Standard Language in Bosna and Hercegovina - in Language Policy Documents

From the beginning of the standardisation of language in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. from the acceptance of Karadzic's phonetic spelling in the mid-19th century, to the present day when there are three different language standards in force - Bosniac (Muslim), Croatian and Serbian, language in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a subject of political conflict. Documents on language policy from this period show the degree to which domestic and foreign political factors influenced the standard language issue, beginning with the very appellation for the specific norm regulation. The material analysed (proclamations by political, cultural and other organisations as well as corresponding constitutional and statutory provisions on language use) shows the differing treatment of the standard language in Bosnia and Herzegovina in different historical periods. During the period of Turkish rule (until 1878) there was no real political interest in the issue. Under Austro-Hungarian rule (1878-1918) there was an attempt to use the language as a means of forming a united Bosnian nation, but this was later abandoned. During the first Yugoslavia (1918-1941) a uniform solution was imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina, as throughout the Serbo-Croatian language area, while under the Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945), the official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina was Croatian. The period from 1945 to 1991 had two phases: the first a standard language unity of Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Montenegrins (until 1965), and the second a gradual but stormy separation of national languages, which has been largely completed since 1991. The introductory study includes a detailed analysis of all the expressions used, with special reference to the present state, and accompanies the collection of documents which represent the main outcome of the research.

Literature in Bosnia and Hercegovina till 19th Century in South Slav Context

Mr. Gajevic traced the development of literacy and literature in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the 12th to the 19th in relation to other south Slavic literatures and civilisations, studying their interrelations, links and influences. From the 12th to the 15th centuries, literature in this area developed under strong influence from the neighbouring South Slavic countries, which were directly connected with more developed foreign cultures and civilisations. The literatures of these countries had differing religious and cultural backgrounds, some developing under Byzantine and Orthodox influence and others as a part of Latin civilisation and the Catholic religion. This led to different and sometimes contradictory literary, religious and other influences on Bosnia and Herzegovina, making spiritual and religious unity for the country virtually impossible. Under the influence of the Bosnian state and church, however, there were signs of a search for compromise, leading to some mixing of the difference traditions. Following the Turkish conquest, however, three denominational communities (Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim) developed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and this became the general framework for life, including literature. This led to three separate literary traditions - Serb-Orthodox, Croat-Catholic and Bosniac-Islamic. This internal disintegration of Bosnian literature did however facilitate the process of integration of some of its denominational traditions with similar traditions in other countries. The third aspect considered in the research was the genesis and expansion of vernacular and folk literature from Bosnia and Herzegovina throughout the South Slavic areas and its contribution to the language and literature integration of four peoples - Serbs, Croats, Bosniacs and Montenegrins. Of special interest here were the aspirations of the Catholic church to establish the Bosnian language as the common South Slavic literary language for its religious and propaganda activities, and the contribution of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic to the effort to establish the "Bosnian language" as the common literary language of the South Slavic peoples.

A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology

Grigorij Kreidlin (Russia). A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology. Mr. Kreidlin teaches in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the State University of Humanities in Moscow and worked on this project from August 1996 to July 1998. The classical approach to non-verbal and verbal oral communication is based on a traditional separation of body and mind. Linguists studied words and phrasemes, the products of mind activities, while gestures, facial expressions, postures and other forms of body language were left to anthropologists, psychologists, physiologists, and indeed to anyone but linguists. Only recently have linguists begun to turn their attention to gestures and semiotic and cognitive paradigms are now appearing that raise the question of designing an integral model for the unified description of non-verbal and verbal communicative behaviour. This project attempted to elaborate lexical and semantic fragments of such a model, producing a co-ordinated semantic description of the main Russian gestures (including gestures proper, postures and facial expressions) and their natural language analogues. The concept of emblematic gestures and gestural phrasemes and of their semantic links permitted an appropriate description of the transformation of a body as a purely physical substance into a body as a carrier of essential attributes of Russian culture - the semiotic process called the culturalisation of the human body. Here the human body embodies a system of cultural values and displays them in a text within the area of phraseology and some other important language domains. The goal of this research was to develop a theory that would account for the fundamental peculiarities of the process. The model proposed is based on the unified lexicographic representation of verbal and non-verbal units in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures, which the Mr. Kreidlin had earlier complied in collaboration with a group of his students. The Dictionary was originally oriented only towards reflecting how the lexical competence of Russian body language is represented in the Russian mind. Now a special type of phraseological zone has been designed to reflect explicitly semantic relationships between the gestures in the entries and phrasemes and to provide the necessary information for a detailed description of these. All the definitions, rules of usage and the established correlations are written in a semantic meta-language. Several classes of Russian gestural phrasemes were identified, including those phrasemes and idioms with semantic definitions close to those of the corresponding gestures, those phraseological units that have lost touch with the related gestures (although etymologically they are derived from gestures that have gone out of use), and phrasemes and idioms which have semantic traces or reflexes inherited from the meaning of the related gestures. The basic assumptions and practical considerations underlying the work were as follows. (1) To compare meanings one has to be able to state them. To state the meaning of a gesture or a phraseological expression, one needs a formal semantic meta-language of propositional character that represents the cognitive and mental aspects of the codes. (2) The semantic contrastive analysis of any semiotic codes used in person-to-person communication also requires a single semantic meta-language, i.e. a formal semantic language of description,. This language must be as linguistically and culturally independent as possible and yet must be open to interpretation through any culture and code. Another possible method of conducting comparative verbal-non-verbal semantic research is to work with different semantic meta-languages and semantic nets and to learn how to combine them, translate from one to another, etc. in order to reach a common basis for the subsequent comparison of units. (3) The practical work in defining phraseological units and organising the phraseological zone in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures unexpectedly showed that semantic links between gestures and gestural phrasemes are reflected not only in common semantic elements and syntactic structure of semantic propositions, but also in general and partial cognitive operations that are made over semantic definitions. (4) In comparative semantic analysis one should take into account different values and roles of inner form and image components in the semantic representation of non-verbal and verbal units. (5) For the most part, gestural phrasemes are direct semantic derivatives of gestures. The cognitive and formal techniques can be regarded as typological features for the future functional-semantic classification of gestural phrasemes: two phrasemes whose meaning can be obtained by the same cognitive or purely syntactic operations (or types of operations) over the meanings of the corresponding gestures, belong by definition to one and the same class. The nature of many cognitive operations has not been studied well so far, but the first steps towards its comprehension and description have been taken. The research identified 25 logically possible classes of relationships between a gesture and a gestural phraseme. The calculation is based on theoretically possible formal (set-theory) correlations between signifiers and signified of the non-verbal and verbal units. However, in order to examine which of them are realised in practice a complete semantic and lexicographic description of all (not only central) everyday emblems and gestural phrasemes is required and this unfortunately does not yet exist. Mr. Kreidlin suggests that the results of the comparative analysis of verbal and non-verbal units could also be used in other research areas such as the lexicography of emotions.

Language, Thought, Relativism, Nationalism: An Interdisciplinary Study

Ms. Neumer and her team began their project with a critical analysis of the various theories of the relationship between language and thought. Their aim was to develop a theoretical position concerning the issue of universalism versus relativism. This issue is closely bound up with one of the main questions of the history of East and Central Europe, namely, the question of the nation, and the possibility of mutual understanding between national cultures. The team attempted to avoid falling into an all-too-common trap, that of allowing a political perspective to obscure the central theoretical issues. In a project whose outcome totalled over 1000 pages of manuscript in German, English and Hungarian, they touched on cognitive psychological, linguistic, semiotic, socio-semiotic, and other such themes. Their experience has convinced them of the fruitful heuristic possibilities of the interaction of scientific and philosophical approaches in this area of research. A preliminary analysis of the history of philosophy and inquiries into conceptual fields revealed that, in order to reach strong relativist conclusions concerning the unity of thought and language, it is required to take as a point of departure the widest possible sense of these concepts. But in fact, such an option ends up refuting itself: pursuing the premises to their final conclusion one arrives at the restriction of relativism. The team outlined a theory of the understanding of the Other which, borrowing from analytical as well as continental-hermeneutic trends, does not underestimate, on the one hand, the difficulties of understanding between various forms of life, cultures, and languages, but, on the other hand, can provide an alternative solution to the theory of incommensurabiltiy. Within the boundary of this problematic the team studied the problems of translatability, the acquisition of the mother and foreign languages, and natural or cultural determinacy of kind terms. The team regards its most original contribution to be the association of the problem of relativism-universalism and the language-thought relation with contemporary investigations into the question of orality, literacy, and secondary orality. Their conclusion was that, although certain connections can be revealed both between forms of communication and the thesis of the unity of language and thought, and between periods in the history of communication and the predominance of relativistic or universalistic tendencies, forms of communication do not unequivocally determine the answers to these questions.