Eng
lish
Kontakt
Išči
Meni
Tečaji za odrasle
Izpiti
Knjige
Za otroke
Na tujih univerzah
Seminar SJLK
Simpozij obdobja
Izobraževanja za učitelje
28. Obdobja:
Pojdi na
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40-41
42-43
44-45
46-47
48-49
50-51
52-53
54-55
56-57
58-59
60-61
62-63
64-65
66-67
68-69
70-71
72-73
74-75
76-77
78-79
80-81
82-83
84-85
86-87
88-89
90-91
92-93
94-95
96-97
98-99
100-101
102-103
104-105
106-107
108-109
110-111
112-113
114-115
116-117
118-119
120-121
122-123
124-125
126-127
128-129
130-131
132-133
134-135
136-137
138-139
140-141
142-143
144-145
146-147
148-149
150-151
152-153
154-155
156-157
158-159
160-161
162-163
164-165
166-167
168-169
170-171
172-173
174-175
176-177
178-179
180-181
182-183
184-185
186-187
188-189
190-191
192-193
194-195
196-197
198-199
200-201
202-203
204-205
206-207
208-209
210-211
212-213
214-215
216-217
218-219
220-221
222-223
224-225
226-227
228-229
230-231
232-233
234-235
236-237
238-239
240-241
242-243
244-245
246-247
248-249
250-251
252-253
254-255
256-257
258-259
260-261
262-263
264-265
266-267
268-269
270-271
272-273
274-275
276-277
278-279
280-281
282-283
284-285
286-287
288-289
290-291
292-293
294-295
296-297
298-299
300-301
302-303
304-305
306-307
308-309
310-311
312-313
314-315
316-317
318-319
320-321
322-323
324-325
326-327
328-329
330-331
332-333
334-335
336-337
338-339
340-341
342-343
344-345
346-347
348-349
350-351
352-353
354-355
356-357
358-359
360-361
362-363
364-365
366-367
368-369
370-371
372-373
374-375
376-377
378-379
380-381
382-383
384-385
386-387
388-389
390-391
392-393
394-395
396-397
398-399
400-401
402-403
404-405
406-407
408-409
410-411
412-413
414-415
416-417
418-419
420-421
422-423
424-425
426-427
428-429
430-431
432-433
434-435
436-437
438-439
440-441
442-443
444-445
446-447
448-449
450-451
452-453
454-455
456-457
458-459
460-461
462-463
464-465
466-467
468-469
470-471
472-473
474-475
476
prelom 197-364 19/11/09 13:34 Page 308 Simpozij OBDOBJA 28 In this regard, I adopt the view expressedboth belonged to the sphere of Slavia in Schiffmann (1996:5 ff) that language poli-Romana, and were therefore strongly affected cy is ultimately grounded in linguistic culture:by Latin, but also by a specific relation to the that is, the set of behaviours, assumptions, cul-so-called Illyrian language. The second is that tural forms, prejudices, folk belief systems,they both belonged to a number of different attitudes, stereotypes and ways of thinkingstate formations during their histories, often about language, as well as the religious-histor-the same ones. ical circumstances associated with a particu-The fact that Latin was an official lan- lar language. That is, the beliefs (one mightguage in Slavia Romana from the very begin- even use the term myths) that a speech com-ning and served the purposes of the Roman munity has about language (and this includesCatholic Church is well known, but it has to literacy) in general and its language in partic-be remembered that as early as the 16th cen- ular (from which it usually derives its attitudestury the specific importance of the language towards other languages) are part of the sociallabelled as Illyrian was recognised. This lan- conditions that affect the maintenance andguage, or more precisely, this concept with an transmission of its language. For this reason,open meaning, for some very broad and for categorising language policies without lookingothers very narrow, was recognised as a medi- at the background from which they arise isum that could serve the purposes of the probably futile, if not simply trivial.Roman Catholic Church in a way that no Both Slovene and Croatian as literary lan-other national language could. By asserting guages emerged from the South Slavic dialectthis I do not intend to imply that the Catholic continuum. Both languages experienced a Church encouraged the idea of Illyrian as a centuries-long process of literary language cre-common language for Slovenes and Croats. I ation, during which the choices that werejust want to say that there was an understand- made, as well as the hierarchy of what wasing that the scope of the Illyrian language, or perceived as central or peripheral, changed athe idea of an Illyrian language, was much number of times. Despite their long, rich lite-broader than the scope of any other South rary traditions, the final choices of basicSlavic language for the purposes of the mis- parameters, such as the choice of a dialectalsionary activity of the Catholic Church up basis for Croatian and the orthographic sys-until the 19th century. tematisation for both languages, were madeFor this reason, when speaking of connec- relatively recently, during the second half oftions to other South Slavic languages, it should the 19th century and the first half of the 20thbe particularly emphasised that Slovene, century. Also, over time both languages devel-through the idea of Illyrian, as well as because oped hierarchically dependent relationsof its geographical proximity to Croatian, devel- towards other languages: neighbouring Southoped specific relations to the latter, more than Slavic languages, as well as non-Slavic (most-to other South Slavic languages.2In addition, it ly already literary) languages. has to be said that Croatian and Slovene There were two points in the history ofbelonged to the same states in recent history, both the Slovene and Croatian literary lan-beginning with Austro-Hungary and ending guages that most strongly influenced their sta-with Yugoslavia, which also, to some extent, tus and corpus. The first is the fact that theyinfluenced both their status and corpus. 2 This situation changed somewhat when Croatian itself became part of what was officially labelled Serbo- Croatian for most of the 20th century, thus acquiring closer relations with the sphere of Slavia Orthodoxa. 308