Expressing Croatian identity through language designations

This paper discusses different definitions of identity with a focus on the place of language in these definitions. The centuries-long study of the standardisation of the Croatian language shows that the notion of a national language is also a component of a group’s collective identity. This paper gives an overview of designations used for the Croatian language, from the first known records to those used in the 21st century. These records clearly show that in past centuries language was indeed a connecting link between Croatian areas otherwise disconnected from each other through administrative or other boundaries. Language as an indicator of identity is also apparent in reactions to some recent EU initiatives that have suggested that collective terms such as ‘Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian’ or ‘Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian’ could be employed to also encompass the Croatian language

Observations on Croatian as a Heritage Language Across Four Continents

Of the approximately 6.67 million Croatian speakers worldwide, about 1.6 million are located in the Croatian diaspora, from Latin America to Western Europe, North America, and Australia. A multi-site project on Croatian as it is spoken in the diaspora was initiated in 2015 which encompassed ten corpora of linguistic data collected in nine different countries across four continents. Backgrounded by an overview of previous research into the speech of Croatian emigrants, this paper defines and explains the notion of ‘Croatian as a heritage language’. Our focus then turns to the speakers themselves, and we draw on a combined sample of corpora that consist of recorded speech samples gained from 300 Croatian-origin emigrants. These included first-, second- and third-generation speakers. We provide an overview of features in Croatian as a heritage language regarding the following four areas: pragmatics; lexicon; calques and loan translation; and code-switching. In our presentation of examples from all ten samples we compare data between countries and vintages of migration, and between speakers of older and younger generations. In our examination of examples, we also compare these with forms used in varieties of Croatian that are spoken in the homeland, both non-standard and standard. Our observations provide a contemporary and cross-national description of Croatian as a heritage language. At the same time, we position heritage Croatian within the field of contact linguistics research

Slavenski genitiv u hrvatskome jeziku

A direct object in Croatian is an object in the accusative case or an object in the genitive case which is interchangeable with the accusative. There are two types of direct object in the genitive case – the partitive genitive and the genitive of negation (Slavic genitive). The conditions that have to be met for the genitive of negation to be used are that the predicate verb has to be transitive, and that the sentence has to be negative. Therefore, the genitive of negation can only be realized in negative sentences in which it is synonymous with the accusative, while in the positive sentences the direct object is exclusively in the accusative case.Bliži je objekt u hrvatskome jeziku objekt u akuzativu ili genitivu koji je akuzativom zamjenjiv. Dva su bliža objekta u genitivu: partitivni i slavenski genitiv. Uvjet za slavenski genitiv je da je predikatni glagol prelazan, a rečenica preoblikovana nijekanjem. Slavenski je genitiv, dakle, ostvariv samo u zanijekanim rečenicama i u njima je sinoniman s akuzativom, dok je u jesnoj rečenici u bliži objekt isključivo u akuzativu

Slavenski genitiv u hrvatskome jeziku

A direct object in Croatian is an object in the accusative case or an object in the genitive case which is interchangeable with the accusative. There are two types of direct object in the genitive case – the partitive genitive and the genitive of negation (Slavic genitive). The conditions that have to be met for the genitive of negation to be used are that the predicate verb has to be transitive, and that the sentence has to be negative. Therefore, the genitive of negation can only be realized in negative sentences in which it is synonymous with the accusative, while in the positive sentences the direct object is exclusively in the accusative case.Bliži je objekt u hrvatskome jeziku objekt u akuzativu ili genitivu koji je akuzativom zamjenjiv. Dva su bliža objekta u genitivu: partitivni i slavenski genitiv. Uvjet za slavenski genitiv je da je predikatni glagol prelazan, a rečenica preoblikovana nijekanjem. Slavenski je genitiv, dakle, ostvariv samo u zanijekanim rečenicama i u njima je sinoniman s akuzativom, dok je u jesnoj rečenici u bliži objekt isključivo u akuzativu

METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE STUDY OF SYNTAX IN OLD CROATIAN GRAMMARS

U radu se raspravljaju metodološka polazišta za istraživanje povijesne sintakse. Povijesnu je sintaksu moguće istraživati u tri pravca: kao analizu sintaktičkih opisa u hrvatskim gramatikama, kao analizu sintakse tekstova pisanih hrvatskim književnim jezikom od Bašćanske ploče do danas i kao analizu sintaktičkih značajki hrvatskoga jezika, uključujući i sintaksu hrvatskoga književnog jezika i hrvatskih dijalekata. U ovome se radu analizira prvi pravac istraživanja - analiza sintaktičkih opisa u hrvatskim gramatikama od prve tiskane gramatike Bartola Kašića iz 1604. godine do danas, s naglaskom na starijem hrvatskom jezikoslovlju. Uz svaki od ova tri pravca istraživanja povijesne sintakse povezuju se specifični problemi, a u ovome će radu biti raspravljeni samo neki metodološki problemi vezani uz prvi pravac istraživanja. Izdvajamo: uspostavljanje relevantnoga popisa hrvatskih gramatika; odnos utjecaja tiskane i rukopisne gramatike; različite književnojezične koncepcije hrvatskih gramatika; normativnost u starijim hrvatskim gramatikama; različitost sintaktičkih pojmova nekada i danas itd.The paper discusses methodological starting points for the study of historical syntax. The study of historical syntax can be carried out in three directions: as the analysis of syntactic descriptions in Croatian grammars, as the analysis of syntax of texts written in standard Croatian from the Baška Stone Tablet to the present and as the analysis of syntactic features of the Croatian language including both the syntax of the Croatian standard language and the Croatian dialects. This paper analyzes the first study direction, that is the analysis of syntactic descriptions in Croatian grammars from the first printed grammar by Bartol Kašic dated in 1604 to the present with emphasis on older Croatian linguistics. Each of these three directions for the study of historical syntax is related to particular methodological problems. This paper will deal only with some methodological problems related to the first study direction. These are, e.g.: the making of a relevant list of Croatian grammars, relations between the influence of printed grammars and those in manuscript, different literary-linguistic concepts of Croatian grammars, normativity in older Croatian grammars, difference between former and present syntactic terms, etc

Observations on Croatian as a Heritage Language Across Four Continents

Of the approximately 6.67 million Croatian speakers worldwide, about 1.6 million are located in the Croatian diaspora, from Latin America to Western Europe, North America, and Australia. A multi-site project on Croatian as it is spoken in the diaspora was initiated in 2015 which encompassed ten corpora of linguistic data collected in nine different countries across four continents. Backgrounded by an overview of previous research into the speech of Croatian emigrants, this paper defines and explains the notion of ‘Croatian as a heritage language’. Our focus then turns to the speakers themselves, and we draw on a combined sample of corpora that consist of recorded speech samples gained from 300 Croatian-origin emigrants. These included first-, second- and third-generation speakers. We provide an overview of features in Croatian as a heritage language regarding the following four areas: pragmatics; lexicon; calques and loan translation; and code-switching. In our presentation of examples from all ten samples we compare data between countries and vintages of migration, and between speakers of older and younger generations. In our examination of examples, we also compare these with forms used in varieties of Croatian that are spoken in the homeland, both non-standard and standard. Our observations provide a contemporary and cross-national description of Croatian as a heritage language. At the same time, we position heritage Croatian within the field of contact linguistics research

Kaj se izborio za svoju knjigu

Bojana Schubert. 2021. Priča o jednom Kaju. (Ilustrator Grgo Petrov). Zagreb: Srednja Europa za mlade. 44 str

Croatian maritime terminology in the 19th century

U članku se govori o početcima sustavnoga rada na stvaranju hrvatskoga pomorskog nazivlja. Do druge polovice 19. stoljeća moguće je jedino praćenje naziva vezanih uz more, brodove, oblike obale i vrste vjetrova u leksikografskim i pjesničkim djelima autora iz jadranskih gradova. Pojačavanje napora na usustavljivanju hrvatskoga pomorskog nazivlja potakle su potrebe proizašle iz školovanja pomoraca, posebice u Rijeci i Bakru. Najistaknutiji su bili nastavnici i upravitelji pomorskih škola Jakov Anton Mikoč i Božo Babić. Jakov Anton Mikoč autor je maloga rukopisnoga pomorskog priručnika \u27Rĕčnik rukokretni\u27 (1852. godine) te nastavnoga plana i programa C. K. Zavoda brodoslovlja u Rijeci na hrvatskome jeziku. Božo Babić, ravnatelj Nautičke učione u Bakru, autor je pet pomorskih rječnika, objavljenih izmedu 1870. i 1901. godine. I drugi su nastavnici bakarske škole (Luka Roić, Dezider Kasumović, Juraj Carić, Nikola Gerechtshammer ... ) skupljali pomorsko nazivlje, naročito za korito i jedrilje, pa je tih 2700 naziva bilo osnovom \u27Pomorskoga rječnika\u27 Rudolfa Crnića iz 1922. godine.The paper deals with the history of the Croatian maritime terminology, especially in the nineteenth century. Jakov Anton Mikoč and Božo Babić were among the greatest names of the Croatian maritime lexicography. In 1852 Mikoč wrote a little dictionary, which has remained unpublished. Babić was the author of five maritime dictionaries published between 1870 and 1901. Mikoč and Babić proposed Croatian terms instead of official Italian ones on the one hand, and common jargon spoken by Croatian seamen -a kind of combination of Croatian and Italian lexemes -on the other