engleski

Language Planning and Implementation in Croatia: A Critical Discourse Approach

This research project concentrates on the discourse planning component of language policy and planning in Croatia, i.e. on “the influence and effect on people’s mental states, behaviors and belief systems through the linguistically mediated ideological workings of institutions, disciplines, and diverse social formations“ (Lo Bianco 2004: 743). Applying a (multimodal) critical discourse analysis approach (Verschueren 2012, Machin & Mayr 2012, Fairclough 2015), we have investigated different ways in which individuals and groups in positions of power and authority promote, normalize, and portray as ‘common sense’ various language ideologies (1) in popular usage guides (Kapović, Starčević & Sarić 2016), (2) on national radio (Starčević 2016, Kalogjera & Starčević 2016) and television programs, (3) in professional publications by established language planners, and (4) in teaching Croatian as a first language (textbooks and classroom practices). Among the ideologies which are presented as ‘neutral’ and ‘scholarly’ are 1) the ideology of the standard language (Milroy 2001), (2) the ideology of communication as telementation by a fixed code (Harris 2003), (3) the monoglossic ideology (García 2009)/purism, (4) the ideology of monosemoformy (one form ~ one meaning), (5) the ideology of monoverby (a single word is favored over a phrase), (6) the ideology of constant standard language use, (7) etymological fallacy, (8) the ideology of discrete literal and metaphorical meanings, (9) the ideology of Greek, Latin, and Czech language prestige, (10) the ideology of zero redundancy, (11) the ideology of formal symmetry, and (12) the ideology of formal style. The strategies employed include (1) (aggressive) (monosemic and monoformic) erasure (Irvine and Gal 2000), (2) the strategy of apparent descriptiveness, (3) the strategy of liberal advice, (4) equating the concept of language culture/cultivation only with the standard dialect, (5) stigmatizing trivial formal variation, and (6) pretending not to understand common utterances. As a result, many varieties, linguistic practices, and social identities are essentialized, stigmatized or rendered invisible, with many speakers reporting feelings of incompetence, linguistic insecurity (Labov 1972), schizoglossia (Haugen 1962), linguistic self-hatred (Giles and Niedzielski 1999), as well as hatred towards others. Instead of acting as language brokers, some teachers and authoritative individuals are perceived as language breakers (Starčević 2014) who encourage intra- and inter-speaker conflict. Since the ideologies are promoted at the expense of most speakers of Croatian, we argue that more informed language debates are needed in Croatia’s public sphere, especially for language professionals as key figures in the propagation of ideas about language variation and multilingualism.

language policy and planning ; language ideologies ; language teaching ; language breaker

Sažetak je objavljen u knjižici sažetaka.