The language that unites and the language that divides us: Why was Arabic kept and Serbo-Croatian abolished?

Abstract

This article explores why the Arabs chose to keep a common language, while the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins chose not to. The study argues that the main reason for this can be found in the ideological constrains resulting out of the salience and interaction between different religious and ethnic group building projects in former Yugoslavia and the Arab states. Political elites in both regions favored the ethnic and religious category to different extents. Language planning reflected and implemented the respective ideological imperatives resulting out of these processes. This led to different approaches in defining the common language and its subsequent standardization.

Keywords:

• language standardization
• sociolinguistics
• nation-building
• nationalism
• Yugoslavia
• Arab countries
• Islam
• Orthodoxy
• Catholicism

Notes

A precondition for such a “coverage” – Kloss uses the term “Überdachung” – is that the covering and covered idiom belong to the same language group (Kloss 23–37).

Cases of diglossia that result from two different vernaculars not belonging to the same language group – the so called “Abstandsprachen” (Kloss 23–37), such as Latin and German, or Arabic and English – shall not be discussed here.

The most recent and comprehensive bibliography on the Yugoslav language question can be found in Gröschel 381–451.

For a broader discussion see Billig chapter 2.

For further details see Brubaker 11–27.

For a map of the Arabic idioms see Behnstedt and Woidich.

For details on Arabic diglossia see Diem.

For a detailed account on the thought of Al-Ḥuṣri see Tibi chapters 3 and 4.

Although a Christian, ʿAflaq pointed out the specific role of Islam in creating what he referred to as “the Arab national feeling” (‘Aflaq 127–38). Amid the growing Islamization of Arab society the Baʿathist regime of Ṣaddam Ḥussein later claimed that before his death in 1989 ʿAflaq converted to Islam.

For details see Al-Rasheed.

On the ideological split between Iraq, Syria and Egypt see Kerr, as well as Choueiri 191–205.

In fact all constitutions of the Arab states mention their belonging to the Arab nation. With the exception of Lebanon, Islam is mentioned either as a state religion or the religion of the country's ruler (Markaz Dirāsāt al-Waḥda al-ʿArabīya 521–50).

For a detailed discussion see Findlow.

For example: While the Arabic word for Inflammation is translated as Iltihāb in Cairo, the Syrians prefer the archaic form of H_-amaǧ.

For a detailed account on the Illyrian movement see Despalatović.

I use a hyphenated form, since the word tribe here is not to be mistaken with the tribes in the Arabian context.

This trend continued even in the 20th century. For example: Nobel prize winning writer Ivo Andrić, a Catholic, saw himself as Serb and not Croat, while Orthodox-born Novak Simić saw himself as Croatian and not Serb. Equally Muslim-born Bosnian writer Meša Selimović saw himself as Serb and not as a Bosniac.

For details on the Macedonian Question and the later standardization efforts during the second Yugoslavia to create a distinct Macedonian standard see Shoup 144–83 as well as Banac 307–28.

See Zakonsku uredbu o hrvatskom jeziku, o njegovoj čistoći i o pravopisu of 1941 in Zabarah 114–15.

See Novosadski dogovor of 1954 in Zabarah 116–17.

The role of the different language planning institutes during the second Yugoslavia is however much more complex than described here and would require a detailed study on its own. For a comprehensive analysis see Cvetković-Sander.

For details see Zabarah.

On Yugoslavness see Grandits “Das Projekt jugoslawischer Identitätsbildung”.

For a detailed discussion see Okuka, “Teorije o srpskohrvatskom” 181–88, and Zabarah 50–58.

For the current language Situation in Montenegro see Crnogorska akademija Nauke i Umjetnosti, as well as Nikčević.