Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 24:1 (2021) ► pp.110–148

The acceptance of spelling variants as symbols of Croatian spelling changes (1994–2013)

| University of Nottingham | Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics

This paper discusses the impact of several spelling changes in Croatian on the level of the literacy of native speakers. Since 1986, there have been five official recommendations for usage that pertain to five different orthographic manuals. This research focuses on three spelling points with considerable identity-related repercussions among the public and the media, which are sometimes named the spelling symbols of Croatian. A questionnaire-survey comprised of 36 tests was completed among 1063 students on a technical study programme each year for eight consecutive academic years. Eight generations of first-year undergraduates, who do not study language in an educational setting, have accepted the new spellings, contingent on a frequency principle. The more frequent a spelling variant occurs, the less the chance that the new spelling variant is accepted, and vice versa. Given the lack of established and enduring spelling norms, combined with ideological oppositions between the old and new spelling forms, students have been guided mainly by their capacity to write the most common form.

Keywords: spelling variants, questionnaire research, Croatian orthography, (re)standardization, spelling changes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction to orthographic changes in Croatian and spelling variants
    • 1.1Motivation and theoretical background
    • 1.2A historical overview of spelling changes in Croatian and three spelling symbols
  • 2.Survey methodology and participants
    • 2.1Survey goal
    • 2.2Participants and their data
    • 2.3Data collection procedures and methodology
    • 2.4Dictation
  • 3.Measurements and indicators
  • 4.Conclusions
    • 4.1The negation particle issue
    • 4.2The covered ‘r’
    • 4.3The ‘tci/dci’ forms
    • 4.4Spelling tendencies over the eight years
    • 4.5Three principles regarding the choice of Croatian spelling variants
    • 4.6Questionnaire surveys and spelling planning
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Bibliography
Published online: 10 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00049.sto
References (57)

Bibliography

Aladrović, Katarina
(2008) Kompetencije učenika prvog razreda u poznavanju pravopisa na kraju školske godine. In: Metodika: časopis za teoriju i praksu metodikâ u predškolskom odgoju, školskoj i visokoškolskoj izobrazbi 2008:9(16), 39–52.Google Scholar
Alerić, Marko & Gazdić-Alerić, Tamara
(2009) Pozitivan stav prema hrvatskome standardnom jeziku kao uvjet njegova uspješnijega ovladavanja. In: Lahor : časopis za hrvatski kao materinski, drugi i strani jezik, 1(7), Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvo, 5–23.Google Scholar
Anić, Vladimir
(2004) Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika [The Great Dictionary of Croatian]. Edited by Ljiljana Jojić. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
Aram, Dorit, Korat, Ofra
(eds.) (2010) Literacy Development and Enhancement across Orthographies and Cultures. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
AS: Anić, Vladimir & Silić, Josip
(1986)  Pravopisni priručnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Sveučilišna naklada Liber – Školska knjiga, Zagreb 11986, 21987, 31990, Pravopis hrvatskoga jezika, Novi Liber – Školska knjiga: Zagreb 2001.Google Scholar
Asmussen, Jørg
(2006) Towards a methodology for corpus-based studies of linguistic change. Contrastive observations and their possible diachronic interpretations in the Korpus 2000 and Korpus 90 Corpora of Danish. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson (eds.), Corpus linguistics around the world, Amsterdam/New York: BrillGoogle Scholar
Babić, Stjepan
(2005) Temelji Hrvatskomu pravopisu [Foundations to the Croatian Orthographic manual]. Zagreb: Školska knjigaGoogle Scholar
Babić, Stjepan & Ham, Sanda
(2004) Pravopisni rat. Komentirana bibliografija publicističkih članaka o hrvatskom pravopisu objavljenih u 2000. i 2001. godini [The Orthographic War. Commented Bibliography of Newspaper Articles about the Croatian Orthography Published in 2000 and 2001]. In: Jezik 51(3)-52(3). Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvoGoogle Scholar
Badurina, Lada
(2018) Pravopisne studije [Studies on Orthography]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatskaGoogle Scholar
Bakota, Lidija
(2011) Pravopisna norma u udžbenicima. In: Jezik 58(4). Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvo, 135–149Google Scholar
Barbaroša-Šikić, Mirela & Češi, Marijana
(2010) Praćenje, vrednovanje i ocjenjivanje pisanih radova učenika. In Hrvatski jezik u kontekstu suvremenog obrazovanja. Edited by M. Češi. Zagreb: Naklada SlapGoogle Scholar
Bašić, Nataša
(2014) Jezični identiteti nesrpskih naroda u velikosrpskom programu državnoga sjedinjenja. In: Hrvatska revija 31. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 28–37Google Scholar
Bermel, Nigel
(2007) Linguistic Authority, Language Ideology and Metaphor. The Czech Orthography Wars. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Bežen, Ante
(2005) Problem različitosti i standarda u početnom pisanju. In: Metodika: časopis za teoriju i praksu metodikâ u predškolskom odgoju, školskoj i visokoškolskoj izobrazbi 2005:6(2), 210–227Google Scholar
BFM: Babić, Stjepan & Finka, Božidar & Moguš, Milan
(1994) Hrvatski pravopis, 2nd ed., Zagreb 1 1971 (forbidden). Reprints: London 1972, 1984 and Zagreb: Školska knjiga 1990 Further editions Zagreb: Školska knjiga 1995, 4 1996, 5 2000, 6 2002, 7 2003, 8 2004, 9 2006.Google Scholar
BHM: Babić, Stjepan & Ham, Sanda & Moguš, Milan
(2005) Hrvatski školski pravopis, 1st ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga 2 2008, 3 2009, 4 2012.Google Scholar
BM: Babić, Stjepan & Moguš, Milan
(2010) Hrvatski pravopis : usklađen sa zaključcima Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika [Croatian Orthograpy : complied with the conclusions of the Council for the Norms of the Croatian Standard Language]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga 2011Google Scholar
BMM: Badurina, Lada & Marković, Ivan & Mićanović, Krešimir
(2007) Hrvatski pravopis [The Croatian Orthography], 1st ed. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska 2 2008.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian & Guerini, Federica
(2012) Literacy and writing reform. In Cambridge Handbooks of Language Policy. Edited by B. Spolsky. Cambridge University Press, 437–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ćužić, Tomislav
(2015) Pravopisna norma. Teorijsko-metodološki problemi hrvatske pravopisne norme [The Orthographic Norm. Theoretical and methodological problems of the Croatian orthographic norm]. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna nakladaGoogle Scholar
Daskalov, Roumen & Marinov, Tchavdar
(eds.) (2013) Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Volume One: National Ideologies and Language Policies. Leiden – Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eaden, Jayne & Mayberry, Margaret K. & Mayberry, John F.
(1999) Questionnaires: the use and abuse of social survey methods in medical research. In: Postgraduate Medical Journal 75(885), 397–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcez, Pedro M.
(1995) The Debatable 1990 Luso-Brazilian Orthographic Accord. In: Language Problems and Language Planning 19:2(1995), John Benjamins, 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Robert D.
(2004) Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Grgić, Ana & Udier, Sanda L.
(2012) Pravopisna kompetencija na razini B1 u hrvatskome kao inome jeziku. In: Lahor: časopis za hrvatski kao materinski, drugi i strani jezik, 2(14), Zagreb: Hrvatsko filološko društvo, 204–220.Google Scholar
HAZU
: Ljetopis Hrvatske akademija za godinu 2017. [The Yearbook of the Croatian Academy for the year 2017]. Volume 1211(2018) Principal editor Pavao Rudan. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnostiGoogle Scholar
Hekman, Jelena
(ed.) (2005) Jezik na križu. Križ na jeziku. Rasprava o pravopisnim pravilima [Language on the Cross. The Cross on language. Debate on orthographic rules]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatskaGoogle Scholar
Hudeček, Lana
(2010) Pregled suvremenih hrvatskih pravopisa (različita rješenja i terminološka neusklađenost). In Hrvatski jezik u kontekstu suvremenog obrazovanja. Edited by M. Češi. Zagreb: Naklada Slap. 42–55Google Scholar
Hudeček, Lana & Mihaljević, Milica
(2015) Relations between description and prescription in Croatian language manuals. In: Obdobja 34: Slovnica in slovar – aktualni jezikovni opis (1. del) / Grammar and Dictionary – Current language description (Part 1). Ed. Mojca Smolej, ISBN 978-961-237-787-8, 299–307Google Scholar
IHJJ/ŠK
2012: Školski rječnik hrvatskoga jezika [The School Dictionary of Croatian]. Principal editor Dunja Brozović Rončević. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje i Školska knjigaGoogle Scholar
IHJJ
2013: Hrvatski pravopis [Croatian Orthography]. Principal editor Željko Jozić. Editors: Goranka Blagus Bartolec, Lana Hudeček, Kristian Lewis, Milica Mihaljević, Ermina Ramadanović. Authors: Željko Jozić, Goranka Blagus Bartolec, Lana Hudeček, Kristian Lewis, Milica Mihaljević, Ermina Ramadanović, Matea Birtić, Jurica Budja, Barbara Kovačević, Ivana Matas Ivanković, Alen Milković, Irena Miloš, Tomislav Stojanov, Kristina Štrkalj Despot. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovljeGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Dirk
(1997) Alliance and Betrayal in the Dutch Orthography Debate. In Language Problems and Language Planning 21:2(1997), J. Benjamins, 103–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Sally
(2005) Spelling Trouble? Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenjar, Kevin
(2020) Linguistic Landscapes and Ideological Horizons: Language and Ideology in Post-Yugoslav Space. PhD thesis. Committee in charge: Charles Briggs, Ronelle Alexander, William Hanks. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
Langston, Keith; Peti-Stantić, Anita
(2011) A language academy by any other name(s) – the case of Croatia. Language Policy (2011) 101:343–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Language Planning and National Identity in Croatia. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljubešić, Nikola; Erjavec, Tomaž
(2011) hrWaC and slWac: Compiling Web Corpora for Croatian and Slovene. Text, Speech and Dialogue: 14th International Conference, TSD 2011, Pilsen, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2011. Proceedings. Edited by Ivan Habernal and Vaclav Matousek. Springer-Verlag, 395–402
Lydeard, S.
(1991) The questionnaire as a research tool. Family Practice 8(1), 84–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malatesha Joshi, R. & Aaron, P. G.
(eds.) (2006) Handbook of orthography and literacy. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony
(2003) Corpus Linguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Edited by R. Mitkov. Oxford University Press, 448–463Google Scholar
Moguš, Milan & Bratanić, Maja & Tadić, Marko
(1999) Hrvatski čestotni rječnik [The Croatian Frequency Dictionary]. Zagreb: Zavod za lingvistiku Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i Školska knjigaGoogle Scholar
Páll, Sándor
(2009) Beleške uz jedno davno zaboravljenu anketu (Srpski književni glasnik: Anketa o srpsko-hrvatskim odnosima). In: Riječ. Časopis za filologiju 15(2), Rijeka: Hrvatsko filološko društvo, 253–267Google Scholar
Patekar, Jakob
(2016) Razlike u uporabi pravopisnih znakova u hrvatskome i engleskome jeziku. In: Rasprave: Časopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 42/I1 (2016.) Zagreb, 147–166Google Scholar
Peti-Stantić, Anita & Langston, Keith
(2013) Hrvatsko jezično pitanje danas. Identiteti i ideologije. Zagreb: srednja europaGoogle Scholar
Reljac Fajs, Emilija & Jerković, Tamara
(2014) Pravopis u razrednoj nastavi hrvatskoga jezika. In: Hrvatski: časopis za teoriju i praksu nastave hrvatskoga jezika, književnosti, govornoga i pismenoga izražavanja te medijske kulture 1(XII), 37–55Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark
(2007) Spelling and societyl. The culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
(1982) Reflections on computer corpora in English language research. In Computer corpora in English language research 1–6. Edited by S. Johansson. Bergen.Google Scholar
(1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Stojanov, Tomislav
(2020) A case study in the termination of the pluricentricity of a language: the Serbo-Croatian linguonym. In: European Pluricentric Languages in Contact and Conflict. Edited by Rudolf Muhr, Josep Àngel Mas Castells and Jack Rueter. Peter Lang, 155–170Google Scholar
Stone, D. H.
(1993) Design a questionnaire. In: British Medical Journal, 307(6914), 1264–1266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Street, Brian
(2013) Literacy in Theory and Practice: Challenges and Debates Over 50 Years. In: Theory Into Practice 521, 52–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Škarić, Ivo
(2005) Ije je je. In Jezik na križu. Križ na jeziku. Rasprava o pravopisnim pravilima. Edited by J. Hekman. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 80–87Google Scholar
Šonje
2000: Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika [The Dictionary of Croatian]. Principal editor Jure Šonje. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža & Školska knjigaGoogle Scholar
Tadijanović, Dragutin
(2005) Svi moji pravopisi. In Jezik na križu. Križ na jeziku. Rasprava o pravopisnim pravilima. Edited by J. Hekman. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 103–105Google Scholar
Templeton, Shane & Bear, D. R.
(2013) Development of Orthographic Knowledge and the Foundations of Literacy. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Udier, Sanda L.
(2016) Glotodidaktički pogled na hrvatski pravopis. In: Strani jezici 441(2016) vol 21. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 110–128Google Scholar
Volenec, Veno
(2015) Sociolingvističko istraživanje hrvatskoga pravopisa: društveni stavovi o eksplicitnoj normi. In: Jezikoslovlje 16.1 (2015), 69–102Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by 2 other publications

Stojanov, Tomislav
2023. Understanding spelling conflicts in Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian: Insights from speakers’ attitudes and beliefs. Lingua 296 ► pp. 103622 ff. DOI logo
Tyran, Katharina
2023. Indicating ideology: Variation in Montenegrin orthography. Language & Communication 88 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.