The uniqueness of southern Slavonic languages : one dialect as the base for four standard languages

Abstract

The phenomenon in which one dialect can be the base for even four literary languages is caused by several factors. Past attempts to create one standard language on the basis of the same dialect, common to several Slavonic nations, while trying to maintain some differences in phonological, grammatical and lexical systems turned out to be impermanent in spite of the existence of the community for almost 150 years. The main reason for such a situation was the lack of a full and real acceptance of the 1st ‘selection’ phase of the standardization process. With the passing of time the next phases of Fishman’s model were not being fulfilled. As a result the politically required unification of the language did not take place. On the contrary its differentiation was taking place and the uniform Serbo-Croatian language turned out to be one more utopia of contemporary times. The Shtokavian dialect, covering a vast area, created in the 12th century in Southern Slavonic territory could give rise to more than one standard language due to the rich internal diversity of the grammatical and lexical systems which allowed the possibility of choice and language differentiation. The choice of Shtokavian dialect was the only possibility for Serbs and the inhabitants of Bosnia and Hercegovina as well as Montenegro while Croats did not make use of Chakavian and Kaykavian dialects, existing in their territory, for such purposes. Potential possibility of norm/language modification, that is the reconstruction phase can be achieved by incorporating dialect features into the standard language. This was utilized for the codification of the Montenegrin language. Another possible step in this phase is to enliven the old words and to introduce regionalisms which was done in the Croatian language in Croatia and in Bosnia and Hercegovina as well as in the Bosnian language in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Fishman’s Model (1974) is accepted as an idealized model for the presentation of the general phases of the creation of a standard language. It is, however, too abstract for the description of each language without modification. The inventory of sociolinguistic factors is not sufficient as it does not take the strictly political factor strongly enough into consideration. However this political factor may have a decisive influence on the process of standardization. Therefore all the factors in Fishman’s model should be discussed in each language separately.