it, since if that happened, the consequences could be more serious. In fact,
the attitude of the Croatian linguistic community as Magner describes it
is indeed a momentous phenomenon highly relevant to sociolinguistic
research.
There is only one point where this very well informed observer shows
a certain lack of perception. It is with regard to time depth. His assessment
of the duration of the process he describes is not accurate. He writes,
At the time of the 1954 Novi Sad Declaration Serbo-Croatian was armed as
being one language with two variants: _ The euphoria characteristic of the

20 R. Katicic
Novi Sad Declaration did not last long among the Croats, who have in recent
decades been striving for the designation of Croatian as a separate literary
language (Magner 1981: 336).1

Here things are obviously being taken at their face value. Yet, such an
approach has its risks when the attitudes of people under dictatorial rule
are being observed. At the time of the Novi Sad Agreement I was already
an advanced student of philology and remember very well the atmosphere
in Croatia at the time. There was no trace of an euphoria on the Croatian
side, only anxiety and depression. Everyone was concerned about what
could be salvaged from that crackdown and how things would develop.
The atmosphere was that of a disaster. It had become clear that the
solemnly declared constitutional principle that insured full equality of the
Croatian language was now being derogated in practice, that Belgrade
meant to impose Serbian in Croatia, even if only step by step, and that it
would be necessary to ght for the maintenance of Croatian standard
usage, with all that this meant in a dictatorship. I may add that it was
precisely then that I personally became fully aware of all these things, and
that it made me resolve earnestly to remain always faithful to my Croatian
language.
The process to which Magner's attention was drawn had not begun
after 1954, as it seemed to him, but at the latest in the 1920s, during the
rst decade of Yugoslavia. This was the rst time that ``Serbo-Croatian''
really had to function as one standard language in ocial use in one
centralized state. It did not work. Therefore, in order not to alienate the
Croats, the communist-led Partisan movement during the Second World
War had to grant full equality to the Croatian language, as it did to the
languages of all the other peoples of Yugoslavia, and had to recognize
it explicitly along with Serbian as a relevant linguistic entity. Belgradecentered political factors and Serbian intellectual circles, however, never
accepted this idea (Katicic 1995, 1996).
Magner's opinion seems to be that there was a time when SerboCroatian really functioned as one unied standard language with certain
slight and negligible variation, and that after 1954, the Croats began to
alienate themselves from it and strive towards linguistic separation. This
presupposition is simply not true, and no objective and serious understanding of Croatian language reality can be founded on it. At all times,
Croatian formal linguistic usage was dierent from Serbian formal usage
and functioned as an autonomous form of linguistic expression, regardless
of whether it was at the time thought to be a language in its own right
or not (Banac 1984; Katicic 1984, 1995, 1996; Brozovic 1992; Corin 1996;
Auburger 1991, 1997, 1999; Lauer 1994; Garde 1996; Neweklowsky 1997;

Croatian linguistic loyalty 21

illustrative of the subject is also the controversy Ivic 1984 and Katicic
1985). A Serbo-Croatian linguistic standard was never a functioning
matter-of-fact reality. However it was designed or conceived, it existed
only as a project, as the goal of linguistic engineering, an objective that
either may have seemed worth attaining or was rejected as articial and
inappropriate, but always an idea, and never a fact. As a set of valid
standard norms, the Serbo-Croatian language may have seemed to be
already established, or at least to be within immediate reach, attainable
with only a further push; however, this was only an ``illusion of closeness,''
as one scholar recently put it with penetrating insight (Auburger 1997: 28,
1999: 351355).
It must be said at this point that it was not easy for outside observers
to see through this illusion. The Serbian linguistic school was busy propagating it, and their international contacts and inuence were considerable (cf. von Erdmann-Pandzic 1993, 1996). But Croatian linguists were
also in favor of having a standard language in common with the Serbs. In
the course of history, Croats never doubted that the Serbian vernacular
was not the same language as theirs. Of course, they always perceived
written Serbian to be quite dierent and foreign not only because of the
Cyrillic script, but also in its linguistic substance. But with the reform of
Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic the Serbian vernacular became the basis of a new
Serbian written language, and when that happened, the Croats did not
object to seeing in it the same standard language that they had been
planning at that time. This model was inside the scope of the Croatian
literary tradition. Their rst reaction was to welcome at last the Serbs into
their ``Illyrian'' circle. The protagonists of the Illyrian movement were
very explicit on that point (Katicic 1988). There was no opposition at that
time to accepting Karadzic as one of the great gures among the teachers
of the ``Illyrian'' language, but it was also absolutely impossible for them
to see him as the unique and supreme authority on its standardization.
Such ideas would be professed much later, toward the end of the
nineteenth century, by the school of his followers among the Croatian
grammarians, who were overwhelmingly inuential at that time. As
it was they who brought the standardization process of the Croatian
language to a successful end, it is understandable that observers from the
outside were strongly inuenced by the views professed by these scholars.
It is true that their conception of Croatian language standardization met
with strong opposition, mostly in nonexpert circles and on an ideological
and emotional basis, while the criticism of those experts who had their
reservations about supporting it (V. Jagic, A. Radic) remained very
cautious and did not attract due attention in the scholarly world. On the
whole, there was no workable alternative project, and the way in which the

22 R. Katicic
school of Vuk Karadzic's Croatian followers explained many years
after his death the completion of the Croatian linguistic standardization
process remained undisputed in scholarly circles (Banac 1984: 228240).
Yet Karadzic's model was that of a Serbian standard; he struggled
hard for a radical reform of the Serbian written language, the linguistic
standard established thereby, all this was obviously Serbian. It was
declared and received as such and, what is perhaps even more important,
was also widely known as such. With this in mind, it becomes quite
understandable for outside observers to get the impression that, in the
nal stage of Croatian linguistic standardization, heteronomy prevailed
denitively over autonomy (Trudgill 1983: 1516; Corin 1996), and the
outcome was consequently a Serbo-Croatian linguistic standard, if not
a Serbian one. This has always been the opinion of a signicant faction
among the Serbs, who in recent years have become increasingly outspoken
on the issue. From this point of view Croatian language loyalty might
indeed seem ill founded, irrational, and not worthy of scholarly consideration. Croat scholars, on the other hand, could give no impulse to
a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in question, since they too
believed in the common standard, which was in their view nothing but
a transposition to books of the vernacular Neo-Stokavian dialect, which
was spoken by both Serbs and Croats. They insisted only in pointing out
an increasing number of instances in which, in their point of view, the
usage of that linguistic standard in Serbia, and above all in Belgrade,
was not correct. Of course, international scholarship could not be
impressed by the raising of such points, which merely reected a schoolmasterly attitude and which at face value bore no linguistic relevance at all
(Katicic 1995: 64).
Yet these appearances were misleading in the extreme. Just when the
followers of Karadzic were about to complete the linguistic standardization of Croatian along the lines of his model, probably believing that they
were thereby establishing full-edged unity between Croats and Serbs
under one standard language, the nal stage of linguistic standardization
in Serbia took a turn of its own. This development has been described by
Ivo Banac, a brilliant and knowledgeable expert, quite pregnantly:
Paradoxically, from the standpoint of its ultimate purpose, the school of Karadzic
and Danicic [i.e. their school among the Croats; R. K.] experienced the most
signicant reversals in its attempts to fashion linguistic unity with the Serbs. At
approximately the same time as the Croats started using a variant of Karadzic's
orthography [1892; R. K.], Belgrade and Novi Sad departed from Karadzic's
standard in favor of Sumadija-Vojvodina ekavian. The Serbs of these politically
and intellectually dominant areas understandably preferred their own inuential

Croatian linguistic loyalty 23

idiom as the basis for literary activity centered on Belgrade. But, as Stojan
Novakovic readily admitted, ekavian permitted expansion into Macedonia, a
major Serbian preoccupation after Austro-Hungarian troops closed the doors to
Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1878. Indeed an unanticipated result of the turn-of-thecentury linguistic uctuations was an integration of Croat and Serb linguistic
forms in Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina [all in the frame
of Austria-Hungary; R. K.]. Serbia and Vojvodina simultaneously carried out
their own standardization, whereas Montenegrin ijekavian stood midway between
these two linguistic-literary complexes (Banac 1984: 240).

But there was even more to it than is explicitly mentioned in this

passage. One has to take into account the fact that the strictly purist
prescriptivism of the Croatian followers of Karadzic in the last stage of
Croatian linguistic standardization:
succeeded only where their activities coalesced with the Neo-Stokavian trend that
triumphed among the non-Kajkavian Croats well before the Illyrian movement.
Nor could the followers of Karadzic revise the entire Croat literary heritage by
excluding its lexical and morphological wealth. Croat authors simply shrugged o
the new approach and in the process conrmed a basic home grown tenet, that is,
that the Croatian language must be the language of Croat literature. Thriving
literary activity, including the twentieth-century revival of Kajkavian and
Cakavian imaginative literature, continued on the course chartered by literary
tradition. Moreover, living practice also curtailed those of Karadzic's solutions
that were alien to Croatian Neo-Stokavian idioms. As a result, the success of
Maretic and Ivekovic [the most characteristic proponents of Croatian linguistic
standardization on the lines of a Karadzic-oriented purism; R. K.] was more formal
than real (Banac 1984: 239).

It should be noted that in Banac's well-informed presentation of crucial

developments, stylistics was not explicitly taken into consideration. And
yet, even so, it can be understood from it that the rigid prescriptivism of
the Karadzic-oriented school did not succeed in altering the traditional
scale of Croat stylistic values, which reserved an age-old place for folk
literature, Neo-Stokavian folk literature. In fact, since the time of engaged
humanistic learning and the owering of renaissance literature, folk
literature was inalienable to Croat literary sensitivity, although its status
was dierent from the status it had in Serbian stylistics. It was felt to be
classic and chosen, not popular and vernacular. Rather than recalling an
utterly unsophisticated context, its usage would put one on a par with the
Ancients. In fact, it could be shown that, contrary to what one would
expect, even devoted Croatian followers of Karadzic shared this basic
attitude (Maretic 1899: iii). Croatian stylistics remained thus determined
by tradition and the living reception of its values.

24 R. Katicic
On the other hand, the Serbian linguistic standard and its stylistics
received the nal touch by spontaneous usage among cultivated people
in the new capital city, Belgrade, which at the turn of the century
was becoming a highly inuential center of modern Serbian culture. It
is there that the nal stage of Serb linguistic standardization was successfully accomplished. Some changes in the original model introduced by
Karadzic are apparent. As Banac stresses in the passage quoted above,
the model was adapted to some Eastern dialectal features. In addition to
that, certain elements of Church Slavonic, the language they had used
previously for written communication, survived even though there was
a strict purism campaign against such inuences. Some expressions
of that kind had become too familiar to ever be removed from the Serbian
standard. They were also a symbolic token of continuity and identity.
More important perhaps than anything else was the far-reaching
inuence of the educated usage of Belgrade, the so-called ``Belgrade style.''
An open attitude toward the inuence of the colloquial urban idiom of the
capital was one of its essential ingredients. It is hard to overestimate the
role this style played in the nal consolidation of the Serbian linguistic
standard. It is not without reason that B. Popovic, a critic and essayist
who was one of the exponents of Belgrade style, was compared by his
contemporaries to Dositej Obradovic and Vuk Karadzic. This is certainly
an overstatement, but it shows the accuracy of our assessment of the
importance of the literary stylization of the Belgrade style in the establishment of the modern Serbian standard. In 1923, Belicis manual of
orthography appeared and gave this standard its basic normative
codication (Katicic 1984: 291292). He became the most inuential
grammarian and theoretician of this standard and also did much for its
presentation abroad.
And yet, this substantial departure from the normative model of
Karadzic's corpus was nowhere explicitly declared. It was a reinterpretation, regarded as a consequent application of his principle of popular
linguistic spontaneity under changed circumstances. This remained totally
outside the scope of the school of thought represented by the Croatian
followers of Karadzic. In their view, the original model had to be
reproduced painstakingly, and no reinterpretation was allowed for. As has
been pointed out above, in their understanding the model was classical
and therefore lastingly obligatory. Hence the notion that the common
standard language was not being used correctly in Belgrade and Serbia.
This opinion grew as the educated usage of Belgrade remained on the
whole completely foreign to Croat intellectuals. They could not identify
themselves with it. The nal Croatian standardization, although it leaned
heavily on the Karadzician model, remained rmly rooted in Croat

Croatian linguistic loyalty 25

tradition, even if its main proponents had the notion of rejecting it and
clinging solely to pure vernacular as present in folk-literature and styled
in the corpus of Vuk Karadzic.
The essential point is that, when Karadzic's model was introduced into
the nal stage of Croat linguistic standardization as its supreme criterion
(regardless of to what extent this could determine the practical outcome) at that juncture it was no longer the supreme criterion of Serbian
linguistic standardization. The prevalence of heteronomy at that crucial
point of Croatian standardization is therefore only apparent. It seems in
fact that scholars observing from outside might have the right to complain
of having been intentionally led astray. Simply none of the parties
concerned told them what was actually happening with the Croatian and
the Serbian linguistic standards at the turn of the century. Most of it went
on without any theoretical awareness, quite regardless of the proclaimed
aims and principles. And these did not provide for the notions of separate
Croat and Serb linguistic entities.
Paradoxically again, the political situation that led to the conscious
perception by the language community of the diversity of Croatian and
Serbian standard usage and gave rise to the feeling that there were
Croatian language values to be defended against Serbian expansionism
was precisely the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918. Linguistic closeness
proved not to be a valid basis for the development of a sentiment of
oneness. Very soon, the general public noticed that, when any person
began to speak or to write, it became immediately apparent whether he
was speaking or writing in Croatian or in Serbian, even if Serbian was
being written in the Latin script. And no amount of pressure regardless
of whether that pressure came from subjective political will or from objective circumstances of communication could cause this fundamental
experience to be ignored or at least marginalized.
In the new state ``Serbo-Croatian'' was expected in practice to function
as one and the same language. For the reasons and in the way sketched
above, this proved in the long run to be impossible. As it became increasingly clear that the idea of language unity did not quite correspond with
reality and did not come up to their expectations, the leading Croatian
linguists begun to discuss its faults very slowly and hesitatingly, since
they had originally all been proponents of language unity, but with everincreasing intensity were beginning to reject language unication on
Belgrade's terms. Thus, step by step, the consciousness of Croatian
linguistic individuality was awakened.
In addition to all this, it gradually became clear that Croatian had a
dynamics of language varieties of its own, which it in no way shares with
Serbian. This has been competently described by Damir Kalogjera in an

26 R. Katicic
excellent study (1985). Kalogjera's article shows beyond a doubt that the
name of the language that appears in its title (Serbo-Croatian) is quite
inappropriate, for the linguistic situation it describes so well is exclusively
Croatian.
By the eve of World War II ideas had matured: the view that Croatian
and Serbian had to be considered as two distinct languages won ground.
Although this view seemed to contradict the genetic classication of Slavic
dialects into languages, it was valid because of the cultural and emotional
individuality of the two languages. It is in this discussion that the authority
of the original Serbo-Croatian standardization according to the folklorebased model of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic crumbled. Nevertheless, it took
about fty years until all the consequences occurred and the process was
fully completed (Banac 1984: 241245; Katicic 1995: 6166).
The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the phenomenon
of Croatian language loyalty and to give some explanations about its
background, the dierent forms and expressions it has taken in the course
of time, and its present state. It is a major weakness of what is called
Serbo-Croatian studies that it has failed so far to take this loyalty into
account as a factor in the central South-Slavic linguistic area. This paper is
perhaps one of the preliminary steps toward lling to some extent this gap
in sociolinguistic understanding. It is also essential in order to show what
the proper content of the notion ``Croatian language'' really is. It may help
to realize, against the odds of a trite scholarly tradition, that there is after
all a very relevant point of view from which Croatian is to be reckoned
with as a separate Slavic standard language (Hagege 1994: 138141;
Auburger 1991, 1997; Katicic 1996). Recently, serious argumentation has
been brought forward demonstrating that even the concept of variant
cannot be applied consistently to Croatian and Serbian (Auburger 1997:
2426). Croatian as a written and standard language was and is determined
by its autonomy and has at no stage of its development been subject to any
dominant heteronomy. This may perhaps in its turn explain to a certain
degree the strong language loyalty felt by the community of its speakers.
University of Vienna
Note
1. Here it must be observed that the Novi Sad Agreement does not mention ``two variants''
of standard Serbo-Croatian but only ``two pronounciations, ijekavian and ekavian.''
This, of course, is an attempt to minimize the actual variation of use to the extreme.
The idea that standard Serbo-Croatian had two variants was advanced by Croat
linguists at the Fifth Congress of Yugoslav Slavicists in Sarajevo in 1965, eleven years

Croatian linguistic loyalty 27

after the Novi Sad Agreement, and was an expression of opposition to its unitarian
spirit. At the time, the bulk of Serb expert opinion rejected this resolutely. Nevertheless,
it proved very eective in breaking the full vigor of the 1954 Novi Sad Agreement. For
the sake of correctness, this had to be put straight, although for the matter discussed
here it is of no further consequence. In fact, Magner himself knows that well and said
so in an earlier publication of his (cf. 1967: 336338). It should perhaps be added that,
following the usage in Serbo-Croatian studies, the word ``variant'' is here used to mean
the same thing as what English-speaking sociolinguists usually call a ``variety.''

References
Aronson, H.I.; and Darden, B.J. (eds.) (1981). Studies in Balkan Linguistics to Honor
Eric P. Hamp on his Sixtieth Birthday. Folia Slavica vol. 4 (23). Munich: Slavica.
Aubin, M. (ed.) (1988). Vuk Stef. Karadzic. Actes du Colloque international organise
a l'occasion du bicentenaire de Vuk Karadzic les 5 et 6 octobre 1987 en Sorbonne.
Paris: Centre de recherches sur les langues et cultures slaves de l'Universite de
Paris-Sorbonne.
Auburger, L. (1991). Entwicklungsprobleme der kroatischen Standardsprache. In Natalicia
Johanni Schropfer octogenario a discipulis amicisque oblata, L. Auburger and P. Hill
(eds.), 131. Munich: Slavica.
(1997). Der Status des Kroatischen als Einzelsprache und der Serbokroatismus: ein
Lehrstuck aus der kontaktlinguistichen Begrisgeschichte. In Neue Forschungsarbeiten
zur Kontaktlinguistik, W.W. Moelleken and P.J. Weber (eds.), 2129. Bonn: Dummler.
; and Hill, P. (eds.) (1991). Natalicia Johanni Schropfer octogenario a discipulis amicisque
oblata Festschrift fur Johannes Schropfer zum 80. Geburtstag. Munich: Slavica.
(1999). Die kroatische Sprache und der Serbokroatismus. Ulm/Donau: Gerhard Hess
Verlag.
Banac, I. (1984). Main trends in the Croat language question. In Aspects of the Slavonic
Language Question, vol. 1: Church Slavonic South Slavic West Slavic, R. Picchio
and H. Goldblatt (eds.), 189259. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and
Area Studies.
Brozovic, D. (1992). Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language. In Pluricentric Languages.
Diering Norms in Dierent Nations, M. Clyne (ed.), 347380. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Clyne, M. (ed.) (1992). Pluricentric Languages. Diering Norms in Dierent Nations. Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(ed.) (1997). Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Corin, A.R. (1996). The continuity of the Croatian language: a historical perspective.
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of Slavic
Studies in Boston.
Garde, P. (1996). Langue et nation: le cas serbe, croate et bosniaque. In Langue et nation
en Europe centrale et orientale du XVIIIeme siecle a nosjours, P. Seriot (ed.), 123148.
Cahiers de l'ILSL 8: Universite de Lausanne.
Hagege, C. (1994). Le soue de la langue. Voies et destins des parlers d'Europe, nouvelle
edition entierement revue et corrigee. Paris. Editions Odile Jacob.
Ivic, P. (1984). L'evolution de la langue litteraire sur le territoire linguistique serbo-croate.
Revue des etudes slaves 56 (3), 313344.

28 R. Katicic
(1987). L'evolution de la langue Litteraire sur le territoire linguistique serbo-croate.
Revue des etudes slaves 59(4), 867878.
Kalogjera, D. (1985). Attitudes toward Serbo-Croatian language varieties. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 52, 93109.
Katicic, R. (1984). The making of Standard Serbo-Croat. In Aspects of the Slavonic
Language Question, vol. 1: Church Slavonic South Slavic West Slavic, R. Picchio
and H. Goldblatt (eds.) 261295. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and
Area Studies.
(1985). L'evolution de la langue litteraire sur le territoire linguistique serbo-croate.
Revue des etudes slaves 57(4), 667673.
(1987). L'evolution de la langue litteraire sur le territoire linguistique serbo-croate.
Revue des etudes slaves 59(4), 879.
(1988). Vuk Karadzic et la langue litteraire des Croates. In Vuk Stef. Karadzic. Actes du
Colloque international organise a l'occasion du bicentenaire de Vuk Karadzic les 5 et 6
octobre 1987 en Sorbonne, M. Aubin (ed.), 2534. Paris: Centre de recherches sur les
langues et cultures slaves de l'Universite de Paris-Sorbonne.
(1995). Serbokroatische Sprache Serbisch-kroatischer Sprachstreit. In Das jugoslawische Desaster, R. Lauer and W. Lehfeldt (eds.) 2379. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
(1996). Die politischen Implikationen des Sprachbegris im Sudosten Europas. In
Sprache und Politik: Die Balkansprachem in Vargangenheit und Gegenwart, H. Schaller
(ed.), 2546. Munich: Sudosteuropa Gesellschaft.
(1997). Undoing a ``unied language'': Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. In Pluricentric
Languages. Diering Norms in Dierent Nations, M. Clyne (ed.), 165191. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lauer, R. (1994). Serben und Kroaten in Gegenwart und Geschichte. Vortragsabend mit
der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen im Niedersachsischen Landtag a 10
November 1993. Heft 22 einer vom Prasidenten des Niedersachsischen Landtages
herausgegebenen Schriftenreihe uber Themen, die den Landtag betreen oder fur seine
Abgeordnete von Interesse sind. Hannover: Niedersachsischer Landtag.
; and Lehfeldt, W. (eds.) (1995). Das jugoslawische Desaster. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lencek, R.I. (1982). The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus,
OH: Slavica.
Magner, T.F. (1967). Language and nationalism in Yugoslavia. Canadian Slavic Studies
1(3), 333347
(1981). Language mitosis in the Slavic world. In Studies in Balkan Linguistics to Honor
Eric P. Hamp on his Sixtieth Birthday, H.I. Aronson and B.J. Darden (eds.), 332339.
Munich: Slavica.
Maretic, T. (1899). Gramatika i stilistika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga knjizevnog jezika. Zagreb.
Moelleken, W.W.; and Weber, P.J. (eds.) (1997). Neue Forschungsarbeiten zur
Kontaktlinguistik. Bonn: Dummler.
Neweklowsky, G. (1997). Zur Geschichte der Schriftsprache der Serben, Kroaten und
Muslime: Konvergenzen und Divergenzen. In Neue Forschungsarbeiten zur Kontaktlinguistik, W.W. Moelleken and P.J. Weber (eds.), 382391. Bonn: Dummler.
Picchio, R.; and Goldblatt, H. (eds.) (1984). Aspects of the Slavonic Language Question,
vol. 1: Church Slavonic South Slavic West Slavic. New Haven: Yale Concilium
on International and Area Studies.
Schaller, H. (ed.) (1996). Sprache und Politik: Die Balkansprachen in Vergangenheit und
Gegenwart. Sudosteuropa-Jahrbuch 27. Munich: Sudosteuropa Gesellschaft.
Seriot, P. (1996). Langue et nation en Europe centrale et orientale du XVIIIeme siecle a nos
jours. Cahiers de l'ILSL 8: Universite de Lausanne.

Croatian linguistic loyalty 29

Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, revised ed.
Harmonsworth: Penguin.
von Erdmann-Pandzic, E. (1993). Sprache als Ideologie. Zu einem unveroentlichten Brief
von V.S. Karadzic. Die Slawischen Sprachen 31, 537.
(1996). Die Standardisierung des Stokavischen zwischen Philologie und Ideologie. In
Sprache und Politik: Die Balkansprachem in Vargangenheit und Gegenwart, H. Schaller
(ed.), 137149. Munich: Sudosteuropa Gesellschaft.