Project Map Andrew Hodges Introduction Nov 14

Producing and contesting the 'national order of things': tracing how language
standardisation processes and 'state effects' configure (non)users near the
Serbian/Croatian border
Introduction
This project is a study of actions and practices through which subjects in Serbia come to identify
themselves with and position themselves with respect to a Croatian national tradition and
identity. The locus of the research is a primary school classroom as a key site in which such a
process takes place, whilst the nexus of practice (Scollon and Scollon 2007) can be traced back
to one particular action - the introduction of teaching in Croatian in certain schools in and around
Subotica, Serbia. By examining the historical trajectories and circumstances which gave rise to
this action, and through carefully considering ethnographically the consequences of this action
through classroom ethnography, this project hopes to cast light on the effects of this action on the
life courses and identifications made by those affected by it. This project therefore draws
extensively on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in one of the schools and surrounding areas
where such teaching was implemented, as well as on the state policy and academic linguistic
debates which resulted in the teaching being implemented and the form such implementation
took.
This is neither a study of cultural transmission in the classroom, nor of educational cultures. It
does not focus on elaborating cultural difference nor the problems that 'culture' creates for
students when engaging with the Croatian curriculum, or symbolic boundary work students
engage in whilst constructing a national identity. This study, following Kuper's (1999) critique,
avoids the analytical use of the culture concept, reserving its use as a noun for when it became
particularly important for people with whom I spoke in the field. It therefore diverges from
Durantis (1997, 2) understanding of linguistic anthropology as the study of language as a
cultural resource and speaking as a cultural practice. Instead I prefer an understanding of
linguistic anthropology as the impact of language, linguistics and language policy on social life.
More concisely, rather than elaborating linguistic dimensions of cultural difference, this study
examines the social and political dimensions surrounding the tension between a prescriptivism
arising from narrow and often unfair conceptions of social inclusion and exclusion, and desires
and needs for at least some standardisation (Edwards 2009, 215).
In addition to possible linguistic effects on students' learning literacy skills, the action placed at
the centre of this study certainly had social and political effects on those living in Subotica as
well; as Davis (2012, 61) noted, 'schools have long been considered key sites for the construction
and negotiation of linguistic hegemonies'. The nature and extent of both linguistic and social
effects categories this study asserts are fundamentally different kinds - will be considered,
emphasising that language policy does not take place in a political vacuum and that extra-

linguistic aspects of the context in which the decision to introduce teaching in Croatian took
place deserve urgent consideration. Possible linguistic effects will be examined through an
elicitation survey, examining the extent to which students have acquired standard Croatian
syntactic structures (Chomsky 2002). The social and political effects will be examined through
ethnographic fieldwork. Finally, whilst this study may be understood as linguistic anthropology,
it does not consider language in isolation from other social processes, notably the political
economy of the field context. As linguistic anthropologists such as James Costa have argued,
describing a social setting in term of 'speakers', 'signs' and 'language attitudes' draws attention
away away from a focus on historically changing social processes and of actors with particular
social, political and economic positions and strategies. This is important as:
Framing sociocultural issues in linguistic terms has a double effect: while it allows
otherwise socially condemned voices (Lafont 1971) to be heard on a national and
international scale, it also masks many other social issues at play; it also often serves to
reproduce structures of inequality both between and within social and cultural groups
(Costa 2013, 318)
Whilst many of the recent changes to the Croatian standard have been motivated by a concern for
creating a new symbolic rather than communicative space, as the linguist kiljan (2000)
observed, a sole focus on symbolic boundary construction (see Cohen 1985), draws attention
away from the political-economic changes and violence that have accompanied such processes.
The most interesting questions emerge, I assert, at the boundary between symbolic and other
dimensions. I therefore ask, under what political conditions do particular symbolic concerns
come to predominate? To what extent and in what ways is the classroom a privileged site for the
production of symbolic mythico-history? And perhaps most importantly, how have circulating
discourses and academic debate concerning language policy and standardisation, alongside
related political concerns, impacted on the ground, particular in the everyday life-worlds of those
living near boundaries, such as is the case in Subotica?
In the first chapter I situate this study with respect to US, UK and South-Eastern European
linguistic anthropological traditions, also discussing anthropological perspectives on cognitive
psychological approaches to the study of language acquisition and critical thinking, as well as
classroom ethnography. In the second chapter I focus on the specific anthropological concepts I
employ in my analysis. These are national mythico-history (Malkki 1995); state effects (Trouillot
2001); a focus on practices (Bourdieu 1990) especially standardising practices; discursive
hegemonies (Roseberry 1994) and nexus analysis (Scollon and Scollon 2007). In the third
chapter I critically discuss a number of linguistic anthropological concepts, notably definitions
of a language/dialect, speech community, ethnolinguistic vitality, language prestige and the
category of the native speaker. In contrast to the concepts discussed in the second chapter, I
expect the majority of these concepts to have some currency in the context in which I am
working. Concomitantly, there is more of a focus on carefully defining the vocabulary I use in

order to avoid making reifications of concepts such as community, native speaker and a
language e.g. the English language which I find problematic, and of which there is no
consensus amongst linguists concerning their use. My decisions concerning the use (or not) of
such concepts, and when discarding them, finding suitable replacements, clearly positions me in
the field and I therefore take some time to explain their relevance. In the fourth chapter I
move to consider language ideologies (Woolard and Schieffelin 1994) in Croatia and Serbia in
the post-Yugoslav context, focusing on language endangerment and linguistic purism, as well as
public debate, outlining the arguments of Babi, Katii, Peti-Stanti, Kordi and Kapovi, as
well as situating my arguments which are closest to Kapovis, within this literature. To
conclude, in the fifth I describe the fieldwork plan in detail, with sections included on the
Croatian and Bunjevac minorities in Serbia, teaching in Croatian in Serbia, practical details
concerning the nexus analysis methodology, a researcher timetable, research questions, ethical
issues and researcher self-positioning.

Contents
Introduction 2
(i) Linguistics and Social Anthropology
(ii)US Linguistic Anthropology

(iii)UK and South-Eastern European Linguistic Anthropology

(iv)Cognitive Approaches to Language Acquisition 8

(v)Classroom ethnography and the anthropology of education
Chapter two: Social Anthropological toolkit
(i) Mythico-historical imaginaries

13

13

(ii) State effects in circulating discourses

16

(iii) State effects in the classroom: standardising practices 17

(iv) Discursive hegemonies
(v) Nexus analysis

21

21

Chapter three: Linguistic anthropological toolkit 22

(i)Languages, dialects and standards 22
(ii)the native speaker or proficient language user?

23

11

(iii)Language and speech communities, communicative and symbolic spaces

(iv) Language prestige and status

26

(v) The linguistic marketplace

27

(vi) Linguistic and Learner Attitudes

25

28

(vii) Linguistic landscape and semiotic ecosystem

29

Chapter four: Language ideologies and minority rights discourses in Croatia and Serbia
30
(i)Language standardisation in the post-Yugoslav context

30

(ii)Language ideologies: language endangerment and linguistic purism

32

(iii) Language policy, minority rights and the 'liberal' state 39

(iv)Public debate over language and its connection with language ideologies
(a)Babi

41

(b)Katii

41

(c)Peti-Stanti 42
(d)Kordi

44

(e)Kapovi

46

Chapter five: Entering the field

61

41

(i) Croats and Bunjevci in Vojvodina 61

(ii) Teaching in Croatian in Serbia

68

(iii) Fieldwork: Introduction 71

(iv) Methodology: nexus analysis

71

(v) Researcher Self-positioning

73

(vi) Timetable 74
(vii) Research Questions

75

(viii) Interview Questions

75

Bibliography 75