 |
| Declaration on the Common Language, Photo: Wikipedia |
Portions of this article include responses generated by ChatGPT, an AI language model by OpenAI on February 10, 2025 ↓
Linguistic Perspective
Mutual Intelligibility and Common Roots:
Many linguists point out that Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin are highly mutually intelligible. They all evolved from what was historically known as Serbo-Croatian, sharing very similar grammar, vocabulary, and syntax. The Declaration on the Common Language—signed by a group of linguists and intellectuals from the region—argues that the differences among these language variants are minor and mostly the result of political and cultural processes rather than fundamental linguistic divergence.
Political and Cultural Factors
National Identity and Language:
While the linguistic differences may be minimal, language in the Balkans is far more than a means of communication—it’s a core part of national identity. Over the past few decades, especially following the breakup of Yugoslavia, different states have emphasized distinct language standards to reinforce separate national identities. This political process means that, in everyday life and official contexts, the language is "rebranded" to support state narratives, even if the spoken and written forms remain largely similar.
Bureaucracy and Symbolism:
Your comment about “blooming bureaucracy” and the reference to an EU accession treaty written in “Croatian” highlight a common frustration: official documents and policies often become entangled with these nationalistic language distinctions. For example, using one standardized form over another in lengthy bureaucratic texts can be seen as a symbolic assertion of national identity. The mention of a treaty with “more than 10,000 pages” and a significant cost is likely an ironic nod to how deeply these administrative and political decisions are intertwined with identity politics—even if the actual figures or documents themselves are subject to debate or misinterpretation.
Political Engagement
High-Level Meetings and Discussions:
The note about Serbian President Aleksandar VuÄiÄ’s visit to Zagreb and the hope that he might discuss the language issue with Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-KitaroviÄ underscores the idea that resolving—or at least addressing—the politicization of language could be part of broader efforts to improve relations. In practice, however, such discussions are complicated by deeply rooted historical grievances and nationalistic sentiments.
- Linguistically: The varieties spoken in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro are extremely similar, supporting the view that they are variants of a common language.
- Politically and Culturally: The insistence on separate languages is largely driven by national identity and historical-political factors.
- Bureaucratic Manifestations: Official documents (like the referenced EU accession treaty) and state policies sometimes amplify these distinctions, often leading to frustrations over what many see as unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
The idea of “returning” loanwords is an intriguing one, but in practice, language evolution doesn’t really work that way. Here are a few points to consider:
-
Natural Process of Borrowing:
All languages naturally borrow words from one another. Over time, these loanwords become fully integrated into the language. For example, many common words in English (and indeed in nearly every language) have foreign origins. Once adopted and adapted to a language’s phonology and grammar, these words are rarely—or ever—“returned” or removed. -
Cultural and Historical Layers:
Loanwords are a record of cultural exchange, trade, and historical contact. They enrich a language by reflecting the diverse influences that have shaped a society. In many cases, these words carry meanings and nuances that resonate with local experiences and history. -
Language Purism and Replacement Efforts:
There are movements in various countries that advocate for “purifying” the language by replacing loanwords with words of native origin. For instance, some language purists in Croatia or Turkey have promoted the creation or revival of indigenous terms. However, such efforts are typically selective, affect only certain registers or contexts, and often meet with resistance from speakers who find the foreign terms perfectly natural. -
No Central Authority for “Returning” Words:
Unlike a bank or a library, a language isn’t managed by a central authority that can decide to “return” or remove words. Language evolves organically through everyday use. What might seem like an “unwanted” loanword to some often becomes an accepted and even cherished part of the language over time. -
A Living, Ever-Changing System:
Language is dynamic. New words are borrowed, adapted, and sometimes eventually forgotten. There isn’t really a point at which one can say that loanwords will be “returned” because borrowing is an ongoing, natural part of linguistic evolution.
In short, while the idea of reversing the process of borrowing might sound appealing from a language-purist perspective, it doesn’t align with how languages actually develop and change over time. Loanwords contribute to the richness and diversity of a language, and their continued presence is a testament to the interconnectivity of cultures and histories.
No comments:
Post a Comment