Grammaire du bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe by Paul-Louis Thomas, Vladimir Osipov (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Grammaire du bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe by Paul-Louis Thomas, Vladimir Osipov Ronelle Alexander Paul-Louis Thomas and Vladimir Osipov. Grammaire du bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe. Paris, Institut d’études slaves, 2012. 621pp. [Collection de grammaires de l’Institut d’études slaves, 8.] Whatever one’s opinions about the breakup of Yugoslavia, the corresponding breakup of its major language, Serbo-Croatian, has provided linguists specializing in the region with unparalleled opportunities for linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis, with the happy result of a number of detailed, insightful, and valuable linguistic studies. What might seem obvious to the outside layman—that just as the federation we knew as Yugoslavia was replaced by separate named states, so was its common language, Serbo-Croatian, replaced by separate languages bearing the names of these new states (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin)—does not bear up to serious linguistic analysis, since languages cannot be created by political fiat alone. At the same time, Serbo-Croatian was always a polycentric language, with a generally accepted subdivision into variants that correspond roughly to the new “languages.” To what extent, then, can each of these now be treated as a separate language? Does the single language embodying their common core—what used to be called Serbo-Croatian—still exist, and if so, what should it be called? Finally, how can the answers to these questions be put into practical use? One of the first Western scholars to address these questions was Paul-Louis Thomas, who posed the first of them directly in Thomas 1994, whose title reads “Serbo-croate, serbe, croate…, bosniaque, monténégrin: Une, deux…, trois, quatre langues?”, and which I still consider to be one of the best scholarly treatments of the relevant issues. Now Thomas has joined forces with Vladimir Osipov to produce a full-length grammar of what they call “le bosniaque-croate-monténégrin-serbe” (23). The book’s Introduction (23–48), a thoughtful essay addressing the questions posed above, is followed by a full-length, highly detailed reference grammar brimming with examples accompanied by clear, sometimes even elegant, prose commentary. It is a masterful job, a reference [End Page 123] grammar that belongs on the shelf (and in the hands) of everyone with any serious interest in the language(s). The introductory essay is essential, of course, since any book of this sort must set forth its stance at the outset. After a brief but clear survey of the variants (where special care is taken to debunk the popular—but clearly mistaken—equation of Serbian with ekavian and Croatian with ijekavian [32]), the authors isolate four criteria which must be addressed in answering the question of whether we have to do with “une ou plusieurs langues” [one language or several]. With respect to the first two criteria, the structural and the genetic, the answer is clearly that we are dealing with a single linguistic system. This is also the case with the third criterion, that of mutual intelligibility. As proof, the authors cite the obvious absence of bilingual dictionaries or translations. They note, quite correctly, that the several “differential dictionaries” which have appeared are very unsatisfactory due to the fact that actual usage simply cannot be described in black and white terms (40). In other words, we have to do with a single language structurally, historically, and communicatively. It is in the fourth criterion, however, the axiological (or “value- bearing”) that one finds the separation. Here what matters is the symbolic function of identity. The authors point out that each of the national-ethnic groups in question has felt a strong need to articulate an identity which is markedly different from the others, and it follows naturally (for them, anyway) to infer from this that its language is also markedly different from the others. This, the authors claim, is what has led politicians and linguists working with them both to assert that each of the languages is separate and to find various means to highlight this separateness. Examples of such means (well known to anyone with an interest in these topics) are the Croatian move to cleanse its lexicon of perceived Serbisms and to replace...