HISTORY OF SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

CENTRE FOR SOUTH-EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

MATKO GALIĆ
FEBRUARY 27, 2019

THE LANGUAGE POLICY

IN YUGOSLAVIA - The
Implications of the
Declaration on the Name
and Status of the Croatian
Literary Language
 Language played one of the key roles in the creation of the Yugoslav nation
and identity. Since both represented the majority, Croatian and Serbian formed a basis
of such a process. Already in 1850, as a result of the Vienna Literary Agreement (Bečki
književni dogovor), efforts of unification of the two languages have begun. With the
foundation of the first Yugoslavia in 1918, a usage of Serbian language was openly
imposed in public sphere, i.e. schools, state administration and public life. In order to
avoid such a thing from repeating, in January 1944, a decree on publishing decisions
and declarations of AVNOJ in “Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian
language”1 was brought. Language names, specifically, were not mentioned in the
1946 Constitution. In Article 65, it was defined that declarations should be published
in languages of the republics. Furthermore, in the Decision on the Official Journal, the
publishing of the Official Gazette (Službeni list) had to be published and edited in
Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian language2.

With the break from the centralised model of the government in the end of the
40s, the country opened itself to large-scale reforms, in terms of democratisation, de-
bureaucratisation and de-nationalisation3. On the contrary, language policy did not
follow such tendencies. The most intense campaign towards creating the national
identity with language started in this period. Certainly, the regime strived to neutralise
potentially dangerous national issues, i.e. defining names and official language in
multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina and/or Macedonia. The means to achieve more
homogeneity were through the integration of the two most-spoken languages of the
country, Serbian and Croatian.

Such integration was partly achieved with the Novi Sad Agreement in 1954.
The so-called common language (zajednički jezik), lingua communis, was created,
and the argumentation of such initiative was settled in the Survey on the questions of
Serbo-Croatian language and orthography (Anketa o pitanjima srpskohrvatskog jezika
I pravopisa), conducted by Matica Srpska in Novi Sad. The Agreement was signed by
a number of prominent Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin linguists and

1 S. Babić, “Za ravnopravnost, ali čega?”, Jezik, 16, 5, 1968-1969, 140; I. Pranjković, “Hrvatski jezik
od godine 1945. do 2000.”, Hrvatski jezik u XX. stoljeću, Zagreb 2006, 30
2 Ustav Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije, Beograd 1949, 30; S. Babić, “Za ravnopravnost,

ali čega?”, 140-142.

3 D. Bilandžić, Historija Socijalističke federativne republike Jugoslavije, Glavni procesi, Zagreb 1978,

212

1
philologists and it brought forth several conclusions, such as: The language of Serbs,
Croats and Montenegrins is a single, polycentric language, with two centres, Zagreb
and Belgrade, with two equal pronunciation variants, ijekavian and ekavian; In official
usage, it is necessary to highlight both of its constituent parts; Both writing systems,
Latin and Cyrillic, are equal and both Serbs and Croats should be taught to use them;
etc. Additionally, the Agreement expressed the need for writing a common orthography
and dictionary, which would strive to balance the scientific terminology4.

What followed was the printing of two dictionaries in 1960, one made by Matica
hrvatska, and another by Matica srpska. The one printed in Zagreb was printed in
ijekavian in Latin alphabet, whereas the Belgrade’s one was in ekavian in Cyrillic
alphabet. The former was named Pravopis hrvatskosrpskog književnog jezika, and
latter Pravopis srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika. The new orthography formulated
the unitary grammar with two writing and pronunciation systems, and western
(zapadni) and eastern (istočni) form of pronouncing foreign vocabulary. An important
part of this was that it was up to an individual to choose which form/variant of the one
language she or he will use.

First disputes about language arose as a part of the liberalisation that followed
the dismissal of Aleksandar Ranković in 1966. In the same year, Slovenia and
Macedonia advocated for a more consistent enforcement of the constitutionally
protected equality of languages. In February 1967, Slovenian cultural and scientific
institutions sent an open letter in which they demanded that television programme in
Slovenia broadcasts only in Slovenian, as most of it was in Serbo-Croatian. Slovenian
and Macedonian had a relatively special place in the country’s language policy so it’s
not surprising that most of their demands were accepted without much complaint.
What this caused is that the Croatian side took this as an opportunity to highlight issues
with the Croatian and/or Croato-Serbian language. It's important to mention that which
further infuriated the academic community in Socialist Republic of Croatia, and that
was the publishing of the common dictionary by Miloš Moskovljević in 1966. The
dictionary defined Serbian language as the standard language with Croatian being just

4 M. Brandt, “Povijesno mjesto Deklaracije o imenu I položaju hrvatskoga književnoga jezika iz 1967.
godine”, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest, 27, 1994, 348; R.D. Greenberg, Language and Indentity
in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration, Oxford 2004, 26-31; Lj. Jonke, “Razvoj
hrvatskoga književnog jezika u 20. stoljeću”, Jezik, 16, 1, 1968-1969, M. Moguš, “Značenje
Deklaracije u povijesti hrvatskog jezika”, 91; I. Pranjković, Hrvatski jezik od godine 1945. do 2000., 31

2
a local dialect. In addition, none of the Croatian academics took part in writing the
History of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Historija Komunističke Partije
Jugoslavije), and it was written in all languages except Croatian. Soon after, in March
1967, Matica hrvatska formed a commission to formulate Croatian position on the
issue of language. As a result, the Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian
Literary Language was published (Deklaracija o imenu i položaju hrvatskog književnog
jezika) on March 13, during the session of the Croatian Writers’ Association (Društvo
hrvatskih književnika).

The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language
was initially written as an amendment to the 1963’s Constitution. It advocated “clear
and undisputable equality of the four languages: Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and
Macedonian”5. It proposed a change to the Article 131 of the Constitution, which stated
that the federal laws and other general acts of federal organs should be published in
Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian, which the signatories of the Declaration deemed
imprecise and that it did not highlight the existence of the two separate languages.
One of the most disputed requests of the Declaration was that officials and professors,
no matter where they come from, should speak the language of the republic in which
they worked. This part went directly against the constitutional provision which foresaw
that all official languages are equal on the entire territory of Yugoslavia 6. The document
was signed by one hundred and thirty Croatian intellectuals (eighty of them were
members of the League of Communists of Croatia) and more than a dozen of different
cultural and science institutions. A very sensitive signature was the one signed by
Miroslav Krleža, one of the most famous Croatian writers, and a close friend of Josip
Broz Tito7. An extensive political discussion and condemnation of the Declaration
followed therein. The initial reactions were rather positive, but when it was published
in Telegram, a full-scale attack on the conclusions of the Declaration and its
signatories began8.

5 “Deklaracija o imenu I položaju hrvatskog književnog jezika”, Telegram (Zagreb), no. 359, March 17
1967, 1
6 S.P. Ramet, Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, Bloomington, Indianapolis 1992, 102
7 D. Rusinow, The Yugoslav Experiment, 225
8 A. Batović, Zapadne reakcije na objavu Deklaracije o nazivu I položaju hrvatskog književnoga jezika

1967. godine, Zagreb 2010, 583

3
 Shortly after, Vjesnik published its condemnation, and in the next few days
there were numerous other reports of negative reactions all over the country. On
March 20, Vjesnik started publishing a series of articles by Miloš Žanko 9, who attacked
the Declaration. Žanko mentioned a letter he, allegedly, received from a Croatian
official who attacked him for condemning the Declaration. Supposedly, the author of
this letter mentioned the Greater-Serbian communist hysteria aimed at the Croatian
people. The American consul in Zagreb at the time, Robert Owen, wrote that, the
opinion shared through the Declaration clearly indicates the feelings of the majority of
the Croatians. He wrote: “No matter if it was a Croatian that sent Žanko a letter or not,
it shows how a lot of Croatians are feeling.” 10 Furthermore, Miroslav Brandt
remembered how the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia
(Centralni komitet Saveza komunista Jugoslavije, CK SKJ) found out about the
Declaration through press editing channels which already received the Declaration.
Under threats of closing down Matica hrvatska, Jakša Ravlić, its president at the time,
stopped the publishing in all papers, besides in Telegram which was already printing11.

In Socialist Republic of Serbia, the Declaration received a sort of a counter-

offensive. This was done in the form of the Proposal for Thinking (Predlog za
razmišljanje) in which it was demanded that Serbs are permitted of using their own
language in all republics, in addition to the exclusive usage of Cyrillic alphabet in
Serbia12. Expectantly so, both documents were condemned as a clear sign of
nationalism. Nevertheless, the documents made the national issue in former
Yugoslavia more apparent. Therefore, it is important to look at the reactions and
initiatives taken by the government itself.

The government in Yugoslavia and its republics decided it was crucial for the
country to react to those issues. Vladimir Bakarić, a high-ranking official in SR Croatia,
went as far as to connect these documents to foreign intelligence initiatives to shake

9 J. Kesar, Geneza maspoka u Hrvatskoj, Belgrade 1990, 4

10 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files 1967-
1969, Political and Defense, POL 7 Yugo to POL 12 Yugo, F. Tudjman and V. Holjevec Denounced at
Croatian Party Plenum, April 25 1967; A. Batović, Zapadne reakcije na objavu Deklaracije o nazivu I
položaju hrvatskog književnoga jezika 1967. godine, Zagreb 2010, 584
11 M.Brandt, “Povijesno mjesto Deklaracije”, 351; Ibid, “Još o pripremanju Deklaracije”, Deklaracija o

nazivu I položaju hrvatskog književnog jezika – građa za povijest Deklaracije, 1967-1997, 116
12 NARA, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files 1967-1969, Political and Defense, POL 15-2 Yugo to

POL 29 Yugo, Serbs Bite Back in Language Feud, March 31 1967; J.Kesar, Geneza maspoka u
Hrvatskoj, 44-45; Z.Radeljić, Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji 1945-1991, 406; D.Rusinow, Yugoslavia: Oblique
Insights and Observations, Pittsburg 2008, 140

4
the balance of the country. Director of the Higher School for Social and Political
Studies (Više škola za društvene I političke znanosti), Branko Pribičević, implicated
that CIA and other foreign agencies are responsible for the Declaration 13.
Furthermore, it was expected of the political leaders in SR Croatia to react promptly to
the Declaration. As already mentioned, Miroslav Krleža is a prominent figure of both
Yugoslav and Croatian history, and the only among the signatories that was a member
of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia (Centralni komitet
Saveza komunista Hrvatske, CK SKH), as such, his signature in the Declaration held
a significant value. Krleža was planning to resign during the seventh plenary session
of CK SKH on April 19, 1967. Miko Tripalo wrote that he was invited to a meeting in
Belgrade with both Krleža and Tito right after the Declaration was published. Tito
wanted for Krleža to withdraw his signature, yet Krleža suggested he resigns, so that
his reputation among the Croatian intellectuals would not be tarnished. Tito eventually
agreed.14

The reactions to the Declaration did not stop the issue of the status of Croatian
or Serbian language. The Socialist Alliance (Socijalistički savez) organised a
discussion in Belgrade in June 1968 to discuss the equality of language. The main
premise of the discussion was that two “variants” of Croato-Serbian/Serbo-Croatian
have both linguistic and political/legal basis. With that in mind, Croatian intellectuals
proposed a legal framework in which four official languages would be Slovenian,
Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian. That way the existence of two
languages, and not two variants, would be legally assured. The language disputes
between Croatian and Serbian linguists continued throughout 1969 and 1970, until
Croatian cultural institutions, headed by Matica hrvatska, rejected the Novi Sad
Agreement. The directory of Matica Hrvatska, on April 16, 1971, published a statement
of rejection, which was accepted soon after by most of the Croatian cultural and
scientific institution. Their main complaint was the implementation of the Agreement.
It was, for them, a tool for encouraging language inequality and imposition of Serbian

13 NARA, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files 1967-1969, Political and Defense, POL 15-2 Yugo to
POL 29 Yugo, “Foreign Services” implicated in Language Contraversy, April 10 1967
14 M.Tripalo, “Deklaracija o hrvatskom jeziku”, 28; Ibid, Hrvatsko proljeće, 110-111,; J. Šentija,

Razgovori s Mikom Tripalom o hrvatskom proljeću, Profil, Zagreb 2005, 51

5
literary language with its ekavian marque15. Expectantly so, this act was considered
as an outrage of nationalism as well.

The efforts of the linguistic community in Croatia were also backed by the liberal
stream in SKH. However, they did not only promote the linguistic and national views
connected to the language, but also the unity of the Croatian territory, the renewal of
relations with the Croatian Catholic Church and finally, the question of the
representation of Serbs in positions of power in SR Croatia16. They even proposed
educational programme in which seventy-five per cent of history and literature would
have Croatian topics. During the Croatian Spring (Hrvatsko proljeće) in the 70s, the
educational reform was one of the key issues for the proponents of the Mass
Movement (Masovni pokret, maspok), as they considered it crucial for achieving more
autonomy for the Croatian republic. This movement proved to be one of the breaking
points for nearly every social sphere, be it public or private, in Yugoslavia. The entire
movement was stopped in the end, resulting with SR Croatia being known as the silent
republic (tiha republika; hrvatska šutnja). This marked the start of the end of
Yugoslavia and its unitary national identity, since the entire liberalisation process was
slugged and the rise of nationalism followed therein.

In conclusion, the language policy in Yugoslavia and all that followed it clearly
indicate a deep social and cultural divisions that were developing in Yugoslavia until
its subsequent dissolution. Instead of bringing further democratisation, liberalisation
and decentralisation, the language reforms of the 60s and 70s seems to have brought
further contrasting, and paved way to louder disapprovals. Also, most of the Croatian
intellectuals in the 60s were not ready to be a part of the language policy, and some
of the acts from SR Serbia did not help to bring all sides to some sort of a durable
agreement. Furthermore, a public and transparent preparation of the Declaration of
the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language might have had a more
positive effect, since it was written in the context of a larger liberalisation of the society.
It is very clear that the society, especially so the academic layers of it, were troubled
with existentialist questions. The reforms from the government tried to ease the
tensions, probably in fear of the outburst of nationalist idea, or even worse - a war. As

15 Hrvatska, M. (1970). Novosadski dogovor odbačen. Jezik, 18 (5), 138-138 Retrieved from:
https://hrcak.srce.hr/78524
16 J.Irvine, “Politička povijest: Hrvatsko proljeće 1971”, Hrvatsko proljeće i raspad Jugoslavije, 29-31,

Retrieved from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/175717

6
history tells, these efforts were diminished by the subsequent rise of nationalist leaders
and their parties. The war was not avoided and the idea of the unique Yugoslav nation
disappeared, even though it still raises a lot of debates in contemporary social
sciences. When it comes to the language policy, modern republics in the area went
with nationalisation and/or purification of languages, sometimes even ignoring the
linguistic background it carries. While this approach is relatively understandable and
expected, it still brings forth a lot of confusion, but a lot of interest as well, if only in
scientific communities.

7
Bibliography

S. Babić, “Za ravnopravnost, ali čega?”, Jezik, 16, 5, 1968-1969, 140

I. Pranjković, “Hrvatski jezik od godine 1945. do 2000.”, Hrvatski jezik u XX. stoljeću,
Zagreb 2006, 30
Ustav Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije, Beograd 1949, 30; S. Babić, “Za
ravnopravnost, ali čega?”, 140-142
D. Bilandžić, Historija Socijalističke federativne republike Jugoslavije, Glavni procesi,
Zagreb 1978, 212
M. Brandt, “Povijesno mjesto Deklaracije o imenu I položaju hrvatskoga književnoga
jezika iz 1967. godine”, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest, 27, 1994, 348
R.D. Greenberg, Language and Indentity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its
Disintegration, Oxford 2004, 26-31
Lj. Jonke, “Razvoj hrvatskoga književnog jezika u 20. stoljeću”, Jezik, 16, 1, 1968-
1969
M. Moguš, “Značenje Deklaracije u povijesti hrvatskog jezika”, 91
I. Pranjković, Hrvatski jezik od godine 1945. do 2000., 31
“Deklaracija o imenu I položaju hrvatskog književnog jezika”, Telegram (Zagreb), no.
359, March 17 1967, 1
S.P. Ramet, Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, Bloomington, Indianapolis
1992, 102
D. Rusinow, The Yugoslav Experiment, 225
A. Batović, Zapadne reakcije na objavu Deklaracije o nazivu I položaju hrvatskog
književnoga jezika 1967. godine, Zagreb 2010, 583
J. Kesar, Geneza maspoka u Hrvatskoj, Belgrade 1990, 4
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG 59, Central Foreign
Policy Files 1967-1969, Political and Defense, POL 7 Yugo to POL 12 Yugo, F.
Tudjman and V. Holjevec Denounced at Croatian Party Plenum, April 25 1967
A. Batović, Zapadne reakcije na objavu Deklaracije o nazivu I položaju hrvatskog
književnoga jezika 1967. godine, Zagreb 2010, 584
M.Brandt, “Povijesno mjesto Deklaracije”, 351
M.Brandt, “Još o pripremanju Deklaracije”, Deklaracija o nazivu I položaju hrvatskog
književnog jezika – građa za povijest Deklaracije, 1967-1997, 116

8
NARA, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files 1967-1969, Political and Defense, POL
15-2 Yugo to POL 29 Yugo, Serbs Bite Back in Language Feud, March 31 1967
J.Kesar, Geneza maspoka u Hrvatskoj, 44-45
Z.Radeljić, Hrvatska u Jugoslaviji 1945-1991, 406
D.Rusinow, Yugoslavia: Oblique Insights and Observations, Pittsburg 2008, 140
NARA, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files 1967-1969, Political and Defense, POL
15-2 Yugo to POL 29 Yugo, “Foreign Services” implicated in Language Contraversy,
April 10 1967
M.Tripalo, “Deklaracija o hrvatskom jeziku”, 28; Ibid, Hrvatsko proljeće, 110-111
J. Šentija, Razgovori s Mikom Tripalom o hrvatskom proljeću, Profil, Zagreb 2005, 51
Hrvatska, M. (1970). Novosadski dogovor odbačen. Jezik, 18 (5), 138-138 Retrieved
from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/78524
J.Irvine, “Politička povijest: Hrvatsko proljeće 1971”, Hrvatsko proljeće i raspad
Jugoslavije, 29-31, Retrieved from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/175717