Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs effortlessly engage in communication with each other, utilizing their respective regional language varieties. In cases where some Croats or Serbs do not share this linguistic compatibility, they encounter similar challenges when attempting to communicate with many others from their respective ethnic groups. It is common for individuals from two or all three of these ethnic backgrounds to reside in the same villages or towns, and as a result, their linguistic patterns often exhibit more similarity to each other than to many members of their own ethnic communities.
However, nationalists tend to be conservative, in the Balkans in particular. In line with the 19th century doctrine of nationalism, they consider that language is a central attribute of a nation: a nation without an own language is not a nation.
Croatian nationalists identify their language as Croatian and contend that historically and to this day, it has remained distinctly separate from neighboring languages. Bosniak nationalists identify their language as Croatian and contend that historically and to this day, it has remained distinctly separate from neighboring languages. Serbian nationalists maintain that the language spoken by Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs is a single language, correctly classified as Serbian. And they are all talking complete nonsense.
The debate is rooted in two fundamental questions: What is the subject of ownership? and Who has ownership? We will explore these questions, beginning with the first. The subject of ownership is the language or languages, and while this may appear straightforward, defining what constitutes a language is the initial challenge we must address.
For instance, one might consider Serbian as the language that individuals of Serbian ethnicity typically and naturally use for mutual communication. However, the assertion that they speak the same language cannot be made, not only for an entire ethnic community but even for just two individuals. Languages are broad approximations. Each proficient adult commands numerous linguistic varieties, known as registers, which they employ in various contexts, and even these registers are only approximations. The boundaries between them are not clearly defined. Furthermore, even if one were to somehow rigidly identify a register (which is an impossible task, given the infinite range of expressions it encompasses), no single register exists that two different individuals share. What we can discuss is a degree of similarity or difference, but not between unique varieties specific to each individual. Instead, it would need to involve vague sets of varieties, ranging from those individuals are fully proficient in and confident using to those they can only command to a limited extent. Quantifying such a measure comprehensively is exceedingly challenging, involving the assessment of the entire landscape of linguistic varieties spoken by two individuals and then comparing them. When it comes to two populations, this task becomes nearly unimaginable. From the perspective of ownership, the conclusion arises that the collective body of language encompassing the three ethnic groups (and possibly extending beyond their boundaries) represents a single indistinct vague language that cannot be viewed in terms of ownership.
This is akin to asserting that there are distinct ways of walking: the Bosniak, the Croatian, and the Serbian walk. Or alternatively, that there is just one way of walking, which is the Serbian walk, and Bosniaks and Croats walk in the same manner as Serbians. Language is inherently something that cannot be completely encapsulated, whether at an individual or communal level. It does not provide a sensible basis for distinguishing between groups and their identities when linguistic boundaries between them lack clear demarcation (like there is a clear demarcation between the walking styles of humans and horses).
Back to the conservativity and nationalism. In the nationalist dispute, it is not the actual langauge and the actual linguistic competence of their speakers that is the object of discussion. Nationalists are linguistic prescriptivists. That means that they believe that people should not speak spontaneously, relying on their capacities and competences, but instead follow certain rules that have been prescribed by the appropriate authorities. Then the possession is over those rules, rather than about the actual language how it is spoken. This view deserves no discussion, as it is not about how language is - it is rather a tool used by certain social groups to gain power. Symptomatically, however, their conservatism has led the self-proclaimed linguistic authorities of each of the three ethic groups to specify nearly identical sets of rules. Thus, switching again to the question of possession, even in this perspective, it cannot be claimed that these are three different languages, and since each group could, and did, perform its own ritual of prescribing - it also cannot be claimed that it belongs to one group and not to the others. Thus, from the untenable perspective of prescribed language too, there is only one language, and it is shared by the three groups.
Returning to the concepts of conservativity and nationalism, in the nationalist discourse, the focal point is not the actual language and the genuine linguistic competence of its speakers. Nationalists adopt a prescriptive approach to language, meaning they advocate for specific rules imposed by authoritative figures, rather than endorsing spontaneous, capacity- and competence-based speech. Consequently, the focus shifts to adherence to these rules, rather than the authentic spoken language. This viewpoint is not even a valid view of langauge itself; rather, it serves as a tool employed by certain social groups to assert their influence and power.
Ironically, the conservativeness of these groups has led the self-proclaimed linguistic authorities of each of the three ethnic communities to establish nearly identical sets of rules. Thus, circling back to the question of ownership, even from this perspective of prescribed language, it cannot be asserted that these are three distinct languages. Since each group has undertaken its own prescriptive efforts, it is equally unjustifiable to claim that the language belongs exclusively to one group and not to the others. Consequently, even from the untenable standpoint of prescribed language, there is only one shared language among the three ethnic groups.
The designations "Bosnian," "Croatian," and "Serbian" languages ultimately persist as either vaguely synonymous or devoid of substantial meaning. If there is any meaning conveyed by these labels, it represents something intangible and unpossessable. None of the three ethnic groups, or anyone more broadly, can assert one-to-one association, let alone true ownership over this intangible essence.
Posts
