Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary

CHAPTER 26

424 CHAPTER 26 190 One language, or more than one? It is appropriate to conclude this sociolinguistic commentary by returning to the question of whether it is more correct to speak of BCS as a single language, or to consider that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are three separate languages. The goal of this book has been to present the grammar of BCS as a single (though complex) code of communication, while attempting at the same time to identify the major points on which the separate codes of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian differ from one another. When it is an issue of grammar or of grammatical function words, the differences have been stated in general, overall terms. When it concerns particular vocabulary items, the differences have usually been noted systematically only in the footnoted commentary to individual examples. That is, the scope of vocabulary differentiation itself has been described on a more or less random basis: it has been noted (when relevant) only for those items which happen to have occurred in any one set of examples. In other words, no focused attempt has been made to characterize vocabulary differences at a general level. This is partly because the goal of this book has been to describe grammar and not vocabulary, and partly because of the general nature of vocabulary differentiation. While some vocabulary items can be identified unambiguously as belonging to either Croatian or Serbian, a larger number of them can only be described in terms of frequency of usage: despite the efforts of Croatian language planners, it is still the case that there is a fair amount of overlap. Namely, although some words may be used more frequently in Serbian, they are nevertheless also used by Croats; therefore, one cannot say that they are exclusively Serbian. Similarly, while others may be used more frequently in Croatian, they are also used by Serbs; therefore, one cannot say that they are exclusively Croatian. Sometimes the words in question are used on both sides with differing frequencies but in the same meaning, and sometimes they are used with slightly different overtones (review [172b, 173]). The question of Bosnian is if anything more complex. In many cases, the words which carry generalized markings as Serbian or Croatian are used with equal frequency in Bosnian, more or less as synonyms. In others, Bosnian usage sometimes favors the Croatian-marked one and sometimes the Serbian-marked one. The instances in which Bosnian has its own unique word are relatively rare; furthermore, such words are almost always used alongside another one which is known in either Serbian or Croatian or both. Whenever differences noted as B, C, or S have been specified in the footnoted commentary to example sets, they have necessarily been presented as characteristic of one side or another: it has not been possible to represent gradations of usage of individual items. Synonymy in Bosnian has been noted by the expedient of identifying one form as characteristic of Serbian and Bosnian (S,B) and the other as characteristic of Croatian and Bosnian (C,B). Yet such gradation definitely exists in the usage of some of these words as well. In addition, not every instance of variation has been noted. That between the two implementations of the idea infinitive, for example (the singleword infinitive in Croatian vs. the da + present infinitive in Serbian) has been noted in each instance . But variation in the usage of long vs. longer adjectives (visokog vs. visokoga), to take CHAPTER 26 425 another example, or in the ordering of clitic forms (moja je sestra učiteljica vs. moja sestra je ućiteljica), has not been noted in the footnoted commentary to examples. In sum, the grammar section of this book (comprising chapters 1-20) has described BCS as a single language with a certain amount of internal differentiation. The sociolinguistic commentary , by contrast, has focused on that which defines Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as separate entities. The initial portion of this commentary (chapter 21) summarized the history of standardization prior to the wars which split Yugoslavia asunder. The following portion (chapter 22) discussed parameters of differentiation over the broader BCS area and asked whether or not one can delineate the distinctions among the three (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian) on a purely linguistic level. The overall answer was negative: although internal differentiation does exist, its distribution cannot be correlated in any systematic way with the boundaries of the states now associated with the three newly-defined separate languages. The purpose of the...