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.
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 Bosnian 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? I 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 that must be addressed.
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 in this sense 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 definable. 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 objects identifiable as languages specific to particular inividuals. Instead, it needs 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. And even once we imagine obtaining such a measure, the result would be that at least two thirds of each ethnic group have languages which are more similar to those of at least two thirds of any other among the three groups, than to the remaining third of their own. 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. And denying that all three groups walk in various ways which can undergo different groupings - none of which matches the ethnic boundaries. Or alternatively, asserting that there is just one way of walking, which is the Serbian walk, and Bosniaks and Croats lack their own walk and use the Serbian one instead. As if a distinct way of walking can be identified, and conceived as belonging to an ethnic group. 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).
Returning to the concepts of conservativeness 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment