THE NAME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION – A REFLECTION OF
REALITY, OR UNREALISTIC DESIRES?
(Based on examples from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro)
Pavel Krejčí
Introduction
Within a country’s constitution, even though this is not obligatory, there may be texts defining
the so-called official language of the respective country. These language texts put into
constitution articles are not a mandatory prerequisite for the formalisation of a certain
language in a certain country. The use of a particular language in the public sphere can also be
regulated by the respective laws which are much broader and much more detailed in
comparison to the strict and formal articles of the constitution. In our report, we want to focus
on how, in certain years, the languages have been defined in the constitutions of some of the
former Yugoslavia countries, namely Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Our
interest in this issue was caused by the fact that during the times of communist Yugoslavia
and after the country’s disintegration, the relevant articles of the Constitution didn’t mention
only one language, but the so-called glossonyms changed, or different explanations and
additions were added to (or removed from) them. In view of our limited time, I will only
focus on some atypical formulations which appear in the Constitution of the Kingdom of
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes / of Yugoslavia (1921, 1931), the Socialist Republic of Croatia
(1974), Montenegro (2007) and Bosnia and Herzegovina 1990s, 2002).
But first let’s go back to the time when Yugoslavia was a monarchy.
Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1921), Kingdom of
Yugoslavia (1931)
From the perspective of the concept of the common language of Croats and Serbs from the
first half of the 20th
century, it is significant that this orientation was scientifically supported
as early as the period before the emergence of thе common Yugoslavian state, by the work of
Serbian linguists Vuk S. Karadžić and Djura Daničić, Croatian philologist Vatroslav Jagić,
and mainly by the scientific work of Croatian followers of the Vuk Karadžić’s language
concept (the so-called Vukovians): Tomislav Maretić, Ivan Broz, Franjo Iveković, etc. The
creation of the common South Slavonic state in December 1918 was the logical statesmanly
and political result of the previous social, cultural and language aspirations. In the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes of June 1921 (the so-called
Constitution of the Day of St. Vitus, orig. “Vidovdanski ustav”), which remained in effect
until January 1929, as well as in the next Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia of
September 1931, as regards the language it was stated that it was Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian
(“srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenački”) (Yugoslavian Constitution, 1921, Article 3). The name of the
language corresponded to the ideas of the united nation, unified under three names, but the
linguistic and philological reality was quite different: Slovenes cultivated their Slovenian
language, and the proclaimed Croatian-Serbian unity was so unstable that it was difficult to
say whether such a unity existed at all. That is why this three-member formation of the
common state or political language of Yugoslavia can be counted towards the category of
empty ideologemes, of the kind of the “Czechoslovak” language known from the period
between the two World Wars in Czechoslovakia.
Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language (1967),
Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1972, respectively 1974)
The political thawing of the second half of the 1960s, as well as the dissatisfaction of a
significant part of the Croatian scientific and cultural community with the position of the
Croatian language in Yugoslavia were reflected in the writing and the promulgation of the
Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language (“Deklaracija o
nazivu i položaju hrvatskog književnog jezika”, March 1967). Its main objective was a
constitutional change, which would make it clear right away that in Yugoslavia there were
four official languages: Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian. This was how
destroying the unity of the Serbo-Croatian language began; it was declared and specified in
the so-called Novi Sad Agreement (“Novosadski dogovor”) of 1954. The theoretical
considerations which supported the right of the Croatian language to an independent existence
were prepared by Dalibor Brozović (1970). The aspirations for Croatian language’s
emancipation were also manifested in the change of the then Croatian constitution. In a
supplement to the 1972 Constitution, and later on in the new Constitution of the Socialist
Republic of Croatia of 1974, it was already stated that for official communication (“u javnoj
upotrebi”) “Croatian literary language – a standard form of the national language of Croats
and Serbs in Croatia, which is called Croatian or Serbian”1
would be used (Croatian
Constitution, 1974, Article 138).
Article 293 clarified that the authentic texts of federal laws and other regulations were
promulgated in the SFRY State Gazette “na hrvatskom književnom jeziku, latinicom” (Ibid.).
The new Constitution of the Republic of Croatia of December 1990 defined the official
language as Croatian, with the Latin alphabet being the official one (Croatian Constitution,
1990, Article 12). It was added that in official communication, in the individual
municipalities, in addition to Croatian and the Latin alphabet, another language and the
Cyrillic alphabet or any other alphabet could also be used under the terms laid down by law.2
With the new constitution, the Croats became the first Yugoslav people to finally reject the
Novi Sad Agreement. Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro approved new constitutions
only after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia.
Declaration on the Constitutional Status of the Montenegrin Language (1994),
Constitution of Montenegro (2007)
The preparatory phase of the separation and creation of the Montenegrin literary language
took place in the 1990s and was related to the voluminous, but also to a certain degree
amateurish publications by Vojislav Nikčević (1935–2007). In 1994 a group of Montenegrins
led by the Montenegrin PEN Centre adopted a Declaration on the Constitutional Status of the
Montenegrin Language, which title is Language as a Homeland (“Jezik kao domovina.
Deklaracija Crnogorskog PEN centra o ustavnom položaju crnogorskog jezika”), because the
Montenegrins were the only nation on the territory of the former Serbo-Croatian language
whose mother tongue bore the name of a foreign nation (see Neweklowsky, 2010, p. 122).
The declarers’ objective was that in the Montenegrin constitution the glossonym Serbian be
replaced with Montenegrin. At that time, in 1995, there was also remarkable international
support in the form of the Resolution of the International PEN Center on the Montenegrin
Language (“Rezolucija Međunarodnoga PEN centra o crnogorskom jeziku”), which was
prepared during the 62nd
Congress of the International PEN Club held in Perth, Australia (see
1
Orig.: “U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik – standardni oblik
narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski”. This is one of the most complicated
definitions of an official language which we encounter in our material. There is an obvious desire to keep both
sides in a dispute satisfied, at all costs.
2
Orig.: “U Republici Hrvatskoj u službenoj je uporabi hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo. U pojedinim lokalnim
jedinicama uz hrvatski jezik i latinično pismo u službenu se uporabu može uvesti i drugi jezik te ćirilično ili koje
drugo pismo pod uvjetima propisanima zakonom”.
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crnogorski_jezik). The final phase of the Montenegrin linguistic
separation coincided with the emergence of an independent Montenegro, i.e. after 2006. The
new Constitution of Montenegro of October 2007 states that the official language is
Montenegrin, but it is added that Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian, and Croatian can also be used in
official communication (Montenegrin Constitution, 2007, Article 13).3
Traditionally, the two
alphabets are declared equal, there is no mention of a pronunciation version, but in
Montenegro, however, only Ijekavian is spoken, and there is no longer any real risk of a
Belgrade-pushed Ekavian pronunciation. Serbian linguist Miloš Kovačević (2015) indicated a
problematic moment, namely the fictitious difference between official language (“službeni
jezik”) and language in official communication (“jezik u službenoj upotrebi”).
The name Montenegrin language appeared in the draft Constitution of the Kingdom of
Montenegro of 1941, prepared by the Italian occupation authority. It stated in Article 3 that
the official languages were Montenegrin and Italian (Burzanović, 2010).4
But this constitution
never came into force. However, this formulation documented the rejection of Serbia and
anything Serbian of the time, and was not the result of a sociolinguistic development or of a
scientific linguistic activity.
The Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution on the Issue of Language (1992–2002)
The first constitution of independent Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) was from 1992,
amended in March 1993, and its Article 4 stated that the official language of the Republic of
B&H was Serbo-Croatian, respectively Croato-Serbian language with Ijekavian
pronunciation. It also stated the equality between Latin and Cyrillic (Bosnian Constitution,
1993, Article 4).5
A law of August 1993 redefined the official language, which remained “a
literary language with Ijekavian pronunciation, called by one of the three names: Bosnian,
Serb, Croatian.” The international recognition of Bosnian language dates back to the Dayton
peace talks and the Paris talks of 1995, although the new constitution of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which came into force after the signing of the General Framework Agreement
for Peace in Paris in December 1995, does not explicitly speak of languages, this issue is left
to the constitutions of the various constituent parts of B&H (so-called entities): the Federation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska. The Federation’s parliament approved
3
Orig.: “Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik. Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni. U službenoj
upotrebi su i srpski, bosanski, albanski i hrvatski jezik”.
4
Orig.: “Službeni jezici Države su crnogorski i italijanski”.
5
Orig.: “U Republici Bosni i Hercegovini u službenoj upotrebi je srpskohrvatski, odnosno hrvatskosrpski jezik
ijekavskog izgovora. Oba pisma, latinica i ćirilica su ravnopravna”.
a constitution in March 1994, which stated among others, that the official languages of the
Federation are Bosnian and Croatian and the official alphabet is Latin (FB&H Constitution,
1994, Article 6).6
Paragraph 1, which defined Bosnian and Croatian as the official language,
is significant. For the very first time, Bosnian language was indicated in a constitution.
The Constitution of the Republic of Srpska of December 1992, supplemented in 1995,
contained the following wording: the official language of the Republic is Serbian with
Ijekavian and Ekavian pronunciations, and Cyrillic alphabet; the official use of Latin is
regulated by a special law (Bosnian Serb Constitution, 1992, 1995, Article 7).7
The similarity
to the Constitution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) of the time is
more than obvious, only the Ijekavian version comes first, which is only understandable
having in mind the language of the Bosnian Serbs. But as early as the winter of 1993 an
attempt was made to eliminate this dualism from the official language of Bosnian Serbs. It
was initiated by Srpska’s Parliament Chairman Momčilo Krajišnik, who was aspiring to
formalize only the Ekavian version with the motivation that every ethnic that wants to be a
nation must have united standard language (Brborić, Vuksanović and Gačević, 2006, p. 217).8
This political move was also confirmed by a 1996 Law on the Official Use of Language and
Script (“Zakon o službenoj upotrebi jezika i pisma” – for more details see Board Decision No.
38 – Ibid., pp. 216–221), but it did not receive support even in Serbia. The Board for
Standardization of the Serbian language stated in 1997 that in any case both phonetic versions
of pronunciation were Serbian. In 1998 the Parliament of the Republic of Srpska formalized
again the Ijekavian pronunciation. The issue of phonetic dualism remained topical. At this
point, we want to recall that the Ekavian pronunciation is typical of Serbia alone (and not
even of the entire territory). Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and all of Montenegro
speak Ijekavian.
As a result of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2000,
stating that the Constitution shall ensure equality of all three languages throughout Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Constitution articles were amended. Thus, the following supplement was
6
Orig.: “(1) Službeni jezici Federacije su bosanski jezik i hrvatski jezik. Službeno pismo je latinica. (2) Ostali
jezici se mogu koristiti kao sredstva komunikacije i nastave. (3) Dodatni jezici mogu se odrediti kao službeni
većinom glasova svakog doma Parlamenta Federacije, uključujući većinu glasova bošnjačkih delegata i većinu
glasova hrvatskih delegata u Domu naroda”.
7
Orig.: “U Republici je u službenoj upotrebi srpski jezik ijekavskog i ekavskog izgovora i ćirilično pismo, a
latinično pismo na način određen zakonom. Na područjima gdje žive druge jezičke grupe u službenoj upotrebi su
i njihovi jezici i pisma, na način određen zakonom”. The first constitution of the Serbian state formation within
Bosnia and Herzegovina was the Constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of February
1992, whose Article 7 was identical to that of the later Constitution of the Republic of Srpska.
8
Orig.: “svaki narod koji hoće da bude nacija mora imati jedinstven jezički standard”.
included in the Federation’s Constitution in April 2002: “(1) Službeni jezici Federacije Bosne
i Hercegovine su: bosanski jezik, hrvatski jezik i srpski jezik. Službena pisma su latinica i
ćirilica. (2) Ostali jezici mogu se koristiti kao sredstvo komunikacije i nastave” (FB&H
Constitution, 2002, Article 6). The proposal for amendment of the Constitution of the
Republic of Srpska was as follows: “Srpski, hrvatski i bošnjački jezik, ćirilično i latinično
pismo, ravnopravno se upotrebljavaju u Republici Srpskoj. Način takve službene upotrebe
jezika i pisma uređuje se zakonom.” However, Wolfgang Petritsch, then High Representative
for Bosnia and Herzegovina, did not agree with this wording – he found calling Bosniaks՚
language bošnjački (i.e. Bosniak) problematic. Bosniaks themselves preferred the term
bosanski (i.e. Bosnian). The updated wording of April 2002 was as follows: the official
languages of the Republic of Srpska are: the language of Serbian nation, the language of
Bosniak nation, and the language of Croatian nation. The official alphabets are Cyrillic and
Latin (Bosnian Serb Constitution, 2002, Article 7).9
Bosnian language is currently present in the constitutions of the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Montenegro, and the constitution of independent Kosovo – Article 5 (2) of the
Kosovo Constitution states: Turkish, Bosnian and Roma languages have the status of official
languages at the municipal level or will be in official use at all levels as provided by law
(Kosovo Constitution, 2009, Article 5).10
The Constitution of the Republic of Srpska
consciously avoids the adjective bosanski “Bosnian” and replaces it with the phrase jezik
bošnjačkog naroda (“language of Bosniak nation”).
Bibliography
Bosnian Constitution, 1993. Ustav Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. Službeni list Republike
Bosne i Hercegovine, godina II, broj 5, 14. mart 1993. [online] Available at:
<http://www.fcjp.ba/templates/ja_avian_ii_d/images/green/Ustav%20RBiH.pdf> [Accessed
29 November 2017].
Bosnian Serb Constitution, 1992. Ustav Srpske Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. [online]
Available at: <https://sr.wikisource.org/srel/Устав_Српске_Републике_Босне_и_Херцеговине>
[Accessed 29 November 2017].
9
Orig.: “Službeni jezici Republike Srpske su: jezik srpskog naroda, jezik bošnjačkog naroda i jezik hrvatskog
naroda. Službena pisma su ćirilica i latinica”.
10
Orig.: “Turski, bosanski i romski imaju status službenih jezika na opštinskom nivou ili će biti korišćeni kao
službeni na svim nivoima, u skladu sa zakonom”.
Bosnian Serb Constitution, 1995. Ustav Republike Srpske. [online] Available at:
<http://ndcsarajevo.org/Dokumenti/Ustav%20Republike%20Srpske.pdf> [Accessed 29
November 2017].
Bosnian Serb Constitution, 2002. Ustav Republike Srpske. [online] Available at:
<http://skupstinabd.ba/images/dokumenti/hr/ustav-republike-srpske.pdf> [Accessed 29
November 2017].
Brborić, B., Vuksanović, J. and Gačević, R. (eds.), 2006. Srpski jezik u normativnom
ogledalu. 50 odluka Odbora za standardizaciju srpskog jezika. Beograd.
Brozović, D., 1970. Standardni jezik. Teorija, usporedbe, geneza, povijest, suvremena zbilja.
Zagreb.
Burzanović, S., 2010. Crnogorski ustav iz 1941. godine. Matica, XI, 44, pp. 261–278. [online]
Available at:
<http://www.maticacrnogorska.me/files/44/12%20crnogorski%20ustav%20iz%201941.%20
%28priredio%20slavko%20burzanovic%29.pdf> [Accessed 8 March 2012].
Crnogorski jezik. [online] Available at: <https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crnogorski_jezik>
[Accessed 29 November 2017].
Croatian Constitution, 1974. Narodne novine br. 8/74: Ustav Socijalističke Republike
Hrvatske. Zagreb. [online] Available at:
<https://www.pravo.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Ustav_Socijalisticke_RH_1974.pdf>
[Accessed 22 December 2015].
Croatian Constitution, 1990. Ustav Republike Hrvatske. Zagreb. [online] Available at:
<http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/1990_12_56_1092.html> [Accessed 22
December 2015].
FB&H Constitution, 1994. Ustav Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. [online] Available at:
<http://www.sogfbih.ba/uploaded/pravni_okvir/osnovni/Ustav%20FBiH%20sa%20amandma
nima.pdf> [Accessed 29 November 2017].
FB&H Constitution, 2002. Ustav Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. [online] Available at:
<http://skupstinabd.ba/images/dokumenti/ba/ustav-federacije-bih.pdf> [Accessed 29
November 2017].
Hekman, J. (ed.), 1997. Deklaracija o nazivu i položaju hrvatskog književnog jezika: građa za
povijest Deklaracije. 3. izm. i dop. izd. Zagreb.
Jezik kao domovina. Deklaracija Crnogorskog PEN centra o ustavnom položaju crnogorskog
jezika. [online] Available at: <http://www.montenet.org/language/pen-decl.htm> [Accessed 8
May 2018].
Kosovo Constitution, 2009. Ustav Republike Kosovo. [online] Available at:
<http://www.kryeministri-ks.net/repository/docs/Ustav1.pdf> [Accessed 29 November 2017].
Kovačević, M., 2015. Srpski jezik između nauke i politike. Banja Luka.
Montenegrin Constitution, 2007. Ustav Crne Gore. [online] Available at:
<http://www.skupstina.me/images/dokumenti/ustav-crne-gore.pdf> [Accessed 29 November
2017].
Neweklowsky, G., 2010. Srpske i južnoslovenske teme. Novi Sad – Beograd.
Novi Sad Agreement, 1954. Novosadski dogovor (1954). [online] Available at:
<http://govori.tripod.com/novosadski_dogovor.htm> [Accessed 22 December 2015].
Yugoslavian Constitution, 1921. Ustav Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, 1921. [online]
Available at: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/243114662/aj-10-02-02-txt-ustav1921-pdf#scribd>
[Accessed 21 December 2015].
Abstract
The paper analyzes the constitutional articles about languages of selected Yugoslav and postYugoslav
countries, former „Serbo-Croatian“ federal republics: Croatia, Bosnia &
Herzegovina, and Montenegro. During the Yugoslav monarchy the constitutional article
declared the official language idealistically as Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian. At the time of
World War II, in occupied Montenegro, there was the first attempt to constitutionally enshrine
the glossonym Montenegrin language. After the so-called Novi Sad Agreement (1954) the
literary forms of the language of Serbs, Croats and Montenegrins were unified in the
framework of one pluricentric standard language with a mandatory two-part name (SerboCroatian)
with two variants („Ekavian“ written in Cyrillic and „Ijekavian“ written in the Latin
alphabet), which is reflected in the respective constitutional articles. After the Croatian
„Declaration on Croatian language“ (1967), the Novi Sad arrangement began to be disturbed,
which culminated in the language article in the Croatian Constitution of 1990. The new
Montenegrin constitution from 2007, on the other hand, for the first time officializes the
glossonym „Montenegrin language“. The most complex national and language situation was
in Bosnia & Herzegovina, and this situation naturally also affected the problems connected
with the constitutional articles about language in the constitutions of B&H, the Federation of
B&H and the Republic of Srpska.
Key words
Constitutional Articles on Language; Yugoslavian Constitutions (1921, 1931); Croatian
Constitution (1974); Bosnian-Herzegovinian Constitutions (1990s, 2002); Montenegrin
Constitution (2007)
Наименованието на езика в конституцията – отражения на реалността, или
нереални желания? (върху примери от Хърватия, Босна и Херцеговина и Черна
гора)
Pavel Krejčí
pkrejci@phil.muni.cz
Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Slavonic Studies
Brno, Czechia