Hubbry Logo
Declaration on the Common LanguageDeclaration on the Common LanguageMain
Open search
Declaration on the Common Language
Community hub
Declaration on the Common Language
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Declaration on the Common Language
Declaration on the Common Language
Declaration on the Common Language
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Press conference about the Declaration on the Common Language

The Declaration on the Common Language (Serbo-Croatian: Deklaracija o zajedničkom jeziku / Декларација о заједничком језику) was issued in 2017 by a group of intellectuals and NGOs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia who were working under the banner of a project called "Language and Nationalism".[1] The Declaration states that Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs have a common standard language of the polycentric type.[1]

Great interest of television companies in the Press conference about the Declaration

Before any public presentation, the Declaration was signed by over 200 prominent writers, scientists, journalists, activists and other public figures from the four countries.[2][3] After being published, it has been signed by over 10,000 people from all over the region.[4] The Declaration on the Common Language is an attempt to counter nationalistic factions.[5] Its aim is to stimulate discussion on language without nationalism and to contribute to the reconciliation process.[6]

Contents of the Declaration

[edit]

The Declaration states that Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs have a common standard language of the polycentric type.[7][8] It refers to the fact that the four peoples communicate effectively without an interpreter due to their mutual intelligibility, which is a key notion when talking about languages.[9][10][11] Furthermore, it points out that the current language policy of emphasizing differences has led to a number of negative phenomena,[6][12][13] and linguistic expression is imposed as a criterion of ethnonational affiliation and a means of affirming political loyalty.[14][15] The Declaration states that language and people do not have to coincide, and that each state or nation may independently codify its own variant of the common language, and that the four standard variants enjoy equal status.[16][17] The Declaration calls for abolishing all forms of linguistic segregation and discrimination in educational and public institutions.[18][19][20] It also advocates for the freedom of individual choice and respect for linguistic diversity.[21]

International project "Languages and Nationalisms"

[edit]

The Declaration followed the international project Languages and Nationalisms[22][23][24] (founded by two German foundations: Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst and Allianz Kulturstiftung), within which conferences were held in the four countries during 2016, thus providing an insight into the current situation and problems.[25][26] The project was inspired by the book Language and Nationalism,[27][28][29] and was organized by four non-governmental organizations from each of the countries included: P.E.N. Center Bosnia-Herzegovina from Sarajevo, the Association Kurs from Split, Krokodil from Belgrade and the Civic Education Center from Podgorica.[30] An interdisciplinary series of expert conferences in Podgorica, Split, Belgrade and Sarajevo took place under participation of linguists, journalists, anthropologists and others.[31][32] Numerous audiences were also included.[33][34] The titles of debates on the conferences were:

The book Language and Nationalism (left) inspired the project Languages and Nationalisms (right).
Series of international expert conferences Languages and Nationalisms in 2016
Place Titles of debates Date
Podgorica Does every people in Montenegro speak a different language? 21 April
What is the purpose of increasing language differences? 22 April
Split Does anarchy threaten if we do not prescribe how to speak? 19 May
What if Croats and Serbs have a common language? 20 May
Belgrade Who is it that steals the language? 5 October
The ideology of the correct language 6 October
Sarajevo Political manipulations of the topic of language 23 November
Proofreaders as nationality-imposers 24 November

The creation of the Declaration

[edit]

More than thirty experts participated in the drafting of the Declaration, half of whom were linguists[35] of different nationalities from the four states.[36] The process of writing lasted for several months.[37] The initiative emerged just after the last conference in Sarajevo, when young people from Bosnia-Herzegovina[38][39][40] who experienced the educational segregation in the so-called "two schools under one roof"[41] came up with the idea of composing a text that would encourage change of the language policy in all four countries.[42] They entitled the text Declaration on the Common Language[43] and gave it for rewriting to professional linguists,[37] so that the Declaration was redrafted in Zagreb in the following months and can therefore be called the "Zagreb Declaration."[44]

As a continuation of the project Languages and Nationalisms, a committee of experts of different nationalities from all four countries was formed that worked on the final version of the Declaration on 16 and 17 January 2017 in Zagreb.[42] After the meeting, the text was sent to some twenty consultants, whose proposals are then embedded in the final form of the text.[45]

Presentation of the Declaration

[edit]
Collecting signatures for the Declaration

The Declaration on the Common Language, with more than two hundred signatures of prominent intellectuals[46][47] from Croatia,[48] Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia was simultaneously presented to the public on 30 March 2017 in Zagreb, Podgorica, Belgrade and Sarajevo, where a press conference was held and two panel discussions with titles "What is a common language?" and "Language and the Future". Then the Declaration was opened for signing to other people.[49] Over the next few days, more than 8,000 people signed it.[50] Two months later, in the framework of the 10th Subversive Festival in Zagreb, a round table on the Declaration, titled "Language and Nationalism", was held.[51][52] Then a debate[53] "About the Declaration on the Common Language and Other Demons" was held at the Crocodile Literature Festival in Belgrade.[54][55] After that, in Novi Sad, a panel discussion "Whose is Our Language?" at the Exit festival[56][57][58] and a forum "What are the Achievements of the Declaration on the Common Language?" at the International literary conference, Book Talk, were organised.[59] In Montenegro, there was a round table on the Declaration in the framework of the 7th Njegoš's Days.[60] At the end of 2017, a discussion "What to do With the Language: Who speaks (or does not speak) the common language?" was organised at the 6th Open University in Sarajevo.[61]

Series of panel discussions on the Declaration in 2017
Place Discussion title Event Date
Sarajevo What is a Common Language?[a] Presentation of the Declaration 30 March
Language and the Future[b]
Who Speaks (or does not Speak) the Common Language?[c] Open University 10 November
Zagreb Language and Nationalism[d] Subversive Festival 19 May
Belgrade About the Declaration on the Common Language and Other Demons[e] Krokodil Literary Festival 18 June
Novi Sad Whose is Our Language?[f] Exit Festival 8 July
What are the Achievements of the Declaration on the Common Language?[g] Book Talk 29 September
Kotor Declaration on the Common Language[h] Njegoš's Days 1 September
Snježana Kordić's plenary lecture on the Declaration[1] at a conference in Japan 2018[62]

During 2018, a series of plenary lectures on the Declaration was held at conferences at the universities of various EU countries,[63][64][65][66] and then at the universities in Japan.[62][67][68] On the occasion of the second anniversary of the Declaration, two round tables were held:[69] in Vienna "Language and Nationalisms: Do We Understand Each Other?"[70] and in Zagreb "One Language or Several Languages: Discussion on the Declaration on the Common Language", organized by the Union of Student Associations of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb,[71][non-primary source needed] which later also organized a plenary lecture on the Declaration at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.[72][unreliable source?]

Signatories

[edit]
Noam Chomsky, one of the signatories of the Declaration

The British sociolinguist Peter Trudgill notes that "linguists are well represented on the list of signatories."[2] The most famous linguist "Noam Chomsky has signed the Declaration on the common language", which has been particularly resounding.[73] The Declaration has been signed by "over fifty other linguists, including Anders Ahlqvist, Ronelle Alexander, Nadira Aljović, Bojan Anđelković, Boban Arsenijević, John Frederick Bailyn, Josip Baotić, Ranka Bijeljac-Babić, Ranko Bugarski, Vesna Bulatović, Daniel Bunčić, Costas Canakis, Greville Corbett, Oliver Czulo, Natalia Długosz, Ljiljana Dolamic, Nicholas Evans, Rajka Glušica, Radmila Gorup, Senahid Halilović, Camiel Hamans, Mirjana Jocić, Jagoda Jurić-Kappel, Dunja Jutronić, Dejan Karavesović, Jana Kenda, Ivan Klajn, Snježana Kordić, Svetlana Kurteš, Igor Kusin, Zineta Lagumdžija, Igor Lakić, Gordana Lalić-Krstin, Mia Mader Skender, Alisa Mahmutović, Olga Mišeska Tomić, Vladimir Miličić, Spiros Moschonas, Joachim Mugdan, Zoran Nikolovski, Miloš Okuka, Tatjana Paunović, Dušan-Vladislav Pažđerski, Mira Peter, Tanja Petrović, Enisa Pliska, Milena Podolšak, Luka Raičković, Katarina Rasulić, Marija Runić, Svenka Savić, Marko Simonović, Ljiljana Subotić, Danko Šipka, Dušanka Točanac, Neda Todorović, Aleksandar Trklja, Peter Trudgill, Mladen Uhlik, Hanka Vajzović, Vera Vasić, Elvira Veselinović, Đorđe Vidanović, Ana Ždrale, Jelena Živojinović."[74]

Signatories of the Declaration include:

Signatories about the Declaration – Selected bibliography

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Declaration on the Common Language

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Declaration on the Common Language is a 2017 statement affirming that the standard language spoken by Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia constitutes a single polycentric system with variants designated as Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, all enjoying equal status. Drafted by approximately 30 linguists from these countries, including Snježana Kordić, it was publicly presented on 30 March 2017 in Sarajevo, with simultaneous events in Zagreb, Belgrade, and Podgorica. Initially endorsed by over 200 signatories comprising writers, scientists, journalists, activists, and other intellectuals, the number of supporters has since exceeded 670, including prominent figures such as linguist Noam Chomsky. The declaration condemns politically imposed linguistic divisions as tools for nationalism that impose segregation, mandate superfluous translations in official contexts, and curtail freedom of expression in education, media, literature, and administration. It urges the elimination of such discriminatory practices, emphasizing the empirical reality of mutual intelligibility among speakers and advocating for unrestricted use of any variant to enhance communication across ethnic lines. While praised by proponents as a linguistically defensible push against artificial barriers erected after the Yugoslav breakup, the initiative has drawn sharp opposition from nationalists who regard it as an assault on distinct cultural identities.

Linguistic Foundations

Dialect Continuum and Polycentric Nature

The varieties of the South Slavic language spoken across , , , and form a , predominantly within the dialect group, which connects seamlessly to adjacent South Slavic dialects such as Torlakian without discrete boundaries. This continuum arises from historical migrations and settlements, resulting in gradual phonetic, lexical, and morphological shifts between neighboring speech communities, where remains high even across broader distances—typically exceeding 90% for spoken forms based on shared substrates. Empirical studies of syntactic variation within this continuum confirm that differences are clinal rather than categorical, supporting classification as interconnected varieties rather than isolated languages. The primary standard varieties—Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian—derive from the Neo-Shtokavian Ijekavian subdialect, particularly the Eastern Herzegovinian type, which was codified in the through joint efforts like the Vienna Literary Agreement of 1850. Serbian standards employ Ekavian pronunciation (rendering the yat reflex as e), while the others favor Ijekavian (ije or je), yet these reflect regulated preferences within the same underlying system rather than fundamental divergence. Lexical and orthographic variations exist—such as Croatian preferences for etymological purism versus Serbian's inclusion of internationalisms—but core , , and approximately 95% of overlap, enabling unhindered comprehension in formal and informal contexts. This configuration exemplifies a polycentric , wherein multiple national standards coexist around a unified dialectal base, analogous to the variants of English (British, American) or German (Austrian, Swiss). Polycentricity here accommodates cultural and administrative distinctions without necessitating linguistic fragmentation, as evidenced by pre-1990s usage under the designation, which unified over 17 million speakers across the region. Linguistic analyses, including those by sociolinguists like Snježana Kordić, argue that political incentives post-Yugoslav dissolution have amplified minor differences, yet phonetic and morphosyntactic data affirm the continuum's integrity as a single pluricentric entity.

Empirical Evidence of Mutual Intelligibility

Linguistic analyses confirm near-complete among the standard varieties of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, with speakers able to comprehend one another without formal training or translation. This holds across spoken and written forms, as the variants share identical grammatical structures and vocabularies differing primarily in minor lexical items influenced by historical or regional preferences. A key empirical demonstration comes from a translation study by John F. Bailyn, in which 16 native Croatian speakers from translated nine Serbian texts totaling 1,064 words. Results showed that grammatical equivalence was absolute, with lexical divergences limited—noun substitutions reached a maximum of 8.92%, while verbs and other categories exhibited even lower variation, allowing seamless comprehension and rendering the variants functionally interchangeable. Such findings underscore that differences do not impede understanding, distinguishing these standards from dialect continua with lower intelligibility thresholds. Practical evidence further supports this: speakers across borders routinely access shared media, including films, television broadcasts, and newspapers, without reported comprehension barriers, reflecting everyday functional unity rather than politically imposed separations. While subjective factors like national identity can influence perceived distance, objective measures prioritize structural overlap, aligning with dialectological criteria for a single polycentric language.

Historical Context

Serbo-Croatian in the Yugoslav Period

During the period of the (SFRY, 1945–1991), functioned as the predominant , spoken by over 70% of the population across the republics of , , , and . It was standardized as a single language with regional variants to foster ethnic cohesion under the slogan of "," serving in federal administration, military, education, and media. The language's unity was rooted in earlier efforts like the 1850 Vienna Literary Agreement, which established a shared Štokavian base, but post-World War II policies emphasized its role in suppressing ethnic divisions exacerbated by wartime atrocities. A pivotal formalization occurred with the Novi Sad Agreement on October 28, 1954, endorsed by 25 prominent linguists, writers, and intellectuals from Serbia (backed by Matica srpska), Croatia (Matica hrvatska), and Bosnia. The agreement declared Serbo-Croatian to be one common language shared by Serbs, Croats, and Montenegrins, featuring two equivalent pronunciation standards: the ijekavian variant (predominant in Croatia, Bosnia, and Montenegro) and the ekavian variant (standard in Serbia). This document, published alongside a unified orthographic manual (Pravopis srpskohrvatskog jezika / Pravopis hrvatskosrpskog jezika), aimed to restore linguistic harmony after the fractures of occupation and civil war, promoting tolerance for both Cyrillic and Latin scripts while prioritizing Štokavian dialects as the literary norm. The 1974 SFRY Constitution reinforced this framework by affirming the equality of "languages of the nations" (encompassing variants) and allowing republics to adopt specific norms, such as Croatia's emphasis on ijekavian usage. In practice, federal institutions mandated proficiency, with textbooks and broadcasts using a balanced eastern-western hybrid to bridge dialects. However, underlying tensions surfaced in the late 1960s during the (Hrvatsko proljeće, 1967–1971), when Croatian linguists and the Matica hrvatska society demanded purist reforms, including rejection of ekavian influences and exclusive ijekavian standardization, viewing the unified model as Serb-dominated. These efforts, peaking with the 1967 Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language signed by 130 scholars, were curtailed by federal intervention in December 1971, leading to purges and reasserting the single-language policy until Yugoslavia's dissolution.

Language Divergence Post-1991 Dissolution

Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, the standardized variety previously known as was politically rebranded in the successor states to align with emerging national identities, with adopting "Croatian" as its in its 1990 constitution (effective post-independence in 1991), designating "Serbian" in 1992, recognizing "Bosnian" alongside others in 1993, and formalizing "Montenegrin" in 2007. This renaming reflected nationalist efforts to differentiate ethnic groups amid inter-ethnic conflicts, rather than substantial linguistic shifts, as evidenced by the retention of shared phonological, morphological, and syntactic structures across variants. Linguistic divergence was pursued through state-sponsored purism and standardization policies, particularly in , where post-1991 initiatives emphasized lexical purification by favoring Slavic roots over internationalisms or perceived "Serbianisms," such as replacing "semafor" () with "svjetlosna signalizacija" in official usage during the . , conversely, promoted alongside Latin to underscore cultural distinction, though Latin remained dominant in practice. Bosnian standardization incorporated Turkic and loanwords to highlight Muslim heritage, while Montenegrin introduced unique graphemes for sounds like /ć/ and /đ/ in its 2010 . These changes, however, affected primarily formal registers and were inconsistently applied, with everyday spoken and informal written forms showing minimal alteration due to the polycentric continuum's persistence. Empirical assessments of post-1991 confirm near-complete comprehension among speakers of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian standards, with surveys indicating 95-100% understanding in spoken and written forms, comparable to intra-language dialectal variation elsewhere. Linguist Snježana Kordić, in her analysis of post-Yugoslav language policies, attributes the divergence narrative to ideological rather than empirical necessity, noting that the vast majority of (over 90%) remains identical across standards, and artificial separations risk isolating speakers without enhancing communication. Despite these policies, cross-border and personal interactions have sustained functional unity, as seen in shared and without . Critics of the split, including academic linguists, argue that the political fragmentation exacerbated ethnic divisions during the wars, with language serving as a tool for testing and identity enforcement in and media, though no causal linguistic barrier existed to justify separation. Quantitative studies on lexical divergence reveal limited success of purist efforts, with Croatian neologisms comprising less than 5% of core vocabulary by the early 2000s, insufficient to impede intelligibility. This post-1991 trajectory underscores a tension between imposed national and the underlying dialect base, which continues to facilitate seamless interaction across borders.

Project Origins

Languages and Nationalisms Initiative

The Languages and Nationalisms initiative, referred to as Jezici i nacionalizmi in the language, comprised a series of four regional expert conferences convened in 2016 to examine the interplay between and in the successor states of former . The conferences aimed to foster among linguists, intellectuals, and activists on the shared polycentric spoken in , , , and , challenging practices of linguistic segregation, , and enforced separation of variants labeled as distinct national languages. Organized by the Center for Civic Education (CGO) in , along with associations such as Kurs, Krokodil, and the PEN Center of , the initiative sought to counteract what participants described as ideologically driven linguistic policies that promote unnecessary translations, rigid standardization, and division in education and public institutions. The events unfolded as follows: the first in , Montenegro, on April 21–22; the second in , on May 19–20; the third in Belgrade, Serbia, on October 5–6; and the fourth in Sarajevo, , on November 23–24. Discussions emphasized empirical linguistic evidence of and historical continuity, drawing on first-principles analysis of dialect continua rather than politically imposed nomenclature. Prominent contributors included Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić, who moderated sessions and whose 2010 monograph Jezik i nacionalizam provided foundational arguments against nationalist purism in ; Serbian linguist Ranko Bugarski; Montenegrin expert Rajka Glušica; and Croatian linguist Mate Kapović. The initiative's working group produced transcripts and position papers that directly informed the drafting of the Declaration on the Common Language, publicly presented on March 28, 2017, in as a programmatic response to post-Yugoslav ideologies. While the effort garnered endorsements from academics and writers advocating linguistic realism, it faced opposition from institutions like the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU), which in March 2017 labeled it a "senseless, absurd, and futile" endeavor that undermined national linguistic identities. This critique reflected broader tensions between empirical and state-sponsored , with HAZU prioritizing cultural sovereignty over shared dialectal evidence. The initiative's , jezicinacionalizmi.com, continues to host conference materials, transcripts, and calls for ending repressive language regulations.

Motivations and Preparatory Work

The "Languages and Nationalisms" project, which culminated in , was motivated by the recognition that post-Yugoslav language policies had imposed artificial separations on a historically unified linguistic system, leading to tangible harms such as in , restricted access to , and barriers to cross-border cultural exchange. Proponents argued that these divisions, driven by nationalist ideologies rather than linguistic evidence, perpetuated social fragmentation and economic inefficiencies, including duplicated efforts in translation and across the region. The initiative sought to reaffirm the polycentric —shared by communities in , , , and —based on empirical and shared grammatical structures, countering what organizers described as politically motivated "linguistic engineering." Preparatory efforts began in 2015 under the Belgrade-based Association , inspired by linguist Snježana Kordić's 2010 book Jezik i nacionalizam, which critiqued the ideological imposition of separate languages over a . A two-year research phase involved collaboration with regional NGOs and experts, coordinated by Ana Pejović of , focusing on documenting instances of language-based exclusion and gathering linguistic data. This groundwork led to a series of four expert conferences held from April to 2016: in (April, on the ideology of "correct" ), Split (on ideologies), (on political manipulations of topics), and (, on proofreaders as enforcers of nationality). These events, attended by linguists, academics, and activists from the four countries, featured discussions on empirical unity and the societal costs of divergence, with proceedings informing the draft. A of approximately 30 experts, including philologists and social scientists, then synthesized inputs into the Declaration's text over subsequent months.

Declaration Content

Core Assertions on Language Unity

The Declaration on the Common Language asserts the existence of a single polycentric standard language spoken across Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia, comprising variants collectively known as Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, all derived from the Štokavian dialect continuum. This unity is grounded in empirical mutual intelligibility among speakers, where differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, and orthography—such as the use of Latin or Cyrillic scripts—do not impede comprehension but instead represent natural variations within a shared linguistic system. Central to the document's claims is the rejection of the notion that four separate names for these variants equate to four distinct languages, emphasizing instead that polycentric standardization mirrors real-world usage and promotes democratic linguistic practices, akin to established polycentric languages like English or German. The declaration argues that such standardization accommodates regional and national preferences without necessitating artificial divisions, supported by historical precedents where functioned as a unified standard prior to political fragmentation. It further maintains that recognizing this common language does not erode individual or national identities, as linguistic commonality coexists with cultural and ethnic diversity, allowing each community to cultivate its variant freely. Linguistically, the assertions prioritize observable facts over prescriptive separations, noting that enforced distinctions often stem from non-linguistic factors rather than inherent structural barriers, with evidence drawn from everyday communication and shared literary heritage spanning centuries. The document calls for policies affirming this unity, such as eliminating redundant translations in official contexts and fostering openness to all variants, to counteract practices that impose segregation in and media. These positions align with sociolinguistic principles of dialect continua, where gradual variations do not warrant reclassification as separate languages absent significant abstand (distance) criteria.

Critique of Linguistic Nationalism

The Declaration critiques linguistic nationalism as a politically driven imposition that disregards the empirical unity of the Shtokavian dialect continuum spoken by Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and Serbs, artificially fragmenting it into four purportedly distinct languages despite their high mutual intelligibility and shared grammatical, lexical, and phonological features. This separation, initiated post-1991 amid the Yugoslav dissolution, is portrayed not as a reflection of linguistic divergence but as a tool for reinforcing ethnic boundaries, leading to the enforcement of variant-specific norms that prioritize national symbolism over communicative functionality. Proponents argue that such nationalism ignores first-principles linguistic criteria, where differences in orthography, vocabulary preferences, and nomenclature (e.g., Bosnian vs. Serbian) remain minor and insufficient to warrant classification as separate languages, akin to how variants of English or German are not deemed discrete despite regional distinctions. Central to the critique is the causal link between linguistic nationalism and tangible harms, including the segregation of children in multiethnic schools along language lines, which fosters division rather than integration; the proliferation of redundant translations in official documents, media, and , inflating administrative costs without enhancing clarity; and bureaucratic mandates that coerce to prescribed variants, stifling linguistic freedom and innovation. For instance, policies in and have historically penalized the use of "non-national" terminology, such as banning certain words deemed foreign to the standard, resulting in among writers and educators. The Declaration contends that these practices, rooted in 19th-century revived in the , exacerbate ethnic tensions by politicizing everyday speech, contrasting sharply with pre- recognition of a unified standard that facilitated cross-border communication. Furthermore, the text challenges the ideological foundations of , which demand the purging of shared heritage elements to construct "pure" national idioms, arguing this erodes the polycentric nature of the language—where multiple centers (, , ) coexist without hierarchy—and undermines cultural exchange in the region. By insisting on four names for what is empirically one , nationalists are accused of inverting : language serves agendas rather than responding to organic speaker needs, as evidenced by persistent bilingual signage and across borders despite official separations. This approach, asserts, perpetuates economic inefficiencies, such as duplicated efforts and restricted for authors, while culturally isolating communities that historically shared a literary canon from figures like to . Ultimately, it advocates for de-politicization, urging recognition of the common language's variants as enriching diversity within unity, free from coercive standardization.

Creation and Launch

Drafting Process

The Declaration on the Common Language emerged from the "Languages and Nationalisms" regional project, initiated by the Belgrade-based Association Krokodil in partnership with the branch of the German ForumZFD, which organized conferences in , , , and Split to examine linguistic in the post-Yugoslav states. The drafting specifically followed the project's final conference in in late 2016, where participants identified the need for a concise public statement affirming linguistic unity amid ongoing nationalistic divisions. Approximately 30 linguists from , , , and collaborated on the initial draft, led by figures such as Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić, who emphasized the document's role in countering politicized language separation through empirical linguistic evidence. Serbian linguist Ranko Bugarski contributed as a consultant, offering insights from his expertise on structures and native-speaker perspective to refine the text's clarity and avoid ideological overtones. The process involved iterative revisions over several months, focusing on a polycentric framework that recognized standard variants while rejecting artificial separations, with input drawn from project discussions rather than formal voting to maintain consensus. Challenges during drafting included balancing scientific precision with accessibility for non-specialists, as the group sought to produce a brief, non-polemical text—ultimately about 500 words—that prioritized verifiable sociolinguistic facts over political advocacy, though some critics later argued it understated historical divergences. The final version was completed by early 2017, setting the stage for its public presentation, with the project's funding from Kulturstiftung enabling cross-border coordination without institutional biases from state academies.

2017 Presentation in Sarajevo

The Declaration on the Common Language was publicly presented on March 30, 2017, at a held in , . The event marked the culmination of the "Languages and Nationalisms" initiative, involving over 30 experts from , , , and who drafted the document over several months. Organizers, including linguists and representatives from non-governmental organizations, emphasized the declaration's goal of recognizing a shared used interchangeably by speakers across the four countries, despite political and institutional efforts to impose separate national languages. Speakers at the press conference addressed the linguistic unity rooted in empirical evidence of and shared linguistic norms, critiquing post-1990s policies that promoted divergence for nationalist purposes. By the time of the presentation, had garnered more than 8,000 online signatures from individuals across the region, signaling support prior to formal endorsement by prominent intellectuals. The event drew significant media coverage, highlighting 's challenge to state-sponsored linguistic fragmentation while advocating for pluricentricity within a common framework.

Signatories and Endorsements

Key Individuals and Institutions

Snježana Kordić, a Croatian linguist and sociolinguist based in , played a central role in drafting the Declaration on the Common Language, coordinating efforts among approximately 30 linguists from , , , and as part of the "Languages and Nationalisms" initiative. Her work emphasized empirical linguistic evidence for the polycentric shared by speakers across these regions, drawing on her publications critiquing post-Yugoslav language fragmentation. Other key linguistic signatories included Ranko Bugarski, a prominent Serbian linguist and professor emeritus at the , known for his analyses of in the ; Ivan Klajn, a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; and Svenka Savić, an emerita professor of at the . These figures contributed expertise underscoring the Declaration's assertions of linguistic unity based on and shared grammatical structures, countering nationalist-driven orthographic and terminological divergences. Internationally, , the American linguist and political activist, endorsed the Declaration in March 2018 at Kordić's invitation, aligning with his broader advocacy for cultural and intellectual solidarity against divisive ideologies. Prominent writers and intellectuals such as , a Croatian-Dutch author exiled for her critiques of , and Dragan Velikić, a Serbian , also signed, highlighting the document's appeal to literary figures opposing language-based segregation. Supporting institutions primarily comprised non-governmental organizations, including the Krokodil Association in , which facilitated the initiative's regional conferences and signature collection; the Center for Peace Studies in ; and the BH Journalists Association in . These groups focused on and anti-nationalist advocacy, providing platforms for the Declaration's launch without formal institutional endorsements from state academies or universities, reflecting the grassroots yet expert-driven nature of the effort.

Signature Growth and Demographics

The Declaration garnered 225 initial signatures from prominent intellectuals, including linguists, writers, and academics, before its public unveiling in on March 30, 2017. Within one week, the expanded rapidly, reaching approximately 8,000 signatures by April 6, 2017, reflecting swift engagement across the region. Over time, the total number of signatories surpassed 15,000 worldwide, sustained through ongoing online campaigns tied to the Languages and Nationalisms initiative. Signatories were predominantly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia, with the majority comprising professionals in academia, , , , and . Among the over 200 initial prominent endorsers were scientists, public intellectuals, and cultural figures from these countries, underscoring the document's appeal to experts countering linguistic nationalism. International support included endorsements from linguists and thinkers abroad, such as , who signed in 2018 at the invitation of key proponent Snježana Kordić. This demographic profile highlights the initiative's foundation in scholarly and cultural circles rather than broad political or mass mobilization.

Reception

Support from Intellectuals and Academics

The Declaration on the Common Language was drafted by approximately 30 linguists from , , , and through a series of workshops conducted in 2016 and early 2017. Prominent among them was Snježana Kordić, a Croatian linguist and author of works critiquing in the region, who emphasized that recognizing the shared polycentric language could mitigate ethnic divisions exacerbated by post-Yugoslav nationalism. Ranko Bugarski, a Serbian linguist and professor emeritus at the , endorsed the document as a signatory and promoter, arguing it aligned with empirical linguistic evidence of and shared grammatical structures across the varieties. In 2017, British sociolinguist Peter Trudgill added his signature, supporting the declaration's assertion that Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian constitute variants of a single , comparable to pluricentric languages like English or German. International backing included , the American and Institute Professor at MIT, who signed the declaration on March 27, 2018, following an invitation from Kordić; he affirmed the polycentric nature of the language and opposed segregative policies in education based on minor dialectal differences. These endorsements from established scholars underscored the declaration's grounding in descriptive rather than prescriptive national ideologies, with signatories highlighting data on lexical overlap exceeding 95% and syntactic uniformity.

Media Coverage and Public Debate

The Declaration, presented on March 30, 2017, in , garnered attention in international media as an initiative to affirm the shared linguistic continuum among Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian variants, countering post-Yugoslav nationalist divisions. The Economist framed it as a challenge to the politicization of , questioning whether constitutes a single polycentric with standardized variants. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty highlighted nationalist backlash, portraying the document as a statement against using for segregationist projects rather than a revival of Yugoslav unity. Local coverage in the region was polarized, with outlets in and reflecting broader ideological divides. In , the leftist daily Novi list published an article on April 5, 2017, denouncing as a "Yugoslav trick" and exhibiting intolerance toward signatories, prompting the newspaper's to condemn it as unprofessional and contrary to their values by April 13. This incident underscored tensions, as journalists covering the topic faced insults, threats, and physical attacks amid heightened public sensitivity. Public debate intensified online and in intellectual circles, pitting linguistic scholars and advocates against conservative nationalists who viewed as eroding national identities and . Supporters, including academics, emphasized empirical evidence of and shared grammar, arguing it promoted practical cooperation without denying cultural differences. Opponents, often aligned with political elites, contended it ignored historical divergences post-1990s wars and risked diluting distinct linguistic standards imposed by state academies. Media analyses noted considerable public interest in everyday language use over prescriptive norms, fueling discussions on , media, and cross-border communication.

Criticisms and Controversies

Nationalist Backlash

The Declaration on the Common Language, presented on March 30, 2017, in , elicited strong opposition from nationalist figures and institutions across the region, particularly in and , who viewed it as a threat to post-Yugoslav national identities. In , dismissed the initiative, questioning its relevance by stating, "How could I support that? ... There is no need to waste words," emphasizing Croatian's status as an official language. Similarly, Culture Minister Nina Obuljen Koržinek described the concept of a common language as a "political construct" originating from , implying an imposition of Yugoslav-era uniformity. Nationalist critics argued that recognizing a shared polycentric language equated to reviving Serbo-Croatian and fostering Yugoslav nostalgia, potentially eroding distinct ethnic languages codified after the 1990s wars. Former Croatian Culture Minister Zlatko Hasanbegović labeled the declaration "a wolf howl of Yugoslav nationalists for their lost country," framing it as an assault on Croatian linguistic sovereignty. In Serbia, University of Belgrade professor Miro Lompar contended that the effort sought to "de-nationalize Serbs" in Bosnia and Montenegro, distancing them from Serbian identity through a "quasi-Yugoslav initiative." Linguists aligned with nationalist views, such as Željko Jozić of the Croatian Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, deemed the declaration "unnecessary" and incapable of influencing established standards. This backlash manifested in media rhetoric and official rejections, with outlets and academics like August Kovačeć calling it "a provocation and a non-sense," reflecting broader fears that linguistic convergence could undermine the political achieved in the . Despite the declaration's basis in linguistic evidence of , opponents prioritized national differentiation, viewing any commonality as politically subversive rather than empirically grounded.

Debates on Political Implications

The , presented on March 30, 2017, in , has elicited political debates centered on its challenge to nationalist constructions of as a marker of ethnic in , , , and . Opponents, particularly in , argue that recognizing a shared risks eroding national identities forged post-Yugoslav dissolution, viewing it as a revival of the communist-era imposition. Croatian Prime Minister rejected the initiative on March 29, 2017, questioning its supportability and emphasizing Croatian's distinct constitutional and official status. Similarly, Culture Minister Nina Obuljen Koržinek, on March 28, 2017, highlighted the historical affirmation of Croatian as separate, framing the declaration as lacking purpose amid established linguistic policies. In , the declaration intersects with provisions recognizing three constituent languages, raising concerns over potential disruptions to ethnically segmented institutions like education and governance. Linguist Milanka Babić from the University of East Sarajevo contended that it introduces no novel insights and holds no enforceable power, underscoring entrenched political uses of linguistic differentiation to maintain ethnic balances. Nationalists across the region, including figures like Croatian linguist August Kovačeć who labeled it "provocation and nonsense," perceive it as undermining sovereignty by facilitating cross-border , potentially exacerbating tensions rather than resolving them through imposed commonality. Proponents counter that the declaration counters the politicization of minor dialectal variances for divisive ends, advocating for pluricentric recognition to promote and reduce barriers in shared spaces like segregated schools. This perspective posits causal links between linguistic and sustained post-1990s conflict dynamics, suggesting that affirming empirical linguistic unity could support pragmatic , such as in EU accession processes, without negating variant standards. Debates thus hinge on whether prioritizing linguistic facts over fosters stability or invites backlash from groups reliant on separation for political legitimacy, with Croatian conservatives drawing parallels to the 1967 Croatian language declaration's resistance against perceived centralist dominance.

Linguistic Counterarguments

Some linguists, particularly Croatian scholars such as Dalibor Brozović, have contended that Croatian and Serbian represent distinct languages within a broader Central South Slavic diasystem, emphasizing independent standardization processes rather than a unified framework. Brozović argued that historical literary traditions and normative divergences justify separate status, rejecting the pluricentric model implied by the Declaration. This perspective prioritizes codified norms over spoken , positing that institutional regulation—such as Croatia's exclusive adoption of Ijekavian pronunciation and —creates functional autonomy. Counterarguments highlight phonological variations as evidence of divergence: the Serbian standard accommodates both Ekavian (e.g., mleko for "milk") and Ijekavian reflexes, whereas Croatian mandates strict Ijekavian (mlijeko), reflecting dialectal preferences codified since the 19th century. Lexical differences are amplified through purism in Croatian standardization, led by figures like Stjepan Babić, who advocated replacing international loanwords common in Serbian (e.g., avion for "airplane") with Slavic neologisms (zrakoplov), aiming to preserve etymological purity and cultural specificity. Babić's work on literary language differences underscored syntactic and stylistic variances, such as Croatian preferences for certain verb forms and avoidance of Turkisms retained in Bosnian or Serbian variants. Proponents of separation further argue that orthographic and morphological norms reinforce distinct identities: Montenegrin introduced unique digraphs (⟨ś⟩, ⟨ź⟩) in 2009 for , while Bosnian incorporates more Arabic-Persian loanwords and maintains dual scripts, diverging from Croatian's Latin-only exclusivity. These features, regulated by national academies since the , are cited as creating separate communicative standards, akin to how Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are treated as discrete languages despite high intelligibility. Critics of the Declaration, including some in the Croatian linguistic establishment, maintain that such institutional evolution—accelerated post-1991—entails causal independence, where shapes linguistic reality beyond empirical . However, these positions often intersect with national ideologies, as evidenced by purist campaigns in the that exaggerated differences for identity-building, with limited structural justification in peer-reviewed , where and core vocabulary overlap exceed 95%. Empirical studies on , such as translation tests between variants, show near-complete comprehension, undermining claims of inherent separation on purely linguistic grounds.

Impact and Legacy

Influence on Policy and Education

The Declaration advocates for the elimination of linguistic segregation in educational systems across , , , and , arguing that enforced divisions based on purported national languages hinder integration and impose unnecessary economic costs. It specifically calls for recognizing the shared polycentric language—encompassing Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian variants—to enable unified curricula, shared textbooks, and freedom in orthographic choices without institutional barriers. This position targets practices like 's "two schools under one roof" system, where ethnic groups attend separate classes under the same roof using nominally distinct languages despite near-complete , a model rooted in post-1995 accommodations that perpetuate division. In May 2017, shortly after the Declaration's launch, the Assembly of endorsed its principles while adopting the Law on , which defined the language of instruction as "Bosnian" but avoided rigid enforcement of variant-specific separations, aligning with the document's emphasis on practical commonality over politicized distinctions. This local support marked an early policy nod, potentially easing administrative hurdles in multicultural classrooms within the canton, though implementation has faced resistance from ethno-nationalist factions. Similarly, in , linguist Eugen Halilović revised norms in the 2017 edition of Pravopis bosanskog jezika, incorporating flexible pluricentric elements that echoed the Declaration's framework, influencing textbook standards and teacher guidelines by permitting shared linguistic resources without mandating ekavski-ijekavski splits as identity markers. Broader impacts remain constrained, with no region-wide reforms to laws or curricula by , as nationalist governments in and have upheld variant-specific mandates in to reinforce narratives. In administrative , the Declaration's push to halt superfluous translations in courts and bureaucracies—estimated to cost millions annually—has informed but yielded few verifiable reductions, as entrenched constitutions prioritize "national" languages. Educational debates spurred by the document have, however, prompted academic workshops and NGO initiatives, such as those by Udruženje Krokodil, fostering teacher training on polycentric approaches in informal settings across the region.

Ongoing Developments Since 2017

Following its publication in March 2017, the Declaration on the Common Language prompted continued advocacy through nongovernmental initiatives focused on countering linguistic and historical in the post-Yugoslav region. The associated signature campaign, coordinated by groups including the , amassed approximately 10,000 endorsements from individuals across , , , and by late 2018. In November 2019, the inaugural conference of the "Who Started All This? Historians against Revisionism" project convened in , building on the Declaration's principles by addressing historical narratives that reinforce ethnic divisions, with participants linking linguistic unity to broader regional reconciliation efforts. This initiative, supported by the delegation to , extended the Declaration's framework to , aiming to foster evidence-based discourse over politicized interpretations. By June 2020, the project's final conference culminated in the publicization of outcomes that reaffirmed the Declaration's call for recognizing shared cultural elements without imposing uniformity, while KROKODIL announced the "Defend History" declaration to safeguard factual historical education against revisionist pressures. These activities underscored ongoing civil society engagement, though they encountered persistent resistance from nationalist entities wary of eroding distinct identities. Academic discourse has sustained references to into the 2020s, with analyses in 2022 sociolinguistic studies highlighting its role in contesting official policies that segregate variants, and a 2024 linguistic examination portraying it as a catalyst for accelerated polycentric recognition amid evolving regional dynamics. No major policy shifts directly attributable to the initiative have materialized by , but its emphasis on empirical linguistic continuity persists in scholarly and activist circles as a counter to institutionalized fragmentation.

References

  1. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/text-of-the-declaration-on-common-language-in-english/
  2. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/03/30/post-yugoslav-common-language-declaration-challenges-nationalism-03-29-2017/
  3. https://qz.com/948383/declaration-of-common-language-says-bosnian-croatian-montenegrin-and-serbian-are-the-same-language
  4. https://vreme.com/en/projekat/deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku/
  5. https://n1info.hr/english/news/a290410-Noam-Chomsky-signs-Declaration-on-the-Common-Language/
  6. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/55062/1/Buncic%202021%20Ideologies%20about%20the%20Serbo-Croatian%20language.pdf
  7. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/189/1681/1328-2
  8. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/04/10/is-serbo-croatian-a-language
  9. https://ojs.ung.si/index.php/JSL/article/download/232/64
  10. https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/faculty/john.bailyn/files/publications/JSLBCS2.pdf
  11. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/159-the-politics-language-reform-the-yugoslav-successor-states
  12. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/182-language-nationalism-and-serbian-politics
  13. https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Yugoslavia-Constitution1974.pdf
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297466749_The_Croatian_Spring_and_the_Dissolution_of_Yugoslavia
  15. https://www.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.11126/stanford/9780804784023.001.0001/upso-9780804784023-chapter-11
  16. https://www.persee.fr/doc/slave_0080-2557_2004_num_75_1_6858
  17. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/216-language-identity-and-balkan-politics-struggle-for-identity-the-former-yugoslavia
  18. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA518648.pdf
  19. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/55062/1/Buncic%25202021%2520Ideologies%2520about%2520the%2520Serbo-Croatian%2520language.pdf
  20. https://www.un-aligned.org/country-profile/language-to-unite-language-to-separate-the-tale-of-serbian-croatian/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384123001468
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24600116
  23. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10149810/1/Calic_Pluricentricity%2520in%2520the%2520classroom_VoR.pdf
  24. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=35916
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288669947_Serbian_Croatian_Bosnian_Language_and_nationality_in_the_lands_of_former_Yugoslavia
  26. https://politicalscience.ceu.edu/sites/politicalscience.ceu.hu/files/attachment/basicpage/1095/srdjanjovanovic.pdf
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323129232_The_Misuse_of_Language_Serbo-Croatian_%27Czechoslovakian%27_and_the_Breakup_of_States
  28. https://jezicinacionalizmi.com/
  29. http://snjezana-kordic.from.hr/o-knjizi-jezik-i-nacionalizam/
  30. https://jezicinacionalizmi.com/deklaracija/
  31. https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/donosimo-dokument-koji-je-i-prije-predstavljanja-podijelio-javnost-sto-pise-u-deklaraciji-o-zajednickom-jeziku-hrvata-srba-bosnjaka-i-crnogoraca-5828939
  32. https://narod.hr/vjera-i-kultura/kultura/hazu-deklaracija-tzv-zajednickom-jeziku-besmislena-inicijativa
  33. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/2021/03/four-years-since-the-declaration-on-the-common-language/
  34. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/common-library/
  35. https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/nve-deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku/28713488.html
  36. https://www.tportal.hr/kultura/clanak/deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku-uzbunit-ce-duhove-evo-sto-kazu-njeni-potpisnici-20170328
  37. https://vlada.gov.hr/print.aspx?id=20387&url=print
  38. https://www.kontrapress.com/print.php?url=Deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340007256_The_Declaration_on_the_Common_Language_A_View_from_the_Inside
  40. https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/awpel/article/view/22595
  41. https://n1info.ba/vijesti/a146003-Predstavljena-Deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku/
  42. https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/sarajevo-deklaracija-zajednicki-jezik-predstavljanje/28399962.html
  43. https://balkans.aljazeera.net/video/2017/3/30/deklaracija-o-zajednickom-jeziku-predstavljena-u-sarajevu
  44. http://jezicinacionalizmi.com/lista-potpisnika/
  45. https://www.total-montenegro-news.com/lifestyle/768-chomsky-signed-the-declaration-of-the-common-language
  46. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/about-us/
  47. https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/drustvo/2692074/deklaraciju-o-zajednickom-jeziku-do-sada-potpisalo-8000-ljudi.html
  48. https://www.danas.rs/kultura/deklaraciju-o-zajednickom-jeziku-do-sada-potpisalo-8-000-ljudi/
  49. https://www.krokodil.rs/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Krokodil-Engaging-Words-and-Community-in-10-Stories.pdf
  50. https://sase.org.rs/honorary-members/
  51. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/soeu-2024-0047/html
  52. https://www.rferl.org/a/balkans-without-borders-sarajevo-declaration-common-language/28400837.html
  53. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/04/05/croatian-leftist-daily-shocks-with-rude-comment-04-05-2017/
  54. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/04/13/croatian-leftist-daily-condemns-language-rant-article-04-13-2017/
  55. https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/insults-threats-and-physical-attacks-journalists-serious-concern-croatia/
  56. https://mondediplo.com/2017/07/15Balkans
  57. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/03/30/declaration-of-common-language-unveiled-in-sarajevo-to-opposition-03-30-2017/
  58. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110888140.347/html
  59. https://belgradelanguageschool.com/serbian-vs-croatian-7-important-differences-you-didnt-know/
  60. https://philpapers.org/rec/BABTCA-2
  61. https://un-aligned.org/country-profile/language-to-unite-language-to-separate-the-tale-of-serbian-croatian/
  62. https://skolegijum.ba/arhiva/predmet-senzacionalno-skupstina-kantona-sarajevo-podrzava-deklaraciju-o-zajednickom-jeziku/
  63. https://forumfedorg.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/OPS-61-BiH.pdf
  64. https://europa.rs/who-started-it-historians-against-revisionism/?lang=en
  65. https://www.euzatebe.rs/en/news/the-first-conference-who-started-all-this-historians-against-revisionism
  66. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/2020/06/who-started-all-this-historians-against-revisionism-final-conference-and-the-publicization-of-the-declaration/
  67. https://www.krokodil.rs/eng/2020/06/declaration-entitled-defend-history-has-been-announced/
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363535507_Sociolinguistic_Policies_and_Their_Contestation_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
  69. https://academic.oup.com/book/56455/chapter/448539566
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.