'Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb'
Doi
Abstract
U radu se propituje društvena uloga lingvista u turbulentnim devedesetim godinama 20. st. u Hrvatskoj u kojoj tadašnji akteri jezične politike s pozicija moći na različite načine razvijaju svijest o jeziku kao nacionalnom simbolu koji im služi za učvršćivanje hrvatskoga jezičnog identiteta. Tada je hrvatski standardni jezik bio obilježen različitim oblicima jezičnoga inženjeringa, i to na svim jezičnim razinama, pogotovo na leksičkoj i pravopisnoj. Kako se javno boriti i kako reagirati na jezično nasilje i različita “škakljiva” i politički obilježena jezična pitanja pokazuje se na primjerima polemičkih tekstova Ive Pranjkovića. Istražuju se Pranjkovićevi stavovi a) prema znanstvenoj istini, b) prema struci, tj. jezikoslovnoj kroatistici i c) prema hrvatskome standardnom jeziku 1990-ih godina (odnos hrvatskoga i srpskoga jezika, problem srbizama, razlikovni rječnici, normativni i paranormativni problemi, tj. različite inovacije, posebice na leksičkoj razini i sl.). Zaključuje se da u Pranjkovićevim stavovima nema kontradikcija i/ili oscilacija. Kao angažiran i proaktivan lingvist jasno i nedvojbeno brani autonomiju jezika i struke, kao i dostojanstvo znanstvenika.This paper discusses the social role of linguists in the turbulent 1990s in Croatia, when the language policy makers holding positions of power tried to develop, in different ways, the awareness of language as a national symbol which they used to strengthen Croatian linguistic identity. At that time the Croatian standard language was marked with different forms of language-engineering at all language levels, especially at the lexical and orthographic levels. The polemic texts written by Ivo Pranjković are in this paper observed as clear examples of how to fight publicly and of how to react to linguistic violence and various delicate and politically-labelled issues of language. The paper further investigates Pranjković’s attitudes towards: (a) the scientific truth, (b) the profession, i.e. Croatian linguistics, and (c) the Croatian standard language in the 1990s (the relationship between Croatian and Serbian, the problem of Serbian words in Croatian language, the dictionaries of differences between the two languages, the normative and paranormative issues, i.e. different innovations, especially at the lexical level, etc.). It is concluded that there are no contradictions and/or oscillations in Pranjković’s opinions. As an engaging and proactive linguist, he clearly and unquestionably defends the autonomy of language and profession
