Croats can't speak Croatian: Dominant language ideologies in Croatian usage guides and media

Language ideologies can be defined as “beliefs, or feelings, about languages as used in their social worlds” (Kroskrity 2004:498), e.g. the ideology of the standard language (Milroy 2001) or the monoglossic ideology (Garcia and Flores 2012). Research into language ideologies enables us to analyze ‘commonsensical’, taken-for-granted ideas about varieties and their speakers which individuals in positions of authority often use to promote schizoglossia (Haugen 1962), language anxiety, and thus (un)intentionally work towards delegitimizing and excluding large numbers of speakers from the public sphere. This paper deals with currently dominant language ideologies in (a) popular Croatian usage guides written by language professionals and (b) language-focused programs on Croatian television and radio. Such sources have been subjected to critical discourse analysis (Verschueren 2012) and their claims have been compared to findings from descriptive linguistics. The results indicate that the Croatian public sphere is dominated by several types of language ideologies: (1) ideology of the standard language, (2) ideology of constant standard language use, (3) the monoglossic ideology, (4) ideology of purism, (5) etymological fallacy, (6) ideology of discrete literal and metaphorical meanings, (7) ideology of invisible dialects, (8) ideology of excessive meanings, (9) ideology of zero redundancy, and (10) ideology of classical languages (Greek and Latin). More precisely, the Croatian language is portrayed as preferably static and identified with the standard variety (which is to be used at all times), separate from other languages in theory and in use (borrowing and code-switching are framed as negative phenomena). Meanings perceived as older are preferred to those perceived as newer ones, while metaphorical extensions of literal meanings are seen as incorrect. Some non-standard varieties close to the standard are not perceived as dialects but as deformed, illegitimate versions of the standard, and some other non-standard varieties are considered valid as long as they are not used in the public sphere. Some lexical elements and meanings are regarded as an unnecessary psycholinguistic burden for speakers, while some structures are proscribed as repetitive and insufficiently concise. Finally, elements perceived as non-Croatian are portrayed as undesirable (Czech being the sole exception), and classical languages are perceived as a more beneficial influence on Croatian than other, modern languages. All of these findings indicate that the way in which language issues are presented to the general public promotes prescriptive, linguistically unfounded views, collective language insecurity, as well as intolerance among speakers of Croatian, which calls for a more frequent presentation of scholarly perspectives on language both in schools and in the media.