1 Introduction
The concept of language as a bearer of identity has long been recognized (e.g., Sapir 1921; Whorf 1956; Labov 1966; Hymes 1974; Bourdieu 1991; Fishman 1991; Assman 1999). It is widely understood that language is not merely a tool for communication but also a fundamental component in shaping and expressing cultural identity. Language serves as the carrier of history, traditions, and values, playing a crucial role in preserving collective memory and cultural identity. Within this framework, shared identity presupposes commonalities among those who share the same history, traditions, and values, while simultaneously highlighting distinctions from those who do not. This is also true for linguistic identity. The perception of shared linguistic identity inherently involves a notion of otherness based on linguistic norms and values. This tension and interplay between linguistic sameness and difference frequently become popular topics in both expert and non-expert discourses, and often manifest in discursive struggles where speakers negotiate and renegotiate the boundaries between (linguistic) values and identities.
In the Croatian context, language has consistently played a vital role in identity-building. Throughout history, it has served as both a carrier and a symbol of Croatian national consciousness and identity. This role has been particularly significant given Croatia’s extensive history under foreign rule, where the preservation and promotion of the Croatian language became essential for maintaining a distinct national identity and resisting political and cultural assimilation pressures (see section 3.2 for more details). As a result, the language has frequently been central to scholarly and popular discussions and debates. In this regard, language debates in Croatia have often been accompanied by linguistic purism, which served a differentiating function and played a key role in negotiating the relationship between in-groups and out-groups. The interplay between linguistic purism and identity reflects broader sociopolitical dynamics and the enduring importance of language as a marker of collective identity.
This chapter explores the landscape of puristic language debates in contemporary Croatian discourse. Since Croatia has been an independent sovereign country since 1991, this examination aims to uncover how Croatian linguistic and national identities are negotiated and renegotiated within puristic discourse through delineation from other languages and varieties in the contemporary context. It also seeks to identify the underlying (language) ideologies driving this discourse. Additionally, the chapter analyzes how “the other” is delineated in the discourse and what labels are employed to this end.
2 Language Debates and Identity
Socioculturally driven beliefs, perceptions, and expectations about language are evident in various forms of language use and frequently become subjects of detailed metadiscursive discussions. These discussions, which focus on language as a topic or a target and in which language ideologies are expressed, can be subsumed under the term language ideological debates. Jan Blommaert defines language ideological debates as patterns of “interrelated discourse activities often with a fuzzy beginning and the end, of which we usually remember the highlights, the most intense and polarized episodes” (Blommaert 1999, 9). These debates typically revolve around issues such as the purity and impurity of languages, the social value of different languages and their varieties compared to others, the sociopolitical desirability of using one language or variety over another, the symbolic significance of languages and varieties as national symbols, their cultural authenticity, or any other similar issue. Regardless of the specific topic, these debates are always embedded in a larger historical and sociopolitical context. These discussions unfold through a series of interactions involving various social actors, such as politicians, policymakers, academic and non-academic experts, interested members of the public, and the media.
The discursive struggle of language ideological debates develops over different definitions of social realities and values. In the process, “various representations of reality are pitted against each other—discursively—with the aim of gaining authority for one particular representation” (Blommaert 1999, 10). As such, language ideological debates provide a space where identities are continuously shaped and reshaped through the negotiation and renegotiation of values, with the boundaries established in this process acting as reference points for the positioning of self and other. In this regard, Bucholtz and Hall’s (2004, 371) explanation of the connection between identity negotiation and the dynamics of “self and other” effectively captures this dichotomy. They observe that the perception of a shared identity necessitates the presence of an “other”, against whom those considered similar are contrasted. Thus, shared values presuppose a shared identity that is differentiated from those whose identity is based on different values.
When the topic of the language debate is puristic in nature, the dynamic of “self” and “other” formation becomes particularly evident. Discussions about the purity and impurity of language revolve around notions of acceptability or unacceptability of certain elements, delineating what should be included in a language, and what should not. This process highlights what is considered “inherent” to the language versus what is deemed “foreign”. Therefore, the phenomenon of purism can be fundamentally understood as “an articulation of changes in relations between the Self and Others in the medium of language” (Jernudd 1989, 5). The following section provides a brief look into the notion of linguistic purism in order to show how puristic discourses serve as a productive framework for negotiating values and identities, especially national identity. Additionally, it addresses the particular sociopolitical importance of linguistic purism within the Croatian context, considering historical and contemporary perspectives.
3 Linguistic Purism
3.1 Linguistic Purism: Defining Characteristics
Linguistic purism is often perceived in popular discourse as merely the rejection of foreign elements in a language. However, this is a rather narrow definition that fails to capture the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon. Linguistic purism encompasses a broad range of activities and attitudes at different levels aimed at preserving, restoring, or revitalizing a language’s perceived purity. Additionally, as we will see, linguistic purism is deeply intertwined with cultural, political, and historical contexts, reflecting broader concerns about national identity, cultural heritage, and social cohesion.
Various attempts have been made to define and describe linguistic purism in the scholarly literature (Barnes 1854; Hall 1942; Axmanova 1966; Auty 1973; Ševčík 1974; Keipert 1977). However, two comprehensive and functional descriptions stand out. Thomas (1991) defines linguistic purism as follows:
Purism is the manifestation of a desire on the part of a speech community (or some section of it) to preserve a language from, or rid it of, putative foreign elements or other elements held to be undesirable (including those originating in dialects, sociolects, and styles of the same language). It may be directed at all linguistic levels but primarily the lexicon. Above all, purism is an aspect of the codification, cultivation, and planning of standard languages.
Thomas 1991, 12
Thomas’s definition highlights that linguistic purism is not merely about rejecting foreign elements but also involves the societal desire to maintain and cultivate a language. It underscores the elitist aspect of purism and its integral role in language planning and standardization. Purism is as much about the rejection of undesirable elements as it is about the preservation of desirable ones. At the same time, it can target not only external foreign elements but also internal elements, such as dialecticisms or jargon, and can apply to all levels of language, not just vocabulary. Thomas emphasizes the social dimension of puristic practices but acknowledges that a sociological approach alone is insufficient to fully account for them. In this sense, linguistic purism emerges from social practices projected onto language, reflecting situated language use.
The societal role of linguistic purism is also emphasized by Annamalai (1989), who describes linguistic purism as follows:
a linguistic manifestation of a social act to reject dominance and assert self-identity. It arises in certain contexts of social conflict and it is an indicator of change in the structure of social control. It is a societal and not an individual phenomenon.
Annamalai 1989, 230
The motivation for purism is its defining characteristic and a prerequisite for classifying it as such. Therefore, the mere rejection of non-native elements is insufficient for a phenomenon to be classified as puristic; the act must be value-laden to be considered puristic. In this context, linguistic purism, as the acceptance or rejection of particular elements, can be seen as a manifestation of identity construction and an articulation of changes in relations between the “self” and “others” through the medium of language (Jernudd 1989: 5). The puristic discourse surrounding the (un)desirability of certain linguistic elements serves as a platform for identity negotiation and renegotiation. An analysis of puristic discourse patterns can reveal underlying concepts of identity construction, showing how speakers position themselves in relation to external influences and within their community. In this regard, the notion of purism is closely related to the concepts of nation, national identity, and national consciousness. The role of national consciousness in the formation of purism is so significant that purism is often considered an epiphenomenon of nationalism (Thomas 1991, 43). Targets of puristic activity are often identified with cultures perceived as threats to national integrity. The perceived menace to the national language from external elements is usually based on a fear of foreign domination, primarily on the linguistic level, but also on the levels of culture, politics, or religion (Thomas 1991, 43–49). Linguistic purism is thus directed at what appears to be the most threatening foreign language or linguistic variety in the given circumstances. This is not absolute, as the targets can change over time or with shifts in political or social circumstances.
This perspective provides the framework for examining and analyzing Croatian puristic discourse in this chapter. It must be understood within the historical and sociopolitical contexts that have surrounded and shaped it. To this end, the following section will provide a brief overview of the sociohistorical circumstances of Croatian purism throughout the history of the Croatian literary language.
3.2 History of Linguistic Purism in Croatia
Linguistic purism in Croatian is based on a long tradition dating back to the Renaissance. As Turk notes:
In the Croatian language, the aspiration for linguistic purity has always been clearly expressed. It has been present in the Croatian literary language since its beginnings and has marked its entire history.
Turk 1996, 69; translation mine
In the Renaissance, authors who wrote in Croatian sought to preserve the purity of the language by avoiding or banning foreign words. These efforts reflected the geopolitical and sociopolitical conditions of the Croatian-speaking regions. The northern and inland parts of Croatia were under the control of the Habsburg Monarchy, while the coastal regions, particularly Dalmatia, were largely dominated by the Republic of Venice, which exerted significant influence from the early medieval period until the late 18th century. Meanwhile, the southeastern parts of Croatia, along with areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were under the influence or direct control of the Ottoman Empire, which gradually expanded into Croatia during the 15th and 16th centuries, creating a complex and often changing political landscape.1 In this context, as Turk observes:
Linguistic purism in the Croatian language needs to be viewed within the context in which it originated to be understood: historically, it has often been identified with resistance to the encroachments of other entities and the assimilation of the Croatian language, which has been exposed to influences from Latin, Italian, Turkish, Hungarian, German, and Serbian languages.
Turk, 1996, 68; translation mine
The first clear, albeit implicit, indications of purism in the Croatian language can be found in the works of Dalmatian dramatists and poets of the 16th and 17th centuries. Explicit purist tendencies are particularly evident in the writings of early Croatian authors, who often expressed dissatisfaction with the degree of purity of the Croatian language in the prefaces to their works. For example, Petar Zoranić (1536) noted that the Croatian language was replete with Italian words, while Pavao Ritter Vitezović (1684) lamented that people from the local regions used too many foreign words (Samardžija 1997, 165).
The Renaissance was also a period when language academies were founded, inspired by the Italian Accademia della Crusca, which aimed to preserve linguistic purity. Following these European trends, Croatian academies sought to build and standardize a national language, accompanied by strong purist efforts against foreign influences. At the same time, they showed great openness towards incorporating Croatian dialects.2 The purist tendencies are also observable in the first dictionaries that were being published at the time. These tendencies are manifested by the avoidance of foreign elements, and a preference for neologisms and loan translations can be recognized (Samardžija 1997, 166).
Efforts to achieve linguistic purity continued into the 18th century, most notably expressed by the Slavonian writer Matija Antun Reljković. He spoke out strongly against the use of Turkish words in the Croatian language, believing that the local population possessed sufficient native words to name every object (Kostanjevac and Tomas 2010, 237).
In the 19th century, purist aspirations were interwoven with ideas of national rebirth and standardization efforts, as is clear from the lexicography of the time. Germanisms from the Zagreb area, Italianisms from Dalmatia, and Turkisms and Hungarianisms from the region of Slavonia were denied access to dictionaries, even though they were widely used in the vernacular (Thomas 1996, 53). On the other hand, loan translations from other Slavic languages were permitted if they could be fully adapted to the Croatian language, as this corresponded to the Illyrian-Panslavist ideology, which was widespread at that time. Purist disputes continued in large numbers in the second half of the 19th century, but these were no longer directed solely against linguistic elements from other languages but also against Croatian dialecticisms. In line with the establishment of the Štokavian dialect as the dialectal basis for the standard Croatian language, Štokavian became the benchmark for linguistic correctness toward the end of the 19th century.
The 20th century was characterized by the issue of the position of the Croatian standard language within the Štokavian continuum, which encompassed Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro. After World War I and the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, increasing linguistic unitarism restricted the use of Croatian. During World War II, the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (NDH)) emerged as a puppet state influenced by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, existing from 1941 to 1945. The regime, led by the Ustaše movement, pursued radical nationalist policies, including efforts to shape Croatian national identity through various means, notably linguistic purism. Linguistic purism in the NDH emphasized removing foreign influences from the Croatian language, particularly Serbian linguistic elements, and promoting the revival of archaic terms and orthographic rules.3
After World War II, the newly established socialist Yugoslavia reversed many of the policies of the NDH, adopting a more inclusive approach towards the languages spoken in its constituent republics. However, nationalist and purist sentiments persisted. The trend towards linguistic unitarism resurfaced, with the official language policy promoting the concept of Serbo-Croatian as a unified language. This led to a distancing of the Croatian language from the strong Serbian influence, and a clear demarcation between the two standard languages emerged (Turk 1996, 73), reflecting the political situation in moderate linguistic purism. In the late 1960s, systematic efforts to suppress the Croatian language intensified nationalist sentiments, strengthening purist tendencies within the linguistic sphere. In 1967, Matica hrvatska, a prominent cultural institution, along with other Croatian intellectual organizations, issued the “Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language”. This declaration was a formal assertion of the distinctiveness of the Croatian language and a protest against its perceived marginalization within the Serbo-Croatian framework. It demanded equal recognition of Croatian as a separate and autonomous literary language. The advocacy for linguistic purism and the assertion of Croatian language distinctiveness had significant political and cultural implications. It was part of a broader Croatian national movement seeking greater autonomy within Yugoslavia. The 1970s witnessed escalating tensions, culminating in the Croatian Spring—a political movement advocating for increased rights for Croatia, including linguistic rights. The movement was suppressed by the Yugoslav government, but it left a lasting impact on Croatian national consciousness.
During the war of independence in the 1990s, linguistic purism and prescriptivism were particularly prominent in Croatian language discussions. Purist tendencies were focused on eliminating Serbian elements from Croatian, leading to intense debates, prescriptive manuals, language guides, and dictionaries on differences between Serbian and Croatian (e.g., Brodnjak 1991). According to Thomas (1991, 180), Croatian speakers had developed a collective awareness over time regarding language correctness and appropriateness. This was especially evident in the lexical hierarchy and distinguishing function between standard and non-standard forms or synonym pairs, where non-standard forms often overlapped with Serbian standard forms.
One of the primary objectives of linguistic purism in the 1990s was to eliminate or substitute words shared with the Serbian standard language. This was part of a broader effort to purify Croatia from foreign influences and emphasize its unique characteristics. Lexical purism involved reviving archaic Croatian terms or creating new words to replace those borrowed from Serbian or other languages. Such expressions and language use were often referred to in public discourse as Novohrvatski ‘New Croatian’.
4 Data Set and Analytical Framework
For the present study, I utilized a self-compiled corpus of computer-mediated texts derived from Croatia’s largest online forum platform, Forum.hr. The corpus comprised forum posts extracted from 25 threads identified as puristic. The process of compiling the corpus commenced with a preliminary search on the platform, specifically within the subforum Jezikoslovlje ‘Linguistics’, to locate discourses classified as language-critical purist discussions. This initial exploration involved a manual examination of forum contents and threads to confirm the presence and productivity of such discourses. Once established, further identification of relevant threads was conducted using targeted search terms in conjunction with “Forum.hr” on the Google search engine. The keywords employed included purizam ‘purism’, puristički ‘puristic’, jezični purizam ‘linguistic purism’, purist ‘purist’, čistoća jezika ‘linguistic purity’, jezično čistunstvo ‘linguistic puritanism’, čisti jezik ‘pure language’, čisti hrvatski jezik ‘pure Croatian language’, čuvanje jezika ‘language preservation’, njega jezika ‘language care’, njegovanje jezika ‘nurturing the language’, strane riječi ‘foreign words’, posuđenice ‘loanwords’, tuđice ‘foreignisms’, novokovanice ‘newly coined words’, neologizmi ‘neologisms’, anglizmi ‘anglicisms’, anglicizmi ‘anglicisms’, and srbizmi ‘Serbisms’. Each potentially relevant forum thread identified through this method underwent a meticulous manual inspection to ensure relevance and adherence to predefined inclusion criteria for the corpus. The final corpus comprised a total of 5,216 posts amounting to 528,972 words. The posts spanned the period from September 2006 to March 2023.4
The corpus analysis was conducted using the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis. To bridge the gap between micro and macro levels, particularly language use and the construction, negotiation, and perpetuation of identity and ideology, the study employed Norman Fairclough’s approach of “textually oriented discourse analysis” (Fairclough 1992, 2003). This approach examines texts as products of social events that both shape and are shaped by social structures and practices (Fairclough 2003, 2–3). The study focused on the linguistic features of evaluation and modality. According to Fairclough, the textual structuring of evaluation and modality can be used to explore underlying identities and ideologies in discourse by examining what “authors commit themselves to, with respect to what is true and what is necessary (modality), and with respect to what is desirable or undesirable, good or bad (evaluation)” (Fairclough 2003, 164). These features helped identify and organize speakers’ attitudes and emerging patterns.5
Attitudes and beliefs of non-linguists have been recognized as a legitimate branch of contemporary linguistics (Preston 1993, 1994, 1996; Niedzielski and Preston 2000; Garrett 2010), seeking to investigate laypeople’s views on language. This field aims to understand how non-linguists perceive language development, what they consider good or bad language qualities, and their general beliefs about language. Language attitudes create or reinforce realities and communities through language ideologies, stereotypes, and myths, making them crucial for studying identity construction and reproduction.
Additionally, the representation of social actors and identity construction was examined through the lens of structuring pronouns and associated identifiers. The notion that personal pronouns, especially in political discourse, play a significant role in representing socio-political ideologies provides valuable insights into the social landscape and the ideologies that shape it. Pronouns serve as fundamental grammatical tools that create distinctions between various groups. Specifically, deictic pronouns are frequently employed to establish the “us” versus “them” dichotomy and to structure in-groups and out-groups (Wodak 2001; 2009).
5 Data Analysis
The corpus analysis revealed that contemporary Croatian puristic discourse centers on two distinct “targets”, representing two external linguistic influences perceived as threats to the integrity of the Croatian language. The first topic frequently addressed in language debates concerns the influence of English as an international language, whose pervasive use in everyday language is seen as encroaching upon Croatian.
(1) Čitao sam izjavu jednog našeg jezikoslovca koji prilično olako shvaća ovu navalu anglizacije hrvatskog. Kao, to je pomodarstvo koje će otići kao što je i došlo … Meni se, pak, čini da je to jedna jako duboka promjena i da će je biti jaako teško, možda i nemoguće, zaustaviti. [**] Jednostavno, kad trebaju sastaviti neku rečenicu, ljudima se prvo u glavi javi sjećanje na rečenicu koju su pročitali u literaturi pisanoj na engleskom, na prizor iz američkog filma ili na prilog sa CNN-a. Kad hoćeš precizno opisati neki osjećaj, prizor, misao padne ti na pamet da si TOČNO to vidio opisano u nedavno pročitanom romanu na engleskom i povučeš jednu ili više riječi od tamo … Čisti refleks. Jednostavno, i engleski postaje ‘naš’ jezik. Naravno da ne opravdavam ovo miješanje jezika kojim govorimo i nastali frankeštajnski bastard, ali treba biti svjestan da su uzroci vrlo duboki i da treba puno dosljednosti, dizanja svijesti i napora da bi se to zaustavilo. A ne misliti ‘kako je došlo tako će i otići’ i tu ideju prenositi novim jezikoslovcima i lektorima koji trebaju dati po prstima širiteljima ove pomame.6
‘I read a statement by one of our linguists who takes this influx of anglicization in Croatian quite lightly. He suggests it’s a fad that will go away as quickly as it came … However, it seems to me that this is a very profound change, and it will be very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to stop. [**] When people need to compose a sentence, they first recall a sentence they read in literature written in English, a scene from an American film, or a segment on CNN. When you want to precisely describe a feeling, a scene, or a thought, you remember that you saw EXACTLY this described in a recently read English novel and you pull out one or more words from there … Sheer reflex. As simple as that, and English becomes ‘our’ language. Of course, I do not condone this mixing of languages we speak and the resulting Frankenstein’s mongrel, but we need to be aware that the causes are very deep, and it requires a lot of consistency, raising awareness, and effort to stop it. We shouldn’t think “it will leave as it came” and convey this idea to new linguists and editors who need to slap on the wrist those who are spreading this craze.’
The second focus of these debates is the influence of the Serbian language, which continues to be discussed in contemporary Croatian discourse. In the following example, the user comments on what they perceive as the increasing use of the suffix ‑ista for nominative masculine forms, which is typical of the Serbian standard, as opposed to the Croatian standard ‑ist (e.g., Serbian lingvista ‘linguist’ compared to Croatian lingvist).
(2) Ulaze i srbizmi u hrvatski, paradoksalno lakše nego za vrijeme jugoslavije jer smo onda bili u neposrednom dodiru sa srpskim, tako smo znali da to nije hrvatski i čuvali smo se … sad puno lakše neka riječ uđe u govor, pritom nismo svjesni da je to iz srpskog … jedan primjer koji mi ide na nerve je sve veća pojava nastavka -ista u medijima umjesto -ist … to se prije ni slučajno nije moglo dogoditi …
‘Serbisms are also entering Croatian, paradoxically more easily than during the time of Yugoslavia. Back then, we were in direct contact with Serbian, so we knew it wasn’t Croatian and we were careful … Now, it’s much easier for a word to enter our speech, and we aren’t aware that it’s from Serbian … One example that gets on my nerves is the increasing use of the ending ‑ista in the media instead of ‑ist … This could never have happened before …’
The analysis revealed that while the influences of English and Serbian on the Croatian language are sometimes discussed in relation to each other and compared in terms of their perceived danger and harm, these discussions primarily occur separately. When discussing both influences, some users argue that Serbian poses a greater threat, while others contend that the influx of anglicisms is more detrimental.
(3) Istina, no s anglizmima svi svjetski jezici imaju problema (informatizacija + utjecaj hollywooda). Mi uz sve to, imamo i srbizme, koji su ako mene pitaš daleko opasniji.
‘True, but all world languages have problems with anglicisms (informatization + influence of Hollywood). In addition to this, we also have Serbisms, which, if you ask me, are far more dangerous.’
(4) Samo je problem što je hrvatski presličan jednom drugom jeziku sa kojim je eto, politički nezgodno a i nepopularno da bude baš toliko sličan. Ma, bezveze se raspravljamo, ionako će engleski vjerojatno sve poklopiti prije ili poslije.
‘The problem is that Croatian is too similar to another language with which it is politically awkward, but also unpopular, to be so similar to. Anyway, this discussion is pointless; English will probably overshadow everything sooner or later.’
However, an examination of each topic’s framing and characteristics indicates that they form two distinct discourses within the corpus. These discourses differ in their motivations, framing, and related topics.
The discourse surrounding the influence of English can be described as linguistically motivated and contemporary. It reflects concerns about the pervasive use of English words in everyday language and the potential erosion of Croatian linguistic identity. This discourse is primarily focused on the present and future implications of English’s global dominance.
In contrast, the discourse related to the Serbian language is ideologically motivated, political, and historically loaded. It reflects deeper historical and socio-political tensions stemming from Croatia’s past experiences and its relationship with Serbia. This discourse is characterized by concerns about cultural and national identity, sovereignty, and the preservation of historical memory. The discussions are often rooted in historical contexts and are influenced by political ideologies, highlighting the continued sensitivity and complexity of the relations between the Croatian and Serbian languages.
Overall, the corpus analysis underscores the existence of two distinct and divergent discourses within contemporary Croatian puristic debates, each with its own unique set of motivations and ideological foundations. That is why the two puristic discourses, although coexistent, will be discussed in detail separately. Their coexistence in the Croatian context, with their differing characteristics, is encapsulated in the comment (5). Here, the user delves into the intricacies and historically and politically conditioned relationship between Croatian and Serbian and the puristic attitudes they entail while acknowledging the practical, everyday issues posed by English elements.
(5) Purizam: Ne znam—tebi se možda ne sviđa zbog skroz nepolitičkih razloga; nisam imao jednu određenu osobu u vidu. No, čini mi se da se utjecaj političke pozadine kod nas ne može zanemariti kao činitelj u ‘estetskim’ prosudbama je li neka riječ glupa, ružna, nametljiva i sl. Ako memorija na period NDH i ne utječe izravno, utječe preko odnosa prema Tuđmanovom razdoblju kada su od strane države favorizirani oni koji su imali ‘posebno istančan osjećaj za stare hrvatske tradicije’ a koji su od strane jednog dijela stanovništva doživljavani kao relativizatori negativnosti u NDH. Tu je i odnos prema Jugoslaviji i Srbima uopće te iskustva iz rata 90-ih. Ne može se očekivati da isti odnos prema srpskom jeziku i njegovim utjecajima na hrvatski ima netko koga su progonili udbaši i nekoga tko je srazmjerno udobno živio u SFRJ. Slično i za onoga po kojem su Srbi ‘prali’ granatama godinama, srušili kuću, ubili nekoga sa jedne strane i, s druge strane, nekoga tko nije sudjelovao u ratu, živio je, recimo, u Istri i drži da su svi nacionalisti isti dinaroidi. No, ne bih volio ovu temu skretati u politiku. Vratimo se engleskom našem svagdašnjem.
‘Purism: I don’t know—you may not like it for entirely non-political reasons; I did not have any specific person in mind. However, it seems to me that the influence of the political background in our case cannot be ignored as a factor in the ‘aesthetic’ judgments of whether a word is stupid, ugly, intrusive, etc. Even if the memory of the NDH (Independent State of Croatia) period does not have a direct influence, it affects it through the relationship to the Tuđman era when those with a “particularly refined sense of old Croatian traditions” were favored by the state and were perceived by a part of the population as whitewashers of the negative aspects of the NDH. There is also the relationship towards Yugoslavia and Serbs in general, as well as the experiences from the war in the 90s. One cannot expect the same attitude towards the Serbian language and its influences on Croatian from someone who was persecuted by the UDBA7 and someone who lived relatively comfortably in the SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Similarly, for someone who experienced Serbian ‘washing’ with grenades for years, demolishing their house, killing someone on the one hand, and, on the other hand, someone who did not participate in the war, lived, for example, in Istria, and holds the view that all nationalists are the same dinaroids.8 But, I wouldn’t want to steer this topic into politics. Let’s get back to our daily English.’
5.1 English as the Target Discourse
The influence of English and the incorporation of English elements into Croatian are predominantly evaluated negatively throughout the corpus. While there are occasional suggestions that using English might be acceptable due to the high value attributed to English culture globally, or the notion that English, like any other foreign influence, can enrich both culture and language, these perspectives are rare. For the most part, English elements are viewed as unwanted and unacceptable within the Croatian language.
(6) riječ selfie mrzim iz dna duše, a i ostale nove riječi koje završavaju na ‑ie.
‘I hate the word selfie from the bottom of my soul, as well as other new words that end in ‑ie.’
(7) Ja ih mrzim pogotovo one nepotrebne. Tako su neugodni mojim ušima da mi se kosa diže na glavi. Nažalost danas ne može čovjek upalit televizor a da ga ne bombardiraju sa njima.
‘I hate them too, especially the unnecessary ones. They are so unpleasant to my ears that they make my hair stand on end. Unfortunately, you can’t turn on the television today without being bombarded by them.’
(8) Nepotrebni anglizmi su mi nešto grozno (znači ne govorim o posuđenicama koje su ušle u jezik iz potrebe—kao što je recimo meni lijepa riječ—vikend) nego o ovim novokomponiranim riječima od kojih je najnovija “lokdaun”. Naježim se kada ju čujem.
‘Unnecessary anglicisms are something horrible to me (I mean, I’m not talking about loanwords that entered the language out of necessity—like the word vikend ‘weekend’ which I find beautiful)—but these newly coined words, the latest being “lokdaun” ‘lockdown’. I get goosebumps when I hear it.’
(9) Ono što mene žulja je prodor anglizama. Tako je lijepo kazati: Oprostite! Prihvatljivo je: Ispričavam se! I ruska posuđenica: Izvinite! mi je ljepša od svepriustnog: Sorry.
‘What bothers me is the influx of anglicisms. It’s so nice to say: Oprostite! Ispričavam se is acceptable! Even the Russian loanword Izvinite! is more beautiful to me than the omnipresent: Sorry.’
Users exhibit a high degree of consensus regarding anglicisms. Their attitudes are grounded in shared values, such as the intrinsic worth of the Croatian language and culture, which they believe should be preserved and safeguarded from the pervasive influence of English. This consensus is further reinforced by the belief in the versatility of the Croatian language, which they argue possesses all the necessary tools to express any concept that might otherwise be adopted from English. Moreover, they emphasize the aesthetic value of Croatian, asserting that the language sounds less pleasing when mixed with English words. The discourse also frequently invokes the idea of linguistic preservation based on the uniqueness of Croatian as a smaller language that requires protection and nurturing in the face of the global dominance of English, as exemplified by the following instances.
(10) Strašno me i sve više nerviraju anglikanizmi u našoj javnoj kulturi. Kad se emisija na našoj državnoj televiziji zove Top Ten ili Red Carpet na onoj komercijalnoj ne znam bi li u TV bacija šlapu ili bi bacija TV. Koja to europska kultura propagira strani jezik u svojoj kulturi? Misli li itko da to postoji npr. u Francuskoj? Oni bi se prije ubili nego da propagiraju engleski. Rezultat toga je da francuska kultura ima težinu! Jer to se gradi stoljećima a gubi u 1 desetljeću! Argument da smo obasuti američkom kulturom pa kao ionako je svejedno ne stoji! To je tim više razlog da se poštuje i čuva svoje! Kako se zove trgovinski centar skoro u centru Zadra čije ime je smislio netko u ime investitora Grada Zadra? Pazi ovo: City Galleria Zadar! Prvo ‘city’ na engleskom a onda ‘galleria’ na talijanskom i na kraju gle čuda bar ime grada je naše. A što bi falilo Gradskoj galeriji? Ne znam kako bi uopće nazva taj trend: uvlačiteljsko-jadni, snobovsko-robovski, … ako tko ima ideju nek nastavi niz.
‘Anglicisms in our public culture are horrible and increasingly irritate me. When a program on our national television is called Top Ten or Red Carpet on that commercial channel, I don’t know whether I should throw my slipper at the TV or throw out the TV itself. Which European culture promotes a foreign language in its own culture? Does anyone think this exists, for example, in France? They would rather die than promote English. The result of that is that French culture has weight! Because culture is built over centuries and can be lost in one decade! The argument that we are inundated with American culture so it doesn’t matter anyway does not hold! That is all the more reason to respect and preserve our own! What is the name of the shopping center almost in the center of Zadar that someone came up with on behalf of the city investors? Check this out: City Galleria Zadar! First ‘city’ in English, then ‘galleria’ in Italian, and finally, at least the name of the city is ours. And what would be wrong with Gradska galerija? I don’t even know how to name this trend: suck-up-pitiful, snobbish-servile … if anyone has an idea, feel free to continue the list.’
(11) Trebalo bi rezrezati poseban porez na ta poduzeća i njihove reklame na engleskom. Da bi se to moglo napraviti, potreban je upravo ovakav zakon o zaštiti uporabe hrvatskog jezika. Bez toga zakona, Zagreb i Jadran će, po pitanju natpisa i reklama, za par godina izgledati kao da nisu u Hrvatskoj. Jednostavno, Hrvati će biti stranci u vlastitoj državi. U ostalom meni je 100 puta moćnija fraza, recimo “Za muškarce” nego “For men”. I svaka druga engleska fraza mi zvuči puno bolje na Hrvatskom. Zato mi ni te firme što guraju engleski nisu baš jasne. Pa svaka svjetska firma koja imalo drži do sebe prilagođava reklame i ostale sadržaje tržištu gdje posluje.
‘A special tax should be levied on those businesses and their English-language advertisements. To do this, precisely such a law on the protection of the use of the Croatian language is needed. Without that law, Zagreb and Adria will, in terms of signs and advertisements, look like they are not in Croatia in a few years. Simply put, Croatians will be strangers in their own country. Moreover, to me, the phrase “Za muškarce” sounds a hundred times more powerful than “For men”. And every other English phrase sounds much better to me in Croatian. That’s why I don’t understand those companies that push English. Every global company that cares about its image adapts its advertisements and other content to the market where it operates.’
These shared values contribute to a discourse characterized by a consistent and measured tone devoid of moral panic or Internet impoliteness. The discussions primarily revolve around the exchange of ideas and experiences and constructive suggestions for the present and future development of the Croatian language. The users engage in debates that are largely civil and revolve around linguistic arguments and criteria. One such debate is the discussion on the use of the words lajk ‘like’ and lajkati ‘to like’ in everyday speech and Internet jargon, where the users collaboratively discuss how the words can be replaced by Croatian words or better suited for the Croatian language and its everyday needs, as shown by the following examples.
(12) Ne koristim te engleske riječi. A zašto i bih kad imam hrvatske? Zašto bih govorio lajkati kad mogu sviđati i ostalo.
‘I don’t use those English words. Why would I when I have Croatian ones? Why would I say lajkati when I can say sviđati “to like” and so on?’
(13) Sviđalica je u redu. Sve, samo da nije anglizam.
‘Sviđalica “lit. a liker” is fine. Anything, as long as it’s not an anglicism.’
(14) Sjetio sam se bolje mogućnosti. Cijenim to. Gramatički ispravno, i nije neki glupi anglizam.
‘I thought of a better option. Cijenim to “I appreciate it”. Grammatically correct, and not a silly anglicism.’
(15) Ali ovo ‘lajkanje’ ne mogu podnijeti. Pa to čak nije ni izvučeno od nekog posebnog dijela računala ili neke naročite radnje vezane uz rad na računalu. To je, ako se ne varam, od tipke ‘I like’ na facebooku. Je li može gluplje?
‘But I can’t stand this lajkanje ‘liking’. It’s not even derived from some special part of the computer or a particular action related to working on a computer. It’s from the “I like” button on Facebook, if I’m not mistaken. Could it be any more ridiculous?’
In this context, the discourse is constructed around shared values among users, forming a cohesive in-group dedicated to the preservation and integrity of the Croatian language. Criticism is primarily directed at individuals who use English words uncritically and excessively, thereby constituting an out-group. These individuals are often characterized as uneducated or as people who use foreign words to impress others, appear worldly or intellectual, or seem trendy. Terms such as snob ‘snob’ and pokondirena tikva9 are frequently employed in this discourse. These labels serve to reinforce the boundary between those committed to the collective goal of preserving and nurturing the Croatian language and those perceived as adopting unnecessary foreign elements for personal gain or self-promotion. The identification and group delineation are formed by the negative evaluation of the out-group and the use of labels for them. The use of these labels functions to characterize the out-group, portraying them as superficial and lacking genuine cultural or intellectual substance. This dynamic creates a clear delineation between the in-group, which implicitly views itself as sensible citizens who care about the language and culture, and the out-group, which is seen as undermining these values through their uncritical adoption of anglicisms. The frequent invocation of these labels underscores the ideological underpinnings of the discourse, where language use becomes a marker of social allegiance and cultural authenticity. Other labels used for this purpose in the discourse include anglo snobovi ‘Anglo snobs’, snobovi-robovi ‘snob-slaves’, nepismeni ‘illiterate’, polupismeni ‘semi-literate’, elita ‘elite’, kvazi menađeri ‘pseudo-managers’, kvazi intelektualci ‘pseudo-intellectuals’, kvazi inteligencija ‘pseudo-intelligentsia’, Europejci ‘Europeans’, and svjetski građani ‘citizens of the world’. Labels like Europejci and elita are used pejoratively and somewhat sarcastically, emphasizing the fact that these speakers are not really the elite but present themselves as such. The full list of labels can be found in Figure 1.
(16) Mi koji znamo rabiti hrvatski jezik kako treba ne upotrebljavamo strane poštapalice osim kao stilska sredstva. To čine samo polupismeni ljudi. I borba za očuvanje hrvatskog jezika zato ne smije biti borba protiv stranoga, nego za kvalitetno domaće.
‘We, who know how to properly use the Croatian language, do not employ foreign fillers except as stylistic devices. Only semi-literate people do that. Therefore, the fight for the preservation of the Croatian language should not be a fight against foreign elements, but for the quality elements of our native language.’
(17) Slazem se da je struka donekle kriva, ali tu je i taj imidz koji postavlja engleski i anglizam (ili englesku kulturu) kao “cool, trendy” i “in”. A nasa elita (u svakoj sferi) to, nazalost, podupiru sa rabljenjem tih frazema. Tako i dalje podupirajuci taj imidz.
‘I agree that the linguists are somewhat to blame, but there’s also this image that positions English and anglicisms (or English culture) as “cool, trendy” and “in”. Unfortunately, our elite (in every sphere) support this by using those phrases, thus continuing to support that image.’
(18) Nadam se da ovo neće pročitati netko iz Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje jer bi onda mogli odmah baciti koplje u trnje. Čemu da se muče svako jutro neumorne lektorice na HR1 kako bi nepismenom pučanstvu i ‘građanima svijeta’, ‘europejcima’ i ostaloj ‘kvazi inteligenciji’ objasnile da i hrvatski jezik treba njegovati kao što to rade drugi narodi jer na taj način promiču i štite dostojanstvo naroda koji ga govori.
‘I hope no one from the Institute for the Croatian Language and Linguistics reads this because they might immediately give up. Why should the tireless proofreaders at HR1 struggle every morning to explain to the illiterate folk and “citizens of the world”, ‘Europeans’ and other ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ that the Croatian language needs to be nurtured in the same way other nations do it as this promotes and protects the dignity of the people who speak it.’
(19) Mene današnja situacija podsjeća na komediju “Pokondirena tikva” srpskog književnika Jovana Sterije Popovića, gdje glavna junakinja učestalo ubacuje francuske riječi u svoj govor kako bi djelovala otmjeno. Jedina je razlika što danas nije pomodno koristiti francuski, nego umjesto toga engleske riječi. Ubacuje ih se svako malo, i tamo gdje je to nužno, a još češće tamo gdje nije nužno s obzirom da postoje odlični hrvatski ekvivalenti (npr. stejdž—pozornica), a s ciljem da bi se djelovalo svjetski i ostavilo dojam na sugovornika. U takvoj situaciji mislim da ni zakon o zaštiti hrvatskog jezika ne može puno pomoći ako ga ni mnogi govornici nisu spremni “zaštititi” nego dožive mali orgazam svaki put kad ubace neku englesku riječ ili izraz. A da ne spominjem da mi kolokvijalni jezik mladih Zagrepčana sve više liči na neki pidžin jezik—mješavinu hrvatskog i engleskog. A natpisi po gradu (nazivi trgovačkih centara i ostalih trgovina te natpisi na njihovim izlozima, a i ne samo oni) u sve su većoj mjeri na engleskom jeziku pa se stječe dojam da nam zemlja mic po mic postaje dvojezičnom. Jer valjda nije više fora kupovati u nekom dućanu na kojem umjesto “sale” piše “rasprodaja”.
‘Today’s situation reminds me of the comedy “Pokondirena tikva” by Serbian writer Jovan Sterija Popović, where the main character frequently inserts French words into her speech to appear refined. The only difference is that today it’s not fashionable to use French, but instead, English words. They are inserted frequently, sometimes necessarily, but more often unnecessarily, given that there are excellent Croatian equivalents (e.g., stejdž—pozornica), with the aim of appearing worldly and making an impression on the interlocutor. In such a situation, I don’t think even a law protecting the Croatian language can help much if many speakers are not willing to “protect” it and instead experience a small orgasm every time they insert an English word or phrase. Not to mention that the colloquial language of young people in Zagreb increasingly resembles a pidgin language to me—a mix of Croatian and English. And the signs around the city (names of shopping centers and other stores and signs in their windows, and not just those) are increasingly in English, creating the impression that our country is becoming bilingual step by step. Apparently, it’s no longer cool to shop in a store where it says “rasprodaja” instead of “sale”.’
5.2 Serbian as the Target Discourse
Compared to the discourse surrounding the English language and its influence, the language debates about Serbian exhibit markedly different characteristics. Firstly, these discussions are much more heated, with a higher degree of disagreement among forum users, often marked by moral panic and occasional impoliteness tokens. The debates primarily revolve around two central questions: whether it is acceptable to use words from the Serbian standard (especially in public and in the media), and whether Croatian and Serbian are distinct languages or variants of a single language. These two issues are deeply interconnected and often lead to discussions intertwining both topics. Unlike the discourse on English, where users generally agree, the discourse on Serbian is characterized by users’ distinctly different attitudes and values. This divergence creates two opposing camps, each strongly pitted against the other in the discussions. Users shape the discourse around their beliefs and attitudes on these issues, distinguishing themselves from those whose values they do not share. In the process, the opposing group is negatively evaluated, and identity construction proceeds from this identification of the out-group. Based on this dynamic, two opposing camps can be identified: linguistic purists and linguistic liberals. For each group, the opposing group constitutes the out-group. This division highlights the ideological and emotional intensity of the debates on Serbian language-related issues, contrasting sharply with the relatively unified stance on the influence of English.
5.2.1 Purists as the Out-Group
The purist group is defined in the discourse by specific values, attitudes, and behaviors. They are categorized by their opponents as those who avoid Serbian words at all costs, adamantly assert that Croatian and Serbian are distinct languages, advocate for “Novohrvatski”, seek to purify the language, and employ language with political motivations. Interestingly, the view that the purist group uses the language with a political agenda is strongly contrasted with the self-views of the liberals, who assert that their own positions are apolitical and purely based on linguistic criteria. This is especially relevant to the debate over whether Croatian and Serbian are one or two languages, with proponents of the one-language perspective, i.e., the liberals, claiming that their views are strictly linguistic, given the mutual intelligibility between the two languages. The attitudes of the purists are also often associated by the liberals with right-wing ideologies and political orientations, which are in the discourse occasionally linked to extreme right-wing regimes. The liberals’ discourse on purists is prominently historically framed, often employing historical context-specific labels for them as the out-group. The labels used by their opponents to identify the out-group draw from periods of Croatian history marked by strong purist tendencies in national language policies. These periods include the Independent State of Croatia (1941–1945) and the era of the War of Independence, and the subsequent period of the newly formed Republic of Croatia (1991–1999).
(20) U ustavu najmocnije drzave na svijetu, Sjedinjenih americkih drzava, uopce nema sluzbenog jezika, iako ta uloga de facto pripada engleskom. Ali nigdje u ustavu ne stoji da to mora biti engleski i sve to opet nije smetalo toj zemlji da opstane i postane globalna sila broj jedan. U maloj i tragikomicnoj Hrvatskoj grupica nacionalista koji sebe smatraju jezikoslovcima kukumacu o ugrozenosti hrvatskog jezika.
‘In the constitution of the most powerful country in the world, the United States of America, there is no official language, although English de facto holds that role. However, nowhere in the constitution does it state that it must be English, and this has not hindered the country from surviving and becoming the number one global power. In the small and tragically comical Croatia, a group of nationalists who consider themselves linguists are lamenting the endangerment of the Croatian language.’
(21) Većina nas, barem i nesvjesno, shvaća kako stvari stoje. Usprkos fantazijama nacionalista, mi živimo u jezičnoj realnosti u kojoj se Srbi, Hrvati, Crnogorci i Bosanci besprijekorno razumiju, gdje svi oni jednako jednako slušaju i Rozgu i Karleušu, gledaju i “Bitange i princeze” i “Andriju i Anđelku”.
‘Most of us, at least subconsciously, understand how things stand. Despite the fantasies of nationalists, we live in a linguistic reality where Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, and Bosnians understand each other flawlessly, where they all equally listen to both [Croatian singer] Rozga and [Serbian singer] Karleuša, and watch both [Croatian series] “Bitange i princeze” and [Serbian] “Andrija i Anđelka”.’
(22) Tako isto političke mitologije i nacionalizmi i u jeziku pronalaze neko svoje zlatno doba, kada je jezik bio idealan, naš, neokaljan, čist, prirodan iskonski, a ne kao sada uprljan, iskrivljen, neprirodan, nametnut … i sada nas naši nacionalisti/puristi/nazi lingvisti pokušavaju vratiti u to zlatno doba, a strani nasilnici i domaće izdajice pokušavaju obmanuti naš napaćen narod …
‘Similarly, political mythologies and nationalisms find their own golden age in language, a time when the language was ideal, ours, untainted, pure, natural, primal, and not as it is now—dirty, distorted, unnatural, imposed … and now our nationalists/purists/nazi linguists are trying to return us to that golden age, while foreign oppressors and domestic traitors attempt to deceive our suffering people …’
When it comes to labels for the purists as the out-group, the most frequent is nacionalisti ‘nationalist’ regularly associated with members who support the aforementioned views. The term puristi ‘purists’ is also commonly used in relation to the out-group and is often interchangeable with ‘nationalists’ when discussing language. Purists (also frequently referred to by the Croatian word for ‘purist’, čistunci) are seen by the liberals as an archetype of those supporting the views of language preservation, language uniqueness, and the notion of one nation, one language. Purism is understood in its narrower sense as the strict rejection of foreign elements based on national ideology, particularly Serbian elements, in this context. Labels related to right-wing political orientations in the Croatian context, such as desničari ‘right-wingers’ and hadezeovci ‘HDZ supporters’,10 frequently appear, as well as those associated with extreme regimes with strong nationalistic components, such as nacisti ‘Nazis’ and fašisti ‘fascists’. These terms that equate contemporary Croatian speakers with extreme historically specific labels are not that frequent in the discourse but do come up occasionally. Moreover, members of the purist group are often described as being excessively Croatian and are called terms like veliki Hrvati ‘Great Croats’, and variations such as velikohrvati, which is a compounded version of the phrase veliki Hrvati, ‘lit. Great-o-Croats’, Hrvatine ‘Croats-N.AUGM’, and turbo Hrvati ‘Turbo Croats’. Another label that surfaces in this context is domoljubi ‘lit. home lovers; patriots’, mostly used negatively and somewhat pejoratively. Interestingly, this is the only label that the purists readily accept, with users embracing and confirming it.
(23) Kod nas su čak i nacionalisti falš roba: svugdje na svijetu ima nacionalista, nacionalističkih stranaka i pozitivnog nacionalizma, ali fiksacije na samo jednu naciju—nema. [**] U Hrvatskoj imamo samo fiks-nacionaliste, oduzmi im srbe iz usta i oni nemaju o čemu pričati. Zapravo time—znakovito—dokazuju da ni inače nemaju o čemu pričati. Normalni nacionalisti su za svoju naciju a protiv svih ostalih. Naši—nažalost ‘naši’—su samo protiv Srba. Meni to izgleda imbecilno. Takve imbecilije se protežu u hrvatski jezik: ako će taj jezik biti hrvatski samo zato da bude različit od srpskoga onda smo mi svi zajedno bolesna i imbecilna nacija kojoj nema spasa ni na zemlji ni na nebu.
‘Even our nationalists are damaged goods: everywhere in the world there are nationalists, nationalist parties, and positive nationalism, but the fixation on just one nation—that doesn’t exist. [**] In Croatia, we only have overly-fixated nationalists; take Serbs out of their mouths and they have nothing to talk about. In fact, by doing so—tellingly—they prove that they have nothing to talk about otherwise. Normal nationalists are for their nation and against all others. Ours—unfortunately ‘ours’—are only against Serbs. To me, that seems imbecilic. Such imbecilities extend into the Croatian language: if the language is to be Croatian only to be different from Serbian, then we are all together a sick and imbecilic nation without salvation on earth or in heaven.’
(24) Nisam jezikoslovac, samo prenosim misljenja i procjene onih koji jesu (i koji su na lijevoj strani politickog spektra i gorljivi protivnici ovih purista, korijenicara ili slicnih bisera). Ono, postoje razlicite grupacije, ideje, utjecaji itd u znanostima, osobito ovakvim. Ali kada sa svih strana o tebi ima struka isto misljenje, cak i oni koji su medjusobno ekstremno posvadjani, pa i oni koji bi trebali biti bliski, onda je pretpostavka kako je u pitanju neki veliki nadljudski biser puno manje vjerojatna od one kako se radi o frustiranoj babi, a trece opcije bas i nema.
‘I am not a linguist, I am only conveying the opinions and assessments of those who are (and who are on the left side of the political spectrum and ardent opponents of these purists, supporters of root-based orthography, or similar gems). I mean, there are different groups, ideas, influences, etc. in sciences, especially in these ones. But when experts from all sides have the same opinion about you, even those who are extremely at odds with each other, then the assumption that it is some great superhuman gem is much less likely than that it is about a frustrated old woman, or some third option that doesn’t really exist.’11
(25) zasto se zale? pa zato sto su nacionalisti uvijek isti. ali to je nebitno. bitno je sto kazu strucni ljudi, a gotovo svi slavisti tvrde o postojanju jednog jezika. to sto neki tamo hadezeovac akademik tvrdi suprotno bitno je samo ovdje. vani se zna da je to jedan jezik, jer nikoga nije briga za misljenje hrv. nacionalista.
‘Why are they complaining? Well, because nationalists are always the same. But that’s irrelevant. What matters is what the experts say, and almost all Slavic linguists claim there is one language. What some HDZ-affiliated academic claims is only relevant here. Abroad it is known that it is one language because no one cares about the opinion of Croatian nationalists.’
(26) kako nacionalizam poglupljuje ljude to je nevjerojatno. znam kako se vj. osjećaju ljudi tvog profila (99 % onih odraslih u hrvatskoj, posebno mlađih i podložnijih manipulaciji, odgajanih na HTV-ovom dnevniku i tuđmanovim poslanicama) kad intimno moraju sebi navečer priznati da je jezik kojim govore isti onaj kojim govore i većina drugih južnoslavenskih naroda s balkana, i da hrvatski baš po ničemu nije poseban, osim po rječci “bok”.
‘It is unbelievable how nationalism makes people stupider. I know how people of your profile (99 % of those raised in Croatia, especially the younger ones and more susceptible to manipulation, raised on Croatian national television’s news and Tuđman’s messages) probably feel when they have to admit to themselves at night that the language they speak is the same one spoken by the majority of other South Slavic peoples in the Balkans, and that Croatian is not special in any way, except for the word “bok”.’
5.2.2 Liberals as the Out-Group
In the purists’ discourse, the out-group of liberals is characterized by specific values, attitudes, and behaviors represented by those who use Serbian words uncritically, employ Serbisms in public and media contexts (particularly public figures like politicians or TV hosts), assert that Croatian and Serbian are one and the same language, and generally exhibit indifference toward the Croatian language. This out-group is frequently associated with left-wing ideologies and political orientations, especially as they are perceived within the Croatian context. The discourse is, again, historically framed, with out-group labels frequently drawing from the broader discourse of Croatian history, specifically the Yugoslav period (1945–1990). This era was marked by the union with Serbia and the efforts to standardize a unified Serbo-Croatian language. The most frequent label used is jugonostalgičari ‘Yugo-nostalgists’, referring to those who support political and linguistic ideas promoted during the time of Yugoslavia. Variants of this term, such as jugoslaveni ‘Yugoslavs’, projugoslaveni ‘Proyugoslavs’, neojugoslaveni ‘Neoyugoslavs’, and jugofili ‘Yugophiles’ are also common. Another frequently encountered term is regijunaši ‘regionalists’ and its variants regiyunaši, regiyubalkanofili ‘regional Yugoslav-Balkanophiles’ and balkanofili ‘Balkanophiles’. The term regija ‘region’ (region in Serbian) is sometimes used to collectively describe the geographical area of the former Yugoslav countries without acknowledging them as separate independent states. The term has, however, acquired negative connotations, and tends to be understood as promoting unitarism among the former Yugoslav states, as well as a marker of left-wing ideologies. Therefore, even those who use the term neutrally in the sense of ‘area’ often face significant criticism. Similarly, the word Balkan ‘Balkans’, referring to the states of the Balkan Peninsula as a collective, has gained similar connotations in this discourse. Additionally, the linguistic liberals are often described as antinacionalisti ‘antinationalists’ or anacionalisti ‘anationalists’. In this context, these terms are nearly interchangeable, with the former being perceived as those negating the integrity and autonomy of the Croatian language and its status, and the latter referring to those who are indifferent toward it. For the in-group, i.e., the purists, both terms are equally negative. Out-group members are also labeled as ljevičari ‘left-wingers’, supporters of left-wing ideas and policies. Related terms like komunisti ‘communists’ and boljševici ‘bolsheviks’ also appear. Occasionally, labels related to historical extremist regimes and ideologies, such as jugofašisti ‘Yugofaschists’ or jugonacisti ‘Yugonazis’, are used, though these are not as common as in the context of the other group.
(27) Za razliku od hrpe jugoslavenčina i štovatelja Vuka Karadžića ovdje smatram da su ovakvi natječaji sjajna ideja i velika nada da će hrvatski jezik i u budućnosti ostati hrvatski. Naravno, strane riječi treba zamjenjivati samo onda kada se izmisli jednako dobra ili bolja riječ. Osobno mislim da je zamjenjivanje automobila samovozom, pištolja samokresom i interneta međumrežjem nekvalitetno, pomalo smiješno i loše i da takve novotvorbe treba napustiti. S druge strane upravo prihvaćeni suosnik umjesto koaksijalnog kabela mi se čini odličnim rješenjem, kao i poveznica umjesto linka ili tipkovnica umjesto tastature. Da je hrvatski jezik zaista na dobrom putu da se samostalno i lijepo dalje razvija najbolje se vidi po tome što su i na samu mogućnost da se izmisle i prihvate neke nove hrvatske riječi odma graknule horde nostalgičnih “lingvista” koji još plaču za srpskorvackim kojeg vasceo svet i vaseljena razume.
‘Unlike the mass of Great Yugoslavs and admirers of Vuk Karadžić here, I believe that such contests are a great idea and offer a significant hope that the Croatian language will remain Croatian in the future. Of course, foreign words should only be replaced when an equally good or better word is invented. Personally, I think replacing automobil ‘automobile’ with samovoz, pištolj ‘pistol’ with samokres, and internet ‘Internet’ with međumrežje is of poor quality, somewhat ridiculous, and bad, and such neologisms should be abandoned. On the other hand, I find suosnik instead of koaksijalni kabel “coaxial cable” an excellent solution, as well as poveznica instead of link ‘link’ or tipkovnica instead of tastatura ‘keyboard’. The fact that the Croatian language is on the right path to developing independently and beautifully is best demonstrated by the immediate outcry from nostalgic “linguists” at the mere suggestion of creating and accepting new Croatian words, they are those who still lament for the Serbo-Croatian that is understood by the whole world and the whole universe.’
(28) Realno, spikeri bi trebali imati govorne vježbe i stvar bi bila riješena. Bagino “dakanje” znak je njegove neukosti, kao i niza forumaša (počinu 95 % tema s “da li” mjesto “biste li”, “je li” itd.). Podcijenjena je važnost jezične kulture u društvu što ide pod ruku s podcjenjenošću bitnih sastavnica nacionalnog identiteta. Nije, dakle, urota, nego manifestacija unutarnjega truljenja, i vlasti trule anacionalne ekipe.
‘Realistically, TV anchors should have speech exercises, and the problem would be solved. Bago’s use of the “da-construction” is a sign of his ignorance, as well as that of many forum users (who start 95 % of topics with “da li” instead of “biste li”, “je li”, etc.).12 The importance of proper linguistic usage in society is underestimated, which goes hand in hand with the underestimation of essential components of national identity. It is not a conspiracy but rather a manifestation of internal decay and the rotten, anationalistic team in power.’
(29) I ja se pitam zašto nema zajedničkih udžbenika za matematiku, fiziku, kemiju, biologiju za Hrvatsku i Srbiju, a zanima me zašto Srbi govore da im poklonjeni hrvatski prijevodi EU pravne stečevine ne koriste jer ih ne razumiju? Zašto se srpski pravni tekstovi prevode na hrvatski i obratno ako su to isti jezici? To mi nitko od ovih regiyubalkanofila koji se mentalno ne mogu otrgnuti iz njihovog regiyuna nije nikad objasnio.
‘I also wonder why there are no joint textbooks for mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology for Croatia and Serbia, and I am curious why Serbs say that the Croatian translations of EU legal acquis that were passed on as a gift are useless to them because they do not understand them. Why are Serbian legal texts translated into Croatian and vice versa if they are the same languages? None of these regionalists who cannot mentally detach from their regiyun have ever explained this to me.’
Table 3.1 displays the comprehensive list of labels used in the discourse for all identified out-groups.
Table 3.1
Out-group labels
|
ENGLISH AS THE TARGET |
OUT-GROUP |
snobovi snobovi robovi anglo snobovi kuleri fensi ljudi |
nepismeni polupismeni “elita” pokondirene tikve skorojevići |
kvazi menađeri kvazi intelektualci “Europejci” “svjetski građani” anglofili |
|
SERBIAN AS THE TARGET |
OUT-GROUP PURISTS |
nacionalisti puristi ksenofobni puristi ksenofobi čistunci nazilingvisti veliki Hrvati |
vel’ko R’vati Velikohrvati Hrvatine turbo Hrvati ustaše NDHisti korjeničari |
fašisti šovinisti nacišovinisti desničari hadezeovci domoljubi |
|
OUT-GROUP LIBERALS |
jugonostalgičari jugoslaveni šugoslaveni jugoslovenčići jugoslavenčine projugoslaveni neojugoslaveni |
jugoljevičari jugonacisti jugounitaristi jugofašisti balkanofili regiyubalkanofili regijunaši |
regiyunaši antinacionalisti anacionalisti boljševici komunisti ljevičari liberali |
5.3 Labels and Pronouns
The analysis of pronouns in the corpus revealed that the possessive pronoun naš ‘our’ and its various grammatical forms are the most frequently used pronouns in the corpus. Specifically, the query for pronouns with the stem naš* yielded 1,404 hits, compared to 821 hits for pronouns with the stem njih* ‘their’, and 193 hits for vaš* ‘your-2PL’. A closer examination established that labels for the out-group are often used with the possessive pronoun naši (‘our’) and a verb in the third-person plural form (see below for an analysis of these rather surprising findings). Although online forum language debates can be categorized as a form of dialogue—or, more accurately, polylogue13—where disagreement is a common occurrence, the second-person singular or plural verb forms are rarely used, particularly in contexts involving in-group and out-group dynamics. This trend may be attributed to the rules and norms of online forum platforms, which often censor posts that can be considered personal attacks. For instance, Forum.hr does not tolerate provocations and inflammatory comments directed at individual posters. Consequently, the third-person plural form may be more appropriate for delineating the out-group whose attitudes one disagrees with. However, these observations require further and more detailed research to be fully substantiated. Nevertheless, the use of the pronoun naši with the out-group label reveals interesting dynamics and implications for identity construction within the Croatian purist context. It suggests a complex relationship where the out-group is identified as part of the in-group (a problem that is also tackled by Banasiak and Wnuk in this volume). By referring to the outsiders as “ours”, speakers suggest a paradoxical inclusion of this group within the broader collective identity. This linguistic choice points to an internal tension, where those perceived as deviating from the group’s linguistic or cultural norms are simultaneously recognized as part of the same community.
This dynamic resonates with the concept of the “internal enemy”, as described by Wodak (2009), where divisions within a society are framed not just as external threats but as conflicts within the group itself.
(30) To se izgleda neki naši žele praviti većim Englezima od samih Engleza.
‘It seems that some of our people want to act more English than the English themselves.’
(31) Našao sam nešto jako zgodno za naše domaće hrvatske anglo snobove kojima je bolje reći Zagreb film festival, Motovun film festival nego Zagrebački filmski festival, Motovunski festival …
‘I found something very fitting for our local Croatian Anglo-snobs who prefer to say Zagreb Film Festival, Motovun Film Festival rather than Zagrebački filmski festival, Motovunski festival …’
(32) A sad ovo što se tiče pravaša i ljevičara, ja se smatram ljevičarom, ali ne osjećam nikakvu povezanost niti razmišljam isto kao ovi naši hrvatski (jugo)ljevičari, tako da neznam otkud si to izvukao.
‘And now regarding the rightists and left-wingers, I consider myself a left-winger, but I do not feel any connection, nor do I think the same as our Croatian (Yugo) left-wingers, so I don’t know where you got that from.’
(33) Neka naši ljevičari kažu: “jesmo Srbi smo i gotovo”, pa da mi znamo s kim imamo posla i s kim se zapravo treba obračunati. Ali nemaju ljevičari muda za to kao što nikad nisu ni imali. Preostaje im sjediti u tamnim sobama, osuđenim doživotnim proklestvom koje ih izjeda poput raka.
‘Let our left-wingers say: “Yes, we are Serbs and that’s it” so that we know who we are dealing with and who we actually need to confront. But leftists don’t have the guts for that, just as they never have. All that remains for them is to sit in dark rooms, condemned to a lifelong curse that eats them up like cancer.’
(34) Znam da nisi mislio na mene, jer imam dijametralno suprotne i političke i duhovne stavove od naših dragih forumskih “jugoslavenčina”.
‘I know you didn’t mean me, because I have diametrically opposite political and spiritual views from our dear “big Yugoslavs” on this forum.’
6 Conclusions
The examination of contemporary Croatian purist discourse unveils interesting dynamics and patterns of language use that reflect underlying ideological positions and identity constructions. The non-expert language debates on the online platform Forum.hr provide insight into identity construction and out-group formation symptomatic of the broader Croatian socio-political and historical context.
Croatian purism functions with two distinct linguistic “targets”—English and Serbian—each generating a different narrative within the discourse. Discussions about English and anglicisms are primarily focused on linguistic and practical concerns, with users who incorporate English words into everyday contexts often being accused of snobbery and inauthenticity. In contrast, the discourse surrounding Serbian is significantly more politicized and ideologically charged, with a more polarized identity construction. Language debates on the topic of Serbian and its relationship to Croatian reveal a pronounced division within the linguistic community. This division manifests as a delineation of out-groups between two extreme poles of Croatian identity: one side perceived as excessively Croatian, and the other as insufficiently Croatian. Therefore, the negotiation of identity in the purist debates is not a negotiation between national and international but between nationalistic and a(nti)nationalistic.
The patterning of possessive pronouns in connection with out-group labels, especially the frequent use of the pronoun naši, highlights the dynamics of the out-group within and the notion of an internal enemy. This internal enemy concept underscores the ideological tensions and identity negotiations prevalent in Croatian discourse, revealing deeper socio-political undercurrents and the strong influence of past events and discourses on the contemporary perception of Croatian identity.
For a more detailed history of Croatian literary language, see Vince (1990), Moguš (1993).
For Croatian language academies, see Košutar and Tafra (2010).
For the language in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), see Samardžija (2008).
The period from the year 2000 to the present has been identified as the contemporary period in Croatian linguistic discourse, marked by the following three significant sociocultural and political changes: (1) The turn of the millennium saw the Internet become an essential tool for communication. The increased interest and adoption of Internet technology greatly influenced communication practices and linguistic trends. (2) Franjo Tuđman, the first president of the independent Republic of Croatia, died on December 10, 1999. His death symbolized the end of an era characterized by the war for independence and the language policies associated with it. (3) In January 2000, the Social Democratic Party of Croatia, in coalition with the Croatian Social Liberal Party, won the national parliamentary elections. This victory marked a significant change in Croatia’s political and linguistic landscape, ushering in a new period of governance and policy-making that influenced the linguistic discourse in the country.
Here, I would like to acknowledge the ethical-methodological concerns that accompany the use of computer-mediated data for linguistic research. The use and publication of authentic real-life examples arise from the blurred lines of privacy on the Internet, particularly regarding informed consent, privacy protection, and anonymity of research subjects. In line with this, when presenting examples, this study adheres to ethical principles concerning privacy and anonymity on the Internet. Following Bruckman’s “moderate disguise” approach (2004, 229), direct quotes were utilized while altering names, pseudonyms, and identifiable details to safeguard participant anonymity. Although the topic under investigation is not highly sensitive, no directly identifiable personal data from the forum threads were included in the study to ensure participant confidentiality. Even pseudonyms used by participants on Forum.hr were not used to maintain anonymity. For ethics and Internet research, see Ess, Jones, and AoIR 2002; Bruckman 2004; Franzke et al. 2019; Stommel and Rijk 2021; Sugiura 2016.
The examples are presented in their authentic form as originally written by the authors in the forum threads. However, due to formatting constraints, some changes to the layout have been made. The original structuring of the posts, including indentations, breaks, and other multimodal features, may have been altered to fit the required formatting. In some cases, where the comments were very long, parts were omitted to present the point more concisely. These omissions are indicated by [**]. When a single word was omitted for privacy reasons, such as a mention of a username, this is indicated by [*].
UBDA refers to Uprava državne bezbednosti ‘Directorate for State Security’, which was the secret police organization in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The term dinaroidi ‘Dinaroids’ originally referred to people from the Dinaric Alps, a mountain range in Southern and South-Central Europe. However, colloquially, it is used pejoratively to describe individuals perceived as primitive, uncultured, and narrow-minded. This is the sense in which the term is used here.
The term pokondirena tikva comes from the title of a satirical play written by Serbian playwright Jovan Sterija Popović in the 19th century. In the play, the phrase describes a person who adopts foreign manners, language, or behavior in a pretentious and affected way, abandoning their own cultural roots and traditions. In contemporary usage, it is a derogatory term used to describe someone who is perceived as superficial and pretentious, trying to appear more sophisticated or cultured by adopting foreign elements, often in an exaggerated and insincere manner. In the literal sense, the phrase pokondirena tikva could be roughly translated as ‘pretending pumpkin’. However, while most Croatian speakers are familiar with its idiomatic usage, they likely would not recognize the literal meaning of its components. For a detailed exploration of the etymology behind the phrase, see Opačić (2009).
Hadezeovci refers to members or supporters of the Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ), which is a major political party in Croatia. The Croatian Democratic Union is a center-right political party that played a crucial role in Croatia’s independence movement in the early 1990s and has been one of the dominant political forces in the country since then. HDZ was founded by Franjo Tuđman in 1989. The name for its adherents, hadezeovci is derived from the initialism which constitutes the name of the party in Croatian.
Korijeničari refers to the proponents of the traditional Croatian (root-based) orthography from the end of the 19th century that was briefly reinstated during the Independent State of Croatia (NDH).
The comment refers to the formation of yes-no interrogatives in Croatian and Serbian standard languages. In the Croatian standard, these types of questions are formed using the main verb of the sentence followed by the interrogative particle li, as in, for example, Je li on dobro? ‘Is he ok?’; Biste li mi otvorili vrata? ‘Would you open the door for me?’. In contrast, the Serbian standard allows for the question to begin with da followed by the interrogative particle li, as in Da li je on dobro? ‘Is he ok?’; Da li biste mi otvorili vrata? ‘Would you open the door for me?’.
For a description of online discussion forums as polylogues, see Marcoccia 2004.
References
Blommaert, Jan (ed.). 1999. Language ideological debates (Vol. 2). Berlin–New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ess, Charles Melvin, Steven Jones, and AoIR Ethics Working Committee. 2002. “Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee.” In Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies, edited by Elizabeth A. Buchanan, 27–44. Hershey–London–Melbourne–Singapore: Information Science Publishing.
https://www.matica.hr/vijenac/398/Pokondirena%20tikva%20/ (last accessed: September 30, 2024).