Here are the opinions of various Croatian linguists, relevant to the problem of Serbo-Croatian language.
Mate Kapović, Ph.D. In comparative Balto-Slavic linguistics, is young and prominent Croatian Slavist. Has published a university handbook on Proto-Indo-European[1], and is currently writing Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije ("History of Croatian Accentuation"). Published numerous articles, and participated on major conferences such as IWoBA (of which he was one of the founders). Currently teaches Proto-Indo-European phonology and morphology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Also an expert on (Serbo-)Croatian dialectology. He recently published an article is in the magazine Kolo, published by the top Croatian cultural institution Matica hrvatska, in a special issue celebrating the 40th anniversery of the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language, which is generally perceived an extremely important event in the emancipation of "Croatian language". However, as a scientist, even Kapović couldn't escape from some of the undisputed facts[2]:
Dijalekatski gledano, hrvatski su i srpski nedvojbeno jedan jezik.
Translation:
From the dialectal viewpoint, Croatian and Serbian are doubtless one language.
Postoji i realna potreba da za standardni hrvatski, srpski, bošnjački i crnogorski jezik postoji i jedan sveobuhvatni naziv.
Translation:
There is a real need to encompass the standard Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Motenegrin by a single term.
Note the adjective standard - the common term that would encompass the Neoštokavian words that are shared by all of the standards. He later laments how the term Serbo-Croatian is inappropriate for various political reasons and so on. However, he admits that the term is needed (be it "BCS", or whatever).
Dubravko Škiljan, recently deceased, wrote several dozen books, some 250 papers, was a regular professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.
On the question on the differences between Croatian and Serbian language, in an interview in 1996 to the Serbian daily Vreme, he responds:
Pitate to sasvim krivu osobu, jer ja sam valjda posljednji u Hrvatskoj koji javno tvrdi da su tipološki i strukturalno, dakle sa stajališta karakteristika koje su inherentne jezičkoj strukturi, hrvatski i srpski jezik - pa i bošnjački i crnogorski - još jedan te isti jezik. Čini se da se to može dokazivati, na primjer, time što je njihov fonološki sistem jedan. Najbliži tome da se izdvoji kao poseban jezik nije hrvatski nego crnogorski - onog trenutka kada u svoj standardni jezik uvedu meko Š, Ž i Z kao posebne foneme, koji će vjerovatno imati, što nije neophodno, i posebne grafičke znakove, oni ce napraviti puno odlučniji korak nego što su sve promjene učinjene ovdje u svrhu razdvajanja jezika. Jer, to je nešto što čvrsto definira jezičnu strukturu, broj ili sistem fonema
You are asking the wrong person, because I guess I am one of the last people in Croatia that publicly states that typological and structurally, i.e. from the viewpoints of characteristics inherent in the linguistic structure, Croatian and Serbian - and also Bosnian and Montenegrin - are still one and the same language. That can be proved, for example, by the fact that they all have the same phonological system. The most opportunistic to secede as a separate language is not Croatian but Montenegrin - at the moment it introduces soft Š, Ž i Z as separate phonemes, which it will probably have, and which is not completely necessary, and special graphemes for them, it will make a much more decisive step than all of the changes that have yet been made in separating these languages. If there is something that firmly defines the language structure, that is the number or system of phonemes
.
Commenting on the changes in the Croatian lexis during the nationalist period in the 1990s, in 1995[3]:
Ljudi su doista počeli upotrebljavati termine poput "tijekom", "obveza" ili "oporba", što znači da je tih nekoliko elemenata prihvaćeno u svakodnevnom jeziku. Međutim tendencija praktičkog razlikovanja hrvatskog od srpskog jezika u svojoj dubini nije zahvatila govornike, pa čak niti sve one koji se pismeno izražavaju. Oni ne znaju procijeniti što jest hrvatski jezik, i koji izraz se može, a koji se ne može upotrebljavati. Postoje možda samo dva-tri čovjeka koji "znaju" da su savladali taj problem razlikovanja. (1995.)
People indeed started to use the terms such as (deprecated template usage)tijekom, (deprecated template usage)obveza or (deprecated template usage)oporba, which means that some of these elements have entered the everyday speech. However, the tendency of practical differentiation of Croatian and Serbian language in its depth has not yet caught all the speakers, not even those that express themselves literary. The do not know how to estimate what is Croatian language, and what expression can, and which cannot be used. There are perhaps only two-three persons that "know" how to deal with that differentiation issue.
Ivo Pranjković, one of the top Croatian linguists, regular professor of Croatian language at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Author of numerous books and articles on Croatian language (from grammars to sociolinguistic commentaries). In his 2006 interview in Croatian daily Slobodna Dalmacija, he states the following[4]:
Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku, i to treba jednom konačno jasno reći. Ako se netko s tim ne slaže, neka izloži argumente.
Translation:
On standardological level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and even Motenegrin are different varieties, but of the same language. Hence, on a purely linguistic level, i.e. on the genetic level, on the typological level, we're dealing with one language, and that fact finally has to be clearly stated. If someone doesn't agree with that, let him state his arguments.
A report on the symposium held in Graz in April 2007, on the differences on modern standard B/C/S by Egon Fekete:[5]
Sredinom aprila održan je prvi od tri predviđena međunarodna simpozijuma, na kojem se raspravljalo o opštim uslovima diferencijacije B/H/S i o fonetskim, fonološkim ortoepskim i ortografskim razlikama u prepoznavanju B/H/S govora. Svoja istraživanja su izlagali lingvisti iz Graca, Minhena, Zagreba, Berlina, Osla, Splita, Sofije, Sarajeva, Ljubljane, Pule, kao i lingvisti iz Beograda i Novog Sada.
Saopštenja su obuhvatala pitanja iz sociolingvističkog i lingvopolitičkog statusa standardnih jezika na novoštokavskoj osnovici (I. Pranjković, Zagreb), probleme semantičke diferencijacije u tri entiteta (D. Šipka, Šandler), sociolingvističku situaciji u Crnoj Gori (S. Monesland, Oslo), planiranje statusa i korpusa u tri jezička standarda (J. Granić, Split), fonetsko-fonološke razlike kao teorijski problem (B. Tošović, Grac), fonetsko‑ortografske razlike između tri jezika (J. Silić, Zagreb), pravopisne i fonetske razlike među njima (I. Čodić, Sarajevo), a o tome su govorili i M. Okuka (Minhen), V. Ajsman (Grac) i drugi.
Srpski lingvisti bavili su se analizama vokalskog sistema (M. Marković – I. Bjelaković, N. Sad), pitanjima pravopisa (LJ. Popović, M. Dešić), akcenatskim sistemom (M. Dešić, E. Fekete i M. Tasić, Beograd), kao i drugim aktuelnim problemima u novijoj jezičkoj praksi.
Iako o ovoj inicijativi i programu Slavističkog centra u Gracu postoje u našim krugovima izvesne nedoumice i sumnje, valja istaći da razloga za to ipak nema. Pokazalo se da osnovna ideja simpozijuma nema tendenciju da se naučno potvrdi i inauguriše postojanje tri zasebna jezika. U tematskom segmentu simpozijuma bile su veoma ozbiljno, argumentovano i nepristrasno opisane i razmatrane razlikosti u savremenoj jezičkoj produkciji i praksi nastale pre i posle raspada jugoslovenske državne zajednice i jezičkog raskola. Dakle, nastojalo se da se objektivno, bez ikakvih političkih konotacija, opiše savremena jezička praksa i komunikacija u tri državna entiteta i ukaže na eventualne ili stvarne razlike među njima. Naprotiv, može se reći da su istraživanja i saopštenja na simpozijumu, uopšteno uzev, implicitno rezultirala zaključkom da bitnih, dakle sistemskih, razlika među posmatranim govornim entitetima zapravo nema.
Translation:
During the Apri the first of the proposed three international symposiums was held, which discussed the general conditions of the B/C/S differentiation and ghd phonetic, phonological, orthoepic and orthographical differences in the recognition of B/C/S speeches. Research by the linguists from Graz, Munchen, Zagre, Berlin, Oslo, Split, Sofia, Sarejevo, Ljubljana, Pula was displayed, as well as those from Belgrade and Novi Sad.
Presentations dealt with the questions of sociolinguistic and linguopolitical status of the standard languages with the Neoštokavian basis (I. Pranjković, Zagreb), problems of semantic differentiation into three entities (D. Šipka, Šandler), sociolinguistic situation in Montenegro (S. Monesland, Oslo), planning of the status and corpus in all three standards (J. Granić, Split), phonetic-phonological differences as a theoretical issue (B. Tošović, Grac), phonetic-orthographical differences among the three languages (J. Silić, Zagreb), orthographical and phonetic differences among them (I. Čodić, Sarejevo), and all of this was also discussed by M. Okuka (Munchen); V. Eisman (Graz) and others.
Serbian lingusts dealt with the analyzes of the vocalic system (M. Marković – I. Bjelaković, N. Sad), the questions of orthography (LJ. Popović, M. Dešić), accentual system (M. Dešić, E. Fekete i M. Tasić, Beograd), and other current problems in the newer linguistic practice.
Although this initiative and the program of the Slavic Center in Graz has stirred certain doubts and prejudices in our linguistic circles, one has to clearly say that there are no real reasons for them. It was demonstrated that the basic idea of symposium does not have the tendency to scientifically confirm and inaugurates the existence of three separate languages. In the thematic segment of the symposium, the differences in the current linguistic production and practice before and after the disintegration of the Yugoslav state union were seriously, argumentatively and impartially described and analyzed. In other words, it was attempted to objectively, without any political connotations, to describe the modern linguistic practice and the communication in three state entities, and to point the possible or real difference among them. As it turns out, it can be said that the research and the statements on the symposium, in general, implicitly resulted with the conclusion that essential, e.e. systematic, differences between the observed speech entities are in fact none.
The opinion of a Serbian linguists, professor Ranko Bugarski, from the faculty of philology in Belgrade. Professor Bugarski served as the vice-president of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), president of the European Linguistic Society (SLE), also being a member of the European Academy of Arts and Sciences. This interview was given shortly after professor Bugarski held a series of six lectures on the American universities, on the fate of Serbo-Croatian language[6]:
Srpskohrvatski jezik živi
'Ovu činjenicu priznaje i međunarodna struka, koja nastavlja baratati pojmom i imenom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Srpskohrvatski je danas jedan lingvistički jezik u obliku tri politička jezika.'
Profesor Filološkog fakulteta u Beogradu Ranko Bugarski rekao je da "jezici ne nastaju političkim dekretom" i da "u lingvističko komunikacijskoj razini srpskohrvatski jezik živi".
"Iako je službeno ukinut i ne postoji u političko simboličkom smislu, srpskohrvatski jezik nastavlja da živi", tvrdi profesor Bugarski u intervjuu za novosadski Dnevnik.
"Govornici tri nacionalna jezika (srpskog, hrvatskog i bošnjačkog) na koje je on rastočen sporazumijevaju se glatko kao i ranije, a neki ga psihološki i dalje doživljavaju kao svoj maternji jezik", istaknuo je Bugarski.
"Ovu činjenicu priznaje i međunarodna srtuka, koja nastavlja baratati pojmom i imenom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Najkraće, srpskohrvatski je danas jedan lingvistički jezik u obliku tri politička jezika", zaključio je profesor Bugarski.
On je rekao da je srpskohrvatski jezik u procesu raspada Jugoslavije "zloupotrebljen za raspaljivanje ratne histerije", da bi konačno i sam "postao žrtva rata", tijekom kojeg je, kako je rekao, "sahranjen u zajedničkoj grobnici s jugoslavenskom federacijom".
"U regiji još uvijek živi, inače nadvladana, romantičarsko nacionalistička ideja s kraja 18. stoljeća o svetom trojstvu jezika, nacije i države, po kojoj svaki narod mora imati jezik koji pripada samo njemu", rekao je on.
Serbo-Croatian language is still alive
'This fact is today internationally recognized by the linguistic profession, which continues to use the concept and term of Serbo-Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian is today one linguistic language in the form of three political languages.'
The professor of the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy told us that "languages are not created by a political decree", and that "in the linguistic-communication level, the Serbo-Croatian language is still live".
"Although it has officially be terminated and it does not exist in the political-symbolical sense, the Serbo-Croatian language continues to live on", claims the professor Bugarski in an interview for Novi Sad's Dnevnik.
"The speakers of the three national languages (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) to which it disintegrated communicate among themselves as painlessly as they did before, and some of them still conceive it psychologically as their mother tongue", emphasizes Bugarski.
"This fact is acknowledged by the internatual linguistic circles, which still continue to use the term and the name of Serbo-Croatia language. Essentially, it can be said that the Serbo-Croatian is today one linguistic language in three political language forms", concludes professor Bugarski.
He further notices that the Serbo-Croatian languge, during the period of disintegration of Yugoslavia, was "misused to enkindle the war hyteria", that in the end it would "itself would become a victim of the war", during which, he says, "it was burried in the common tomb with the Yugoslav federation".
"The region has still very much alive, otherwise obsoleted, romanticist-nationalist idea of the 18th cenutry, on the Holy Trinity of the language, nationa and state, according to which every nation must have its own exclusive language", states Bugarski.
