Misplaced Pages

Standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are different national variants and official registers of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language.

History

In socialist Yugoslavia, the language was approached as a pluricentric language with two regional normative varieties—Eastern (used in Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina by all ethnicities, either with the Ekavian or the Ijekavian accent) and Western (used in Croatia by all ethnicities, the Ijekavian accent only). However, due to discontent in Croatian intellectual circles, beginning in the late 1960s Croatian cultural workers started to refer to the language exclusively as 'the Croatian literary language', or sometimes 'the Croatian or Serbian language', as was common before Yugoslavia. Bolstered with the 1967 Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language, these two names were subsequently prescribed in the Croatian constitution of 1974. The language was regarded as one common language with different variants and dialects. The unity of the language was emphasised, making the differences not an indicator of linguistic divisions, but rather factors enriching the 'common language' diversity. West European scientists judge the Yugoslav language policy as an exemplary one: Although three-quarters of the population spoke one language, no single language was official on a federal level. Official languages were declared only at the level of constituent republics and provinces,

With the breakup of the Federation, in search of additional indicators of independent and separate national identities, language became a political instrument in virtually all of the new republics. With a boom of neologisms in Croatia, an additional emphasis on Turkisms in the Muslim parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a privileged position of the Cyrillic script in Serb-inhabited parts of the new states, every state and entity showed a 'nationalisation' of the language. The language in Bosnia started developing independently after Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in 1992. The independent development of the language in Montenegro became a topic among some Montenegrin academics in the 1990s.

Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian standards varieties tend to be inclusive, i.e. to accept a wider range of idioms and to use loanwords (German, Italian and Turkish), whereas the Croatian language policy is more purist and prefers neologisms to loan-words, as well as the re-use of neglected older words. Yet there is criticism of the puristic language policy even in Croatia, as exemplified by linguist Snježana Kordić. In 2017, numerous prominent writers, scientists, journalists, activists and other public figures from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia signed the Declaration on the Common Language, faced with "the negative social, cultural and economic consequences of political manipulations of language in the current language policies of the four countries", which "include using language as an argument justifying the segregation of schoolchildren in some multiethnic environments, unnecessary 'translation' in administration or the media, inventing differences where they do not exist, bureaucratic coercion, as well as censorship (and necessarily also self-censorship), where linguistic expression is imposed as a criterion of ethnonational affiliation and a means of affirming political loyalty".

Despite the 'nationalisation' of the language in the four countries, "lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible", which all means that it is still a pluricentric language. "An examination of all the major 'levels' of language show that BCS is clearly a single language with a single grammatical system."

Writing

Script

Though all of the language variants could theoretically use either, the scripts differ:

• Bosnian and Montenegrin officially use both the Latin and Cyrillic scripts, but the Latin one is more in widespread use.
• Croatian exclusively uses the Latin alphabet.
• Serbian uses both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts. Cyrillic is the official script of the administration in Serbia and Republika Srpska, but the Latin script is the most widely used in media and especially on the Internet.

Phonemes

Three out of four standard variants have the same set of 30 regular phonemes, so the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Latin and Serbian Cyrillic alphabets map one to one with one another and with the phoneme inventory, while Montenegrin alphabet has 32 regular phonemes, the additional two being ⟨Ś⟩ and ⟨Ź⟩.

Some linguists analyse the yat reflexes ⟨je⟩ and ⟨ije⟩, commonly realised as in Croatian and Bosnian dialects, as a separate phoneme – "jat diphthong" – or even two phonemes, one short and one long. There are even several proposals by Croatian linguists for an orthography reform concerning these two diphthongs, but they have not been seriously considered for implementation.

The standardisation of Montenegrin in 2009 has introduced two new letters, ⟨Ś⟩ and ⟨Ź⟩, for the sounds and respectively. These are optional spellings of the digraphs ⟨sj⟩ and ⟨zj⟩. Critics argue that and are merely allophones of /sj/ and /zj/ in Herzegovinian dialects such as Montenegrin, and therefore the new letters are not required for an adequate orthography.

Most dialects of Serbia and Montenegro originally lack the phoneme /x/, instead having /j/, /v/, or nothing (silence). /x/ was introduced with language unification, and the Serbian and Montenegrin standards allow for some doublets such as snaja–snaha and hajde–ajde. However, in other words, especially those of foreign origin, ⟨h⟩ is mandatory.

In some regions of Croatia and Bosnia, the sounds for letters ⟨č⟩ (realised as in most other dialects) and ⟨ć⟩ merged or nearly merged, usually into . The same happened with their voiced counterparts, i.e. ⟨dž⟩ () and ⟨đ⟩ () merged into . As result, speakers of those dialects often have difficulties distinguishing these sounds.

Orthography

The Serbian variety usually phonetically transcribes foreign names and words (although both transcription and transliteration are allowed), whereas the Croatian standard usually transliterates. Bosnian and Montenegrin accept both models, but transliteration is often preferred.

Also, when the subject of the future tense is omitted, producing a reversal of the infinitive and auxiliary "ću", only the final "i" of the infinitive is orthographically elided in Croatian and Bosnian, whereas in Serbian and Montenegrin the two have merged into a single word:

• "Uradit ću to." (Croatian/Bosnian)
• "Uradiću to." (Serbian/Montenegrin)

Grammar

Accentuation

In general, the Shtokavian dialects that represent the foundation of the four standard varieties have four pitch accents on stressed syllables: falling tone on a short vowel, written e.g. ⟨ı̏⟩ in dictionaries; rising tone on a short vowel, written e.g. ⟨ì⟩; falling tone on a long vowel, written e.g. ⟨î⟩; and rising tone on a long vowel, written e.g. ⟨í⟩. In addition, the following unstressed vowel may be either short, ⟨i⟩, or long, ⟨ī⟩. In declension and verb conjugation, accent shifts, both by type and position, are very frequent.

The distinction between four accents and preservation of post accent lengths is common in vernaculars of western Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in parts of Serbia, as well as in parts of Croatia with a strong Serb presence. In addition, a distinct characteristics of some vernaculars is stress shift to proclitics, e.g. phrase u Bosni (in Bosnia) will be pronounced /ǔ bosni/ instead of /u bôsni/ as in northern parts of Serbia.

The northern vernaculars in Serbia also preserve the four-accent system, but the unstressed lengths have been shortened or disappeared in some positions. However, the shortening of post-accent lengths is in progress in all Shtokavian vernaculars, even in those most conservative in Montenegro. Stress shift to enclitics is, however, in northern Serbia rare and mostly limited to negative verb constructs (ne znam = I don't know > /nê znaːm/).

The situation in Croatia, is however, different. A large proportion of speakers of Croatian, especially those coming from Zagreb, do not distinguish between rising and falling accents. This is considered to be a feature of the Zagreb dialect, which has strong Kajkavian influence, rather than standard Croatian.

Regardless of vernacular differences, all three standard varieties exclusively promote the Neo-Shtokavian four-accentual system. Both dialects that are considered to be the basis of standard Serbian (Eastern Herzegovinian and Šumadija-Vojvodina dialects) have four accents.

Phonetics

Morphology

There are three principal "pronunciations" (izgovori/изговори) of the Shtokavian dialect that differ in their reflexes of the Proto-Slavic vowel jat. Illustrated by the Common Slavic word for "child", dětę, they are:

• dite in the Ikavian pronunciation
• dijete in the Ijekavian pronunciation
• dete in the Ekavian pronunciation

The Serbian language recognises Ekavian and Ijekavian as equally valid pronunciations, whereas Croatian, Montenegrin and Bosnian accept only the Ijekavian pronunciation. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (regardless of the official language) and in Montenegro, the Ijekavian pronunciation is used almost exclusively.

Ikavian pronunciation is nonstandard, and is limited to dialectal use in Dalmatia, Lika, Istria, central Bosnia (area between Vrbas and Bosna), Western Herzegovina, Bosanska Krajina, Slavonia and northern Bačka (Vojvodina). So, for example:

A few Croatian linguists have tried to explain the following differences in morphological structure for some words, with the introduction of a new vowel, "jat diphthong". This is not the opinion of most linguists.

Sometimes this leads to confusion: Serbian and Montenegrin poticati (to stem from) is in Croatian and Bosnian "to encourage". Croatian and Bosnian "to stem from" is potjecati, whereas Serbian and Montenegrin for "encourage" is podsticati.

Standard Bosnian allows both variants, and ambiguities are resolved by preferring the Croatian variant; this is a general practice for Serbian–Croatian ambiguities.

The phoneme /x/ (written as h) has been volatile in eastern South Slavic dialects. In Serbian, Montenegrin and some Croatian dialects (including some of those in Slavonia), it has been replaced with /j/, /v/, or elided, and subsequent standardisation sanctioned those forms:

However, /x/ and /f/ have been kept in many words as a distinct feature of Bosnian speech and language tradition, particularly under influence of Turkish and Arabic, and even introduced in some places where it etymologically did not exist. Those forms were in the mid 1990s also accepted in the orthography of the Bosnian language. However, 2018, in the new issue of the Orthography of the Bosnian language, words without the phoneme /x/ (written as "h") are accepted due to their prevalence in language practice.

Because the Ijekavian pronunciation is common to all official standards, it will be used for examples on this page. Other than this, examples of different morphology are:

Internationalisms

Also many internationalisms and transliterations are different:

(cf. German organisieren, konstruieren, analysieren)

Historically, modern-age internationalisms entered Bosnian and Croatian mostly through German and Italian, Montenegrin mostly through Italian, whereas they entered Serbian through French and Russian, so different localisation patterns were established based on those languages. Also, Greek borrowings came to Serbian directly, but through Latin into Croatian:

Most of terms for chemical elements are different: for international names, Bosnian and Croatian use -ij where Serbian and Montenegrin have -ijum (uranij–uranijum). In some native names, Croatian has -ik where Serbian and Montenegrin have -(o)nik (kisik–kiseonik "oxygen", vodik–vodonik "hydrogen"), and Bosnian accepts all variants. Yet others are totally different (dušik–azot 'nitrogen', kositar–kalaj 'tin'). Some element names are the same: srebro (silver), zlato (gold), bakar (copper).

Some other imported words differ by grammatical gender, feminine words having an -a suffix and masculine words having a zero-suffix:

Pronouns

In Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian, the pronoun what is što when used as a relative, but šta when used as an interrogative; the latter applies also to relative sentences with interrogative meaning. Croatian uses što in all contexts (but in colloquial speech, "šta" is often used).

This is applicable only to the nominative and the accusative – in all other cases, the standards have the same forms: čega, čemu etc. for što.

In Croatian, the pronoun who has the form tko, whereas in Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin it has ko, but again, in colloquial speech, the initial "t" is usually omitted. The declension is the same: kome, koga, etc. In addition, Croatian uses komu as an alternative form in the dative case.

The locative pronoun kamo is only used in Croatian:

Syntax

Infinitive versus subjunctive

With modal verbs such as ht(j)eti (want) or moći (can), the infinitive is prescribed in Croatian, whereas the construction da (that/to) + present tense is preferred in Serbian and Montenegrin. This subjunctive of sorts is possibly an influence of the Balkan sprachbund. Again, both alternatives are present and allowed in Bosnian (the first one is preferred in orthography, the latter is more common in colloquial language).

Here is an example of a yat reflection that is the same in everything but the syntax: The sentence "I want to do that" could be translated with any of

• Hoću to da uradim.
• Hoću to učiniti.

This difference partly extends to the future tense, which in Serbo-Croatian is formed in a similar manner to English, using (elided) present of verb "ht(j)eti" → "hoću"/"hoćeš"/… > "ću"/"ćeš"/… as auxiliary verb. Here, the infinitive is formally required in both variants:

• Ja ću to uraditi. (I shall do that.)

However, when da+present is used instead, it can additionally express the subject's will or intention to perform the action:

• Ja ću to da uradim. (I will do that.)

This form is more frequently used in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia. The nuances in meaning between the three constructs can be slight or even lost (especially in Serbian dialects), in similar manner as the shall/will distinction varies across English dialects. Overuse of da+present is regarded as Germanism in Serbian linguistic circles, and it can occasionally lead to awkward sentences.

Interrogative constructs

In interrogative and relative constructs, standard Croatian prescribes using the interrogative participle li after the verb, whereas standard Serbian also allows forms with da li. (A similar situation exists in French, where a question can be formed either by inversion or using est-ce que, and can be stretched in English with modal verbs):

• Možeš li? (Can you?) (Croatian)
• Both Možeš li? and Da li možeš? (Can you, Do you can?) are common in Serbian.

In addition, non-standard je li ("Is it?"), usually elided to je l' , is vernacular for forming all kinds of questions, e.g. Je l' možeš?. In standard language, it is used only in questions involving auxiliary verb je (="is"):

• Je li moguće? (Is it possible?) (Croatian)
• Both Je li moguće? and Da li je moguće? are common in Serbian.

In summary, the English sentence "I want to know whether I'll start working" would typically read:

• Želim da znam da li ću da počnem da radim. (spoken Serbian)
• Želim znati hoću li početi raditi. (spoken Croatian)

although many in-between combinations could be met in vernacular speech, depending on speaker's dialect, idiolect, or even mood.

The Croatian avoidance of da li is largely an expression of prescriptivism. In everyday speech in Croatia, da li is used, in fact, extensively, but avoided in written language.

Trebati

In formal Croatian, verb trebati (need or should) is transitive, as in English. In Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian, it is impersonal, like the French il faut, or the English construct is necessary (to); the grammatical subject is either omitted (it), or presents the object of needing; the person that needs something is an indirect grammatical object, in the dative case. The latter usage is, however, also encountered in Croatian, especially in spoken form.):

Vocabulary

Examples

The greatest differences between the standards is in vocabulary. However, most words are well understood, and even occasionally used, in the other standards. In most cases, common usage favours one variant and the other(s) are regarded as "imported", archaic, dialectal, or simply more rarely used.

Note that there are only a few differences that can cause confusion, for example the verb "ličiti" means "to look like" in Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian, but in Croatian it is "sličiti"; "ličiti" means "to paint (a house)". However, "ličiti" is often used Croatian in the meaning of "to look like".

The word "bilo" means "white" in the Ikavian accent, "pulse" in official Croatian, and "was" in all official languages, although it is not so confusing when pronounced because of different accentuation (bîlo or bílo = white, bı̏lo = pulse, bílo = was).

In Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian, the word izvanredan (extraordinary) has only the positive meaning (excellent), vanredan being used for "unusual" or "out of order"; however, only izvanredan is used in Croatian in both contexts.

Also note that in most cases Bosnian officially allows almost all of the listed variants in the name of "language richness", and ambiguities are resolved by preferring the Croatian variant. Bosnian vocabulary writers based their decisions on usage of certain words in literary works by Bosnian authors.

Names of the months

The months have Slavic-derived names in Croatian, wheres Serbian and Bosnian have almost the same set of Latin-derived names as English. The Slavic-derived names may also be used in Bosnian, but the Latinate names are preferred.

The Latin-derived names of the months are well understood in Croatia and are used in several fixed expressions such as Prvi Maj (May 1), Prvi April (April Fools' Day) or Oktobarska revolucija (October Revolution).

In spoken Croatian and in western Bosnia it is common to refer to a month by its number. Therefore, many speakers refer to the month of May as peti mjesec ("the fifth month"). Saying sedmi peti (seventh of fifth) would be the equivalent of May 7.

Miscellaneous

• Pronunciation and vocabulary differs among dialects spoken within Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Bosnia themselves. Each larger region has its own pronunciation and it is reasonably easy to guess where a speaker is from by their accent and/or vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary can be particularly different from the official standards.

This is one of the arguments for claiming it is all one and the same language: there are more differences within the territories of the official languages themselves than there are between the standards (all four of which are based on the same Neo-Štokavian dialect). This is not surprising, of course, for if the lines between the varieties were drawn not politically but linguistically, then there would be no borders at all. As Pavle Ivić explains, the continuous migration of Slavic populations during the five hundred years of Turkish rule has scattered the local dialects all around.

• When Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs talk amongst each other, the other speakers usually understand them completely, save for the odd word, and quite often, they will know what that means (much as with British and American English speakers). Nevertheless, when communicating with each other, there is a habit to use terms that are familiar to everyone, with the intent to avoid not being understood and/or confusion. For example, to avoid confusion with the names of the months, they can be referred to as the "first month", "second month" and so on, or the Latin-derived names can be used if "first month" itself is ambiguous, which makes it perfectly understandable for everyone. In Serbia, the names of the months are the same Latin-derived names as in English so again they are understandable for anyone who knows English or another Western European language.
• Even during the time of Yugoslavia it was common for publishers to do some adaptations to "Eastern" or "Western" standard. Especially translations were and are changed by the lectors. It is to be considered that Croatian and Serbian standards have completely different scientific terminology. Carl Jung's masterpiece "Psychology and Alchemy" was translated into Croatian in 1986, and adapted in the late 1990s into Serbian. Ivo Andrić had some problems in Croatia with publishers who changed his infinitive constructions and other expressions. Eventually, he managed to forbid that kind of intervention. In Montenegro, the publisher CID switched from the Ekavian to the Ijekavian after Montenegro's independence.

Language samples

The following samples, taken from article 1 to 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are "synonymous texts, translated as literally as possible" in the sense of Ammon designed to demonstrate the differences between the standard varieties treated in this article in a continuous text. However, even when there is a different translation, it does not necessarily mean that the words or expression from other languages do not exist in a respective language, e.g. the words osoba and pravni subjekt exist in all languages, but in this context, the word osoba is preferred in Croatian and Bosnian and the word pravni subjekt is favored in Serbian and Montenegrin. The word vjeroispovijest is mentioned just in the Montenegrin translation, but the same word exists in other standard varieties too - albeit in Serbian in the Ekavian variant veroispovest.

See also

• Abstand and ausbau languages
• Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro
• Declaration on the Common Language
• Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language
• South Slavic dialect continuum
• Language secessionism in Serbo-Croatian
• Mutual intelligibility
• Serbo-Croatian phonology

References

1. Bunčić, Daniel (2008). "Die (Re-)Nationalisierung der serbokroatischen Standards" [The (Re-)Nationalisation of Serbo-Croatian Standards]. In Kempgen, Sebastian (ed.). Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Ohrid, 2008. Welt der Slaven (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 93. OCLC 238795822.
2. ^ Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W. COBISS 43144034. Contents.
3. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2018) . Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. p. 430. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. S2CID 220918333. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
4. ^ Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. S2CID 150383965.
5. Mader Skender, Mia (2022). "Schlussbemerkung" [Summary]. Die kroatische Standardsprache auf dem Weg zur Ausbausprache [The Croatian standard language on the way to ausbau language] (PDF). UZH Dissertations (in German). Zurich: University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Slavonic Studies. pp. 196–197. doi:10.5167/uzh-215815. Retrieved 8 June 2022. Obwohl das Kroatische sich in den letzten Jahren in einigen Gebieten, vor allem jedoch auf lexikalischer Ebene, verändert hat, sind diese Änderungen noch nicht bedeutend genug, dass der Terminus Ausbausprache gerechtfertigt wäre. Ausserdem können sich Serben, Kroaten, Bosnier und Montenegriner immer noch auf ihren jeweiligen Nationalsprachen unterhalten und problemlos verständigen. Nur schon diese Tatsache zeigt, dass es sich immer noch um eine polyzentrische Sprache mit verschiedenen Varietäten handelt.
6. Kordić, Snježana (2024). "Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries" (PDF). In Nomachi, Motoki; Kamusella, Tomasz (eds.). Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. pp. 168–169. doi:10.4324/9781003034025-11. ISBN 978-0-367-47191-0. OCLC 1390118985. S2CID 259576119. SSRN 4680766. COBISS.SR 125229577. COBISS 171014403. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-23.
7. Jonke, Ljudevit (1968). "Razvoj hrvatskoga književnog jezika u 20. stoljeću" [The Development of the Croatian language in the 20th century]. Jezik (in Serbo-Croatian). 16 (1): 18. ISSN 0021-6925.
8. ^ Ćalić, Jelena (2021). "Pluricentricity in the classroom: the Serbo-Croatian language issue for foreign language teaching at higher education institutions worldwide". Sociolinguistica: European Journal of Sociolinguistics. 35 (1). De Gruyter: 113–140. doi:10.1515/soci-2021-0007. ISSN 0933-1883. The debate about the status of the Serbo-Croatian language and its varieties has recently shifted (again) towards a position which looks at the internal variation within Serbo-Croatian through the prism of linguistic pluricentricity
9. Babić, Stjepan (2004). Hrvanja hrvatskoga [Croatian Language Quarrels] (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. p. 36. ISBN 978-953-0-61428-4.
10. Milutinović, Zoran (2011). "Review of the Book Jezik i nacionalizam" (PDF). The Slavonic and East European Review. 89 (3): 522–523. ISSN 0037-6795. OCLC 744233642. ZDB-ID 209925-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 October 2012. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
11. Jonke, Ljudevit (1955). "Drugi i treći sastanak Pravopisne komisije" [The second and third meeting of The Orthographic Commission]. Jezik (in Serbo-Croatian). 4 (2): 59. ISSN 0021-6925.
12. Jonke, Ljudevit (1961). "Pravopis hrvatskosrpskoga književnog jezika" [Serbo-Croatian Spelling-Book]. Jezik (in Serbo-Croatian). 9 (2): 57–59. ISSN 0021-6925.
13. Mappes-Niediek, Norbert (2005). Die Ethno-Falle: der Balkan-Konflikt und was Europa daraus lernen kann [The Ethnic Trap: the Balkan conflict and what Europe can learn from it] (in German). Berlin: Christoph Links Verlag. pp. 18, 64, 224. ISBN 978-3-86153-367-2. OCLC 61665869.
14. ^ Blum, Daniel (2002). Sprache und Politik : Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945–1991) [Language and Policy: Language Policy and Linguistic Nationalism in the Republic of India and the Socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991)]. Beiträge zur Südasienforschung (in German). Vol. 192. Würzburg: Ergon. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-89913-253-3. OCLC 51961066.
15. Gak, Vladimir G. (1989). "K tipologii form jazykovoj politiki" [Towards a typology of language policy]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (in Russian). 5: 122–123.
16. Gröschel, Bernhard (2003). "Postjugoslavische Amtssprachenregelungen – Soziolinguistische Argumente gegen die Einheitlichkeit des Serbokroatischen?" [Post-Yugoslav Official Languages Regulations – Sociolinguistic Arguments Against Consistency of Serbo-Croatian?]. Srpski Jezik (in German). 8 (1–2): 160–161, 135–196. ISSN 0354-9259. Retrieved 8 January 2023. (COBISS-Sr) Archived 2018-09-28 at the Wayback Machine.
17. Kordić, Snježana (2008). "Purismo e censura linguistica in Croazia oggi" [Purism and censorship of language in Croatia nowadays]. Studi Slavistici (in Italian). 5: 281–297. ISSN 1824-761X. OCLC 835514860. SSRN 3451442. CROSBI 427285. ZDB-ID 2182164-1. Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
18. Kordić, Snježana (2006). "Sprache und Nationalismus in Kroatien" [Language and Nationalism in Croatia] (PDF). In Symanzik, Bernhard (ed.). Studia Philologica Slavica: Festschrift für Gerhard Birkfellner zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern: Teilband I (PDF). Münstersche Texte zur Slavistik, vol. 4 (in German). Berlin: Lit. pp. 337–348. ISBN 978-3-8258-9891-5. OCLC 315818880. SSRN 3438896. CROSBI 426593. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 8 August 2018. (ÖNB).
19. Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Što je (ne)standardno za kroatiste?" [What is (non)standard for Croatists?] (PDF). In Bierich, Alexander (ed.). Varietäten im Slavischen (PDF). Heidelberger Publikationen zur Slavistik, Linguistische Reihe, vol. 17 (in Serbo-Croatian). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp. 313–330. ISBN 978-3-631-57010-4. LCCN 2009502912. OCLC 319695935. S2CID 149127460. SSRN 3439290. CROSBI 426280. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
20. Trudgill, Peter (30 November 2017). "Time to Make Four Into One". The New European. p. 46. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
21. Nosovitz, Dan (11 February 2019). "What Language Do People Speak in the Balkans, Anyway?". Atlas Obscura. Archived from the original on 23 May 2019. Retrieved 3 June 2019.
22. Bailyn, John Frederick (2010). "To what degree are Croatian and Serbian the same language? Evidence from a Translation Study" (PDF). Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 18 (2): 181–219. ISSN 1068-2090. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 October 2019. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
23. A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian, Wayles Brown and Theresa Alt, SEELRC 2004
24. ^ Lexical, Pragmatic, and Positional Effects on Prosody in Two Dialects of Croatian and Serbian, Rajka Smiljanic Archived 2007-08-18 at the Wayback Machine, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-97117-9
25. ^ Examples are given by http://hjp.znanje.hr/.
26. ^ Examples are given by Rječnik bosanskog jezika. Sarajevo, 2007. Rječnik bosanskoga jezika. Sarajevo, 2010.
27. ^ Examples are given by Rečnik srpskoga jezika. Novi Sad, 2011.
28. ^ Examples are given by Pravopis crnogorskoga jezika i rječnik crnogorskoga jezika. Podgorica, 2009.
29. Jahić, Dževad (1999). Bosanski Jezik U 100 Pitanja i 100 Odgovora (in Serbo-Croatian). Ljiljan. pp. 220–221. ISBN 9789958220630.
30. Jahić, Ahmed. "Glas H u bosanskom jeziku".
31. Halilović, Senahid (26 April 2018). "Halilović za N1: Dužni smo osluškivati javnu riječ" [Halilović for N1: We Have to Listen to the Public Word]. TV show N1 na jedan (host Nikola Vučić) (in Serbo-Croatian). Sarajevo: N1 (TV channel). Event occurs at 6–13 minutes. Archived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
32. ^ "Trebati" (in Serbo-Croatian). Hrvatski jezični portal.
33. "VI.Sintaksa §4", Kartoteka jezičkih nedoumica (in Serbo-Croatian), Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika
34. All month names are different. See below for full table.
    
35. ^ Roland Sussex; Paul V. Cubberley (2006). The Slavic languages. Cambridge University Press. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-521-22315-7. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
36. Bosnian linguists claim that word "nogomet" is widely used in Bosnian (same as in Croatian); still, the form "fudbal" is in majority use among Bosnians (see FK Sarajevo, FK Željezničar Sarajevo and FK Velež), but NK Čelik).
37. Ammon, Ulrich (1995). Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: das Problem der nationalen Varietäten [German Language in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: The Problem of National Varieties] (in German). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 6. OCLC 33981055.
38. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Hrvatski (Croatian)". Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
39. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Bosnian (Latin script)". Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
40. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Serbian (Latin) (Srpski)". Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
41. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Montenegrin". Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
42. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights - English". Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

External links

• Piper, Predrag (2008-05-01). "O prirodi gramatičkih razlika između srpskog i hrvatskog jezika" (zip/pdf) (in Serbo-Croatian). Jezik danas, Matica srpska. p. Lm159.3.pdf:840.
• Kovačić, Marko (December 2005). "Serbian and Croatian: One language or languages?". Jezikoslovlje. 6 (2).

• Serbo-Croatian language
• Bosnian language
• Croatian language
• Montenegrin language
• Serbian language
• Comparison of Slavic languages
• Linguistic controversies