In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

379 SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMMENTARY CHAPTER 21 168 Introduction The preceding chapters have presented a description of BCS; this complex in turn may be defined as the common core underlying Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. These chapters have also identified the major grammatical points on which the three separate systems diverge. No consistent attempt has been made to account for vocabulary differences, although individual examples have been supplied with notations identifying any variant forms which are generally viewed as characteristic of only one or two of the three systems. The examples themselves, however, were chosen solely to illustrate general grammatical points; the extent to which they happened to contain variational elements is purely random. Taken as a whole, the description contained in these chapters demonstrates without a doubt that the core of BCS functions as a single linguistic system, just as the numerous references to Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian within these chapters have demonstrated that each of these individual systems has its own noteworthy identifying characteristics. The question of whether what has been described herein is one language or more than one has occasioned a great deal of discussion among professionals and laymen alike. The answer, of course, is that both statements are true: the language is simultaneously one and more than one. Everyone admits that Serbs, Croats, Bosnians (both Muslims and Christians), and Montenegrins can understand each other without difficulty, and that the reason they can do so is because the languages they speak share the same grammar, and because the vast majority of vocabulary items are the same. That grammar, together with its common core of vocabulary items, constitutes the single language here called BCS. At the same time, it is now a fact that this grammar is a property shared among more than one language. As of this writing (late 2005), three languages – Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian – have been officially recognized. Should Montenegro become an independent state, a fourth is very likely to be recognized. Although each of these languages serves more of a symbolic function than a communicative one (since “BCS” is what all their speakers use to communicate with each other), the traits which separate Croatian and Serbian from one another are quite real and clearly identifiable; and whereas those which separate Bosnian from either Serbian or Croatian are both less in number and less striking in content, they are also clearly identifiable. Whether or not Montenegrin should be separated from Serbian linguistically is unclear; what is clear is that there are a number of differences which carry strong symbolic meaning for Montenegrins (for more discussion , see [189a]). Most of the differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian have been mentioned in the preceding chapters, as facts of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary or usage. The remaining chapters shift the focus to the social, cultural, political and historical context within which these differences function. The intent of these chapters is to provide the background which allows one to see beyond the seeming paradox of a language which is simultaneously one and more than one. CHAPTER 21 380 The second half of the term sociolinguistic reminds one that the topic continues to be language. The first half, however, refers to the fact that language is now being viewed not so much as a communicative tool but rather as a symbolic system, the force of whose symbols are comprehensible only when seen in the context of a highly complex social situation. This social situation, in turn, is the result of historical processes in which the issues of language, politics and ethnic identity have been intricately intertwined for the entire modern era. This section of the book – the sociolinguistic commentary – begins with a brief outline of the history of writing systems in the BCS lands and a summary of the major events connected with language standardization of the common language. It then surveys the major parameters of variation over the geographical area covered by BCS, and discusses the role of these differences in distinguishing the several separate linguistic standards. Following this, issues of language and identity are treated in three separate chapters, one each devoted to Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian (plus Montenegrin). The concluding chapter revisits the issue of the relationship between Bosnian , Croatian, and Serbian on the one hand, and BCS on the other. 169 Writing systems The two major writing systems of BCS are the alphabets called Cyrillic and Latin (review [1]). Each has strong religious associations for most BCS speakers: the Cyrillic alphabet with the Eastern Orthodox religion (to which Serbs and...

Share