Differences between the standard Serbo-Croatian varieties

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Banknote of the Yugoslav dinar from 1985: Description of the numeral “thousand” in Serbian and Croatian variants
Yugoslav dinar banknote from 1981: Different wording of the sentence “Counterfeiting is punished according to the law” in Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian languages

This article provides a linguistic description of the differences between the standard Serbo-Croatian varieties ( Bosnian , Croatian , Montenegrin , Serbian ) as they are now used as official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina , Croatia , Montenegro and Serbia .

The fact that Bosnian , Croatian and Serbian are defined as the official languages ​​in the respective constitutions and that codification measures define a Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian or Montenegrin standard, says nothing about the linguistic status of these standard varieties. In terms of content, there are a wide variety of approaches and opinions, which either come from individual languages or from standard varieties of a pluricentric language (see also: Declaration on the common language ). In the latter case, either Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian (BKS) , Serbian and Croatian or Serbo-Croatian is used as a generic term, especially when designating fields of study or university institutes. Since the expression Serbo-Croatian used to refer to one of the official languages ​​of the former Yugoslavia , it is no longer used in official language today. However, some speakers still refer to their language as Serbo-Croatian or Croatian -Serbian (just as, conversely, Croatian and Serbian were also used as shorter, colloquial terms throughout the 20th century ).

Serbian, for its part, has three standard varieties that differ from one another in a few points: that of the Republic of Serbia, that of Montenegro and that of the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. So far, Montenegrin has no generally recognized codified norm, so it is unclear to what extent its future language norms will correspond to those of the previous Serbo-Croatian or Serbian standard variety of Montenegro or contain major deviations from them. In the following, the differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are mainly dealt with; Unless otherwise stated, Serbian speakers in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina generally behave in the same way as those in Serbia.


The article Serbo-Croatian language gives a detailed overview of the development of the languages ​​discussed here (especially in the 19th and 20th centuries). For the newer (and also earlier) individual developments see also the articles Bosnian language , Croatian language , Montenegrin language and Serbian language


All three languages ​​use the same phoneme inventory . However, some words differ in their phonetic form. Since the orthography strictly follows phonological principles, these differences are also reflected in the script, so that they are quite easy to see. In the case of the most noticeable difference, that between Ijekavian and Ekavian (the different reflection of the Ur-Slavonic sound Jat ), the boundary does not run, as in other cases, between the three national varieties, but within Serbian, as it is also used in Montenegro and by the majority of the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina use the Ijekavian forms:

Standard variety Type long jat :
* rěka 'river'
short jat :
* viděti 'see'
Jat before o :
* vidělъ 'saw'
Bosnian ijekavian r ije ka vid je ti vid i o
Serbian in Bosnia , Croatia and Montenegro
Serbian in Serbia ekavian r e ka vid e ti vid e o

A phonological difference reflected only in a few words concerns the sound [x] (orthographic <h>), which has completely disappeared in many Serbo-Croatian dialects or has been replaced by other sounds. In the position after [u] , this phenomenon is reflected in some words in the Serbian standard as [ʋ] (orthographic <v>), so that in standard Serbian it is mostly suv 'dry', duvan 'tobacco' (but Croat . , mont. and bosn. suh , duhan ). In the Bosnian standard - with reference to the importance of this sound in Arabic and Turkish - [x] is even restituted in words in which it has disappeared in almost all dialects, e.g. B. lahko 'light' (but Croat., Mont. And serb. Lako ; in this sense the Bosnian decision for the variant kahva 'coffee' is to be understood, cf. Croat. Kava , serb. And mont. Kafa ). In the vast majority of words in which the etymological h is omitted in many dialects (e.g. oću instead of hoću 'I will', rast instead of hrast 'oak' or maati instead of mahati 'wave') the h is also codified in Serbian.



Croatian is only written in the Latin script .

In Serbian (as well as in Montenegrin), the Cyrillic and Latin scripts are used in parallel, with Cyrillic being preferred in some areas and Latin in others. In all of Serbia and Montenegro, as well as in Bosnia, both alphabets are taught at school, and every Serb and Montenegrin reads both scripts equally fluently. Many speakers also actively use both scripts alternately. For official use, however, the Serbian constitution now only provides the Cyrillic alphabet. The Montenegrin constitution provides for the use of the Latin alphabet.

Nowadays, Bosnian is written almost exclusively in Latin, and only very rarely in Cyrillic since the fall of Yugoslavia .

The Latin and Cyrillic versions of Serbo-Croatian are mutually transliterated one-to-one , whereby the Cyrillic letters Љ / љ , Њ / њ and Џ / џ the Latin letter combinations LJ / Lj / lj , NJ / Nj / nj and DŽ / Dž / dž correspond. In this way, one and the same orthography can be applied to two different scripts.

In earlier centuries, the Cyrillic script was also very widespread among Catholics (e.g. in Dubrovnik and the so-called Bosančica in Dalmatia and Bosnia, developed by the Franciscans ). There was also a special Croatian form of the Glagolitic script , which was still in use in the religious literature of Istria and Dalmatia until the early 20th century . The Bosnian Muslims also used the Arabic script in a form adapted to Bosnian for just as long .

The Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian alphabet have 30 letters. The Montenegrin alphabet has 32.


At the level of orthography there are three groups of differences, all of which can be summarized in such a way that the Serbian orthography - true to the rule established by Vuk Karadžić "Write as you speak" ("Piši kao što govoriš") - "more phonetic" while the morphological composition of words is more important in Croatian spelling in particular .

Spelling phonological assimilation

The spelling of words whose morphemes merge with one another due to complete assimilation is also not uniformly regulated within the treated standard varieties. For example, in most forms of the word mladac [ˈmlaːdats] 'youth', the second a is omitted , so that the d can no longer be heard - the nominative plural is [ˈmlaːtsi] . The spelling of this form is codified in various orthographies as either morpheme-true mladci or with spelling of voicing assimilation mlatci or completely phoneme- true mlaci . In such cases, Croatian writing tends to tend towards mladci , while Serbian practice tends towards mlaci .

Separate and combined writing

There is a clearer difference in the spelling of the future tense , as is clear from the following example sentence:

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
Napisat ću to. Napisaću to / Написаћу то. Napisaću to. I'll write that down.
Bit će. Biće / Биће. Biće. He / she / it will be.

Here again, similar to the mladci / mlaci example given above, it becomes clear that the Serbian orthography is more “phonetic”, because the pronunciation of these future tense forms is uniform in all standard varieties [naˈpiːsatɕu] or [ˈbitɕɛ] .

Adaptation of foreign language proper names

The Latin alphabet contains the letters q , w , x and y , which are not required to represent Serbo-Croatian words but can be used to write foreign words. Foreign words that contain these letters cannot be reproduced faithfully in Cyrillic script. But also with other foreign words the adoption of foreign sound-letter assignments is unthinkable. Shakespeare , for example, is not transliterated as Схакеспеаре in any of the world's written Cyrillic languages . B. in Serbia as Шекспир (Šekspir) umschriftet . Since two-lettering is an important part of Serbian culture, this rule also applies to Serbian texts written in Latin script - but not to Croatian ones. The approach in Bosnian seems to be inconsistent. In Montenegrin, foreign words can be transferred true to the original, but they are often rewritten into Montenegrin.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
William Shakespeare William Shakespeare Vilijam Šekspir or Вилијам Шекспир Vilijam Šekspir / William Shakespeare William Shakespeare
Munich Minhen Minhen or Минхен Minhen / Munich Munich
Zurich Zurich Cirih or Цирих Cirih / Zurich Zurich
Bruxelles Brisel Brisel or Brisel Brisel / Bruxelles Brussels , French Bruxelles, nl. Brussels
new York new York Njujork or Њујорк Njujork / New York new York

Grammar (morphology and syntax)

Almost all grammatical categories, forms and rules are identical in all standard Serbo-Croatian varieties. However, there are two major exceptions:

Use of the infinitive vs. da construction

In Croatian, the infinitive is used mostly in modal verbs and exclusively in the formation of the future tense . In Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian, a subordinate clause construction with the conjunction da ' dass ' and a finite verb form often appears at this point , whereby the subject of this that clause is identical to that of the main clause. This is a commonality with the idioms of the Balkansprachbund . In the languages ​​of this group, however, the infinitive has completely disappeared, so that in Bulgarian , for example, the da -construction is the only possible variant. In Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian, however, both variants are possible. In Montenegrin the da construction is used more often.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
želim vas informirati želim da vas informišem or želim vas informisati želim da vas informišem or

(coll.) želim da ve informišem

I want to inform you
("I want me to inform you")
moram raditi moram da radim or moram raditi moram da radim I have to work
("I have to, that I work")
mogu vam reći mogu da vam kažem or mogu vam reći mogu da vam kažem / mogu vam rej I can tell you
("I can tell you")
yes ću to napisati
or napisat ću to
yes ću to da napišem
or yes ću to napisati
or napisat ću to
yes ću to da napišem
or yes ću to napisati
or napisaću to
yes ću to da napišem
or napisaću to
I'll write that down
("I'll make me write that down")

da -construction in the question mark

In decision-making questions , the sentence order is usually reversed, similar to German, by placing the finite verb in the first position (whereby enclitic forms must be replaced by stressed forms, as in the third example below). This complicated construction can be simplified in the Serbo-Croatian colloquial language by putting the conjunction da in the first place and so the stereotype that li follows the rest of the sentence in the normal sentence order of the declarative sentence (cf. the similar construction with est-ce que ' is it like that 'in French ). In contrast to Croatian and Bosnian, where this construction is limited to the colloquial language, in Serbian it is completely acceptable in the standard language.

Declarative sentence Inversion (possible anywhere) da -construction (mostly Serbian)
Petar čita novine.
'Peter reads the newspaper.'
Čita li Petar novine?
'Does Peter read the newspaper?'
Da li Petar čita novine?
'Does Peter read the newspaper?'
Petar je došao.
'Peter has come.'
Je li Petar došao?
'Did Peter come?'
Da li je Petar došao?
'Did Peter come?'
Petar ima kuću.
'Peter has a house.'
Ima li Petar kuću?
'Does Peter have a house?'
Da li ima Petar kuću?
'Does Peter have a house?'


The vast majority of the basic and extended vocabulary is identical in the Serbo-Croatian standard varieties. However, like the different varieties of German, the Serbo-Croatian idioms were also subject to different cultural influences, which were hardly balanced by the unification efforts of the 19th and 20th centuries.

However, languages ​​are subject to constant change. They also influence each other. It is therefore possible that certain phrases will find their way from one to the other idiom over time. For example it is already apparent that the Bosnian language very many expressions and words from Croatian accepts (eg. EU - terminology , business terms, etc.), as well as at times of Yugoslavia many Serbismen found their way to Croatia.

Of course, not all lexical differences can be listed here; we refer to systematically developed dictionaries such as Ćirilov (1989) or Brodnjak (1991). However, various cultural and historical reasons for the lexical differences can be identified. In general, Serbian, Montenegrin and Bosnian are more open to foreign words from Western languages ​​and (especially Bosnian) to Turzisms and to the adoption of colloquial expressions in the standard than Croatian. This ties it more closely to Scriptural before the 19th century, used loan translations and Lehnübertragungen and borrowed sometimes from in and around Zagreb spoken Kajkavian .

Foreign words vs. Loan translations

The Croatian standard language is characterized by a linguistic purism that accepts significantly fewer foreign words than, for example, Serbian. Croatian forms of revived archaisms , neologisms , loan translations and loan transfers are preferred.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
odrezak šnicla ( German ) schnitzel
časnik oficir ( German / French ) officer
zrakoplov avion ( French ) plane
kolodvor stanica ( ksl. ) railway station
tisuća hiljada ( gr. ) thousand
povijest historija ( gr. ) istorija or historija ( gr. ) historija ( gr. ) history
glazba ( also muzika) muzika ( lat. ) music
znameska cifra ( arab. ) Digit
kralježnica kičma ( Turkish ) Spine
susjed komšija ( Turkish ) , susjed sused, komšija ( turk. ) susjed, komšija ( turk. ) Neighbor
nogomet nogomet, fudbal ( engl. ) fudbal ( Engl. ) Soccer
hladnjak frižider ( French ) fridge
rajčica paradajz ( German ) tomato
mrkva mrkva mrkva, šargarepa ( ung. ) šargarepa, šangarepa ( ung. ) Carrot, carrot
( also falsificiranje [ lat. ])
falsifikovanje ( lat. ) Forgery, forgery

The Croatian colloquial language has significantly more foreign words than the written language (apart from the internationalisms also common in Serbian , especially Germanisms and Hungarians in the north and Venetian Italianisms on the coast).

The Croatian names of the months also differ from the international and therefore from the Serbian names:

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
siječanj January January
veljača February February
ožujak mart March
travanj April April
svibanj maj May
lipanj June jun June
srpanj July jul July
kolovoz August avgust August
rujan septembar September
listopad octobar October
studeni novemable November
prosinac decemable December

According to Bosnian linguists, the month names listed here under Croatian are also permitted in the Bosnian language. This is why many Bosnian-language magazines, books and other scriptures also use these forms.

In addition, Bosnian and Montenegrin are characterized by numerous turmisms and many Muslims still live in these countries today (many of which in Turkish itself come from Persian or Arabic ):

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
tata babo or tata tata babo or tata father
baka nena / nana or majka baka or baba nana, bika, baka or baba granny
ujak dajdža ujak dajdža ( short dajo) or ujak Uncle, mother brother
stric amidža stric amidža ( short midžo) or stric Uncle, father brother

Dialectal differences and borrowings from different languages

In some cases, the respective standard varieties have taken over words from different dialects, with words of štokavian origin in Croatian in particular borrowings from Kajkavian and Čakavian , in Serbian those from Church Slavonic . Loan words or loan meanings from other languages ​​are sometimes only used in certain standard varieties.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
Dobar tek! (kajkav.) or U slast! Prijatno! Good Appetite!
tjedan ( old Slav .) sedmica, hefta (Turkish) nedelja (kirchenslaw.) , sedmica sedmica, hefta (Turkish) , nedelja (kirchenslaw.) week
sat (turk.) sat (turk.) čas (in this translation from the Russian) ,
sat (Turkish)
sat (turk.) hour
otok ostrvo island
vrt (lat.) bašta or bašča Basta bašta or vrt garden
vlak (Czech.) voz train
crude hljeb, somun (Turkish) hleb hljeb, somun (Turkish) loaf
talijanski talijanski or italijanski italijanski Italian
nitko; svatko niko; svako no one; everyone

Various ways of borrowing

There are differences in words of Greek origin that are part of the educational vocabulary that has been handed down through teaching, since Croatian usually adopted these terms via the Latin written language of the Middle Ages and modern times, while Serbian adopted some of these terms directly from Byzantine Greek . As a result, such words appear in Croatian with a phonetic level that corresponds to the Central European school pronunciation of Latin, whereas in Serbian they appear with the modern Greek phonetic level. The most important sound correspondences that result in this way are:

Croatian Latin school pronunciation Latin ancient Greek pronunciation Greek letter Byzantine pronunciation Serbian
b [b] b [b] β [v] v
e [ɛ] e [ɛː] η [i] i
k or c [k] or [ts] (depending on the context) c [k] κ [k] k
u [u̯] u [u̯] υ (after vowel) [v] v
k or h [k] or [x] ch [kʰ] χ [x] H

This results in a number of differences between Serbian and Croatian, with Bosnian occupying a middle position:

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
ocean okean ocean
barbaric varvar barbar or varvar Barbarian
kemija hemija chemistry
Bethlehem Vitlejem Bethlehem or Vitlejem Bethlehem
demokracija democracy democracy
Europe Evropa or Europe Evropa Europe
Euro Euro or Evro Evro Euro Euro

Different borrowing can also lead to different results in Church Slavicisms; so is z. B. The Church Slavonic word община with the original Bulgarian sound as opština was borrowed into Serbian and Montenegrin, while the štokavian equivalent općina was used in Croatian and Bosnian .

Different word formations with the same material

During the standardization of the varieties in the 19th century, various word formation devices were codified:

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
Španjolska Španija Spain
priopćiti saopćiti saopštiti notify
spol pole gender

Foreign verbs with a Latin root almost always have the suffix -irati in today's Croatian ; In Serbian and Montenegrin, the suffixes -ovati and -isati also occur at this point . In Bosnian, the form usually corresponds to the Croatian, but the Serbian form is often used colloquially.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
identificirati identificovati identify
informirati informisati to inform

Gender differences

A few nouns differ in gender and are accordingly declined differently. These differences are often due to the languages ​​from which the words are borrowed; for example, Latin planeta is feminine, German planet but masculine, and French minute is feminine, but ends in a consonant in the pronunciation, which is typical for masculine in Slavonic. However, there is no clear rule here.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian Montenegrin German
planet (m.) planeta (f.) planet (m.) or planeta (f.) planet
minute (f.) minute (m.) minute
večer (f.) veče (n.) Eve

Semantic differences: "false friends"

In a few cases, one and the same word in the various standard varieties has acquired different meanings over time:

Expression Croatian. meaning Bosn. meaning Mont. Meaning Serb. meaning
slovenski 'Slovenian'
('Slavic' = slavenski )
('Slovenian' = slovenački )

Text examples

In the following, using the example of Articles 1 to 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “texts with the same meaning and as literally translated as possible” in the sense of Ammon are given, in order to illustrate the extent of the linguistic differences between the standard varieties dealt with here in a flowing text.

Croatian Bosnian Serbian German
Opća deklaracija o pravima čov je ka Opća deklaracija o pravima čov je ka Opšta deklaracija o pravima čov e ka Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Član 1. Sva ljudska bića rađaju se slobodna i jednaka u dostojanstvu i pravima. Ona su obdarena razumom i sv ije šću i trebaju jedno prema drugome postupa ti u duhu bratstva. Član 1. Sva ljudska bića rađaju se slobodna i jednaka u dostojanstvu i pravima. Ona su obdarena razumom i sv ije šću i treba da jedno prema drugome postupa ju u duhu bratstva. Član 1. Sva ljudska bića rađaju se slobodna i jednaka u dostojanstvu i pravima. Ona su obdarena razumom i sv e šću i treba da jedno prema drugome postupa ju u duhu bratstva. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should meet one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Član 2. Svakome su dostupna sva prava i slobode navedene u ovoj Deklaraciji bez razlike bilo koje vrste, kao što su rasa, boja, spol , jezik, v depending ra, političko ili drugo mišljenje, narodnosno ili društveno podrijetlo , imovina, rođenje ili drugi pravni položaj.
Nadalje, ne sm ije se činiti bilo kakva razlika na osnov i političkog, pravnog ili međunarodnog položaja zemlje ili područja kojima neka osoba pripada, bilo da je ovo područje nezavisno, pod da supromno , nzavisno, pod mapromavno, nzavisno drug.
Član 2. Svakome su dostupna sva prava i slobode navedene u ovoj Deklaraciji bez razlike bilo koje vrste, kao što su rasa, boja, spol , jezik, v je ra, političko ili drugo mišljenje, narodnosno ili društvenoina porili drugek pravni položaj.
Nadalje, ne sm ije se činiti bilo kakva razlika na osnov u političkog, pravnog ili međunarodnog položaja zemlje ili područja kojima neka osoba pripada, bilo da je ovo područje nezavisno, pod područje nezavisno se, pod staratno nystili drug.
Član 2. Svakome su dostupna sva prava i slobode navedene u ovoj Deklaraciji bez razlike bilo koje vrste, kao što su rasa, boja, pol , jezik, v e ra, političko ili drugo mišljenje, narodnosno ili društveno porek , drugloštveno porek pravni položaj.
Nadalje, ne sm e se činiti bilo kakva razlika na osnov u političkog, pravnog ili međunarodnog položaja zemlje ili područja kojima neka osoba pripada, bilo as per ovo područje nezavisno, pod starateljstvom , nesamoupravno, ili da se nalazi ma pod kojim drugim ograničenjima suverenosti.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to set forth in this Declaration rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, Des No distinction may be made on the basis of the political, legal or international position of the country or territory to which a person belongs, regardless of whether this is independent, is under trusteeship, has no self-government or is otherwise restricted in its sovereignty.
Član 3. Svatko ima pravo na život, slobodu i osobnu sigurnost. Član 3. Svako ima pravo na život, slobodu i osobnu sigurnost. Član 3. Svako ima pravo na život, slobodu i osobnu sigurnost. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Član 4. Nitko ne sm ije biti držan u ropstvu ili ropskom odnosu; ropstvo i trgovina robljem zabranjuje se u svim njihovim oblicima. Član 4. Niko ne sm ije biti držan u ropstvu ili ropskom odnosu; ropstvo i trgovina robljem zabranjuje se u svim njihovim oblicima. Član 4. Niko ne sm e biti držan u ropstvu ili ropskom odnosu; ropstvo i trgovina robljem zabranjuje se u svim njihovim oblicima. Article 4. Nobody may be held in slavery or serfdom; Slavery and the slave trade are prohibited in all their forms.
Član 5. Nitko ne sm ije biti podvrgnut mučenju ili okrutnom, nečov je čnom ili ponižavajućem postupku ili kažnjavanju. Član 5. Niko ne sm ije biti podvrgnut mučenju ili okrutnom, nečov je čnom ili ponižavajućem postupku ili kažnjavanju. Član 5. Niko ne sm e biti podvrgnut mučenju ili okrutnom, nečov e čnom ili ponižavajućem postupku ili kažnjavanju. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Član 6. Svatko ima pravo da se svugdje pred zakonom priznaje kao osoba. Član 6. Svako ima pravo da se svagdje pred zakonom priznaje kao osoba. Član 6. Svako ima pravo da se svuda pred zakonom priznaje kao osoba. Article 6. Everyone has the right to be recognized as having legal capacity everywhere.
Sources: The Bosnian text is taken from the official translation at the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (as well as the German ( Memento of 18 November 2008 at the Internet Archive )). This Bosnian text was translated into Croatian and Serbian as part of a proseminar at the University of Bonn . The official Serbian and Croatian translations were created independently and therefore mainly contain individual, non-linguistic differences.

No real texts, but sentences constructed to demonstrate the differences are the following:

Croatian Bosnian Serbian German
B ije la so l za ku h anje k emijski je spoj natri j a i k lora. B ije la so za ku h anje je h emijski spoj natri jum a i h lora. B e la so za ku v anje je h emijsko jedinjenje natri jum a i h lora. White salt for cooking is a chemical compound of sodium and chlorine.
Vlak sa žel je zničkog kolodvora krenu t ć e t o čno u deset sati . Voz sa žel je zničke stanice krenu t ć e t a čno u deset sati . Voz sa žel e zničke stanice krenu ć e t a čno u deset sati / časova . The train will leave the station at exactly ten o'clock.


  1. ^ Bernhard Gröschel : Serbo-Croatian between linguistics and politics . With a bibliography on the post-Yugoslav language dispute (=  Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics . Volume 34 ). Lincom Europa, Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3 , p. 451 .
  2. ^ Snježana Kordić : National varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language . In: Biljana Golubović, Jochen Raecke (eds.): Bosnian - Croatian - Serbian as foreign languages ​​at the universities of the world (=  The world of the Slavs, anthologies - Sborniki ). tape 31 . Sagner, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-86688-032-0 , pp. 93-102 ( bib.irb.hr [PDF; 1,3 MB ; accessed on November 7, 2010]).
  3. Daniel Bunčić: The (re) nationalization of the Serbo-Croatian standards . In: Sebastian Kempgen (Hrsg.): German contributions to the 14th International Slavist Congress . Ohrid, 2008 (=  World of Slaves ). Otto Sagner, Munich 2008, OCLC 238795822 , p. 89-102 .
  4. ^ Aldo Zanelli: An analysis of the metaphors in the Croatian linguistic journal Jezik from 1991 to 1997 (=  Studies on Slavic Studies . Volume 41 ). Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 2018, ISBN 978-3-8300-9773-0 , DNB 114213069X , p. 20–21 : "It can rightly be assumed that it is still a pluricentric language, since the language structure has not changed significantly after 1990 either."
  5. Miloš Okuka: The Serbian standard language in theory and practice. Die Welt der Slaven, 45, 2000, pp. 233–248.
  6. Article 10 of the Serbian Constitution of 2006 : “In the Republic of Serbia, the Serbian language and the Cyrillic script are in official use. The law regulates the official use of other languages ​​and scripts on the basis of the constitution. ”Article 8 of the 1990 constitution also said a similar thing .
  7. Daniel Bunčić : Integracija inostrannych slov iz evropejskich jazykov v kirillice i latinice. "The integration of foreign words from European languages ​​in Cyrillic and Latin script" in Russian. In: M. P. Kotjurova (ed.): Filologičeskie zametki: Mežvuzovskij sbornik naučnych trudov. 2nd Edition. 1 of 2. Perm, 2003, p. 122-150 (Croatian).
  8. John Frederick Bailyn: To what degree are Croatian and Serbian the same language? Evidence from a Translation Study . In: Journal of Slavic Linguistics . tape 18 , no. 2 , 2010, ISSN  1068-2090 , p. 181–219 ( online [PDF; accessed on October 11, 2019]): "An examination of all the major 'levels' of language shows that BCS is clearly a single language with a single grammatical system."
  9. Danko Šipka: Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages . Cambridge University Press, New York 2019, ISBN 978-953-313-086-6 , pp. 166 , doi : 10.1017 / 9781108685795 : "Lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages ​​(such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible. "
  10. ^ Snježana Kordić : The current language censorship in Croatia . In: Bernhard Symanzik, Gerhard Birkfellner, Alfred Sproede (eds.): Language - Literature - Politics . Eastern Europe in Transition (=  Studies in Slavic Studies ). tape 10 . Publishing house Dr. Kovač, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-8300-1215-2 , p. 259–272 ( bib.irb.hr [PDF; 1.1 MB ; accessed on April 9, 2012]).
  11. ^ Snježana Kordić : Language and Nationalism in Croatia . In: Bernhard Symanzik (Ed.): Studia Philologica Slavica . Festschrift for Gerhard Birkfellner on the occasion of his 65th birthday, dedicated by friends, colleagues and students: Volume I (=  Münster texts on Slavic Studies ). tape 4 . Lit Verlag , Berlin 2006, ISBN 3-8258-9891-1 , p. 337–348 ( bib.irb.hr [PDF; 1,2 MB ; accessed on February 1, 2013]).
  12. cf. Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika, Odluka br. 1 ( Memento from June 19, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), point 2.0.
  13. ^ Ulrich Ammon: The German language in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The problem of national varieties. Berlin, New York 1995, p. 6.
  14. The first example comes from Dalibor Brozović ( "O općim jezičnim i izvanjezičnim uvjetovanostima standardnonovoštokavske pravopisne problematike sa stanovišta njezina historijata i suvremenoga stanja", in: Pravopisna problem-atlantic u i Bosni Hercegovini , Sarajevo 1976, pp 49-58, here p 55 ), who hypothetically constructed it as “a completely banal sentence from the field of chemistry, as it could be found in any chemistry textbook”. The second example comes from Stjepan Babić, from the introduction to the Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika (10th edition, Zagreb 1994, § 19; the same author cited a variant of this sentence in Hrvatski jučer i danas , Zagreb 1995, p. 18: kroat . Vlak kreće s kolodvora točno u deset sati vs. Serbian. Voz kreće sa stanice tačno u deset časova ). Both examples are in the original only in Croatian and Serbian, the Bosnian equivalent was added for Wikipedia.


Difference dictionaries
  • Vladimir Brodnjak: Razlikovni rječnik srpskog i hrvatskog jezika [Dictionary of the differences between the Serbian and Croatian languages]. Zagreb 1991, 640 pp., ISBN 86-7457-074-7 (30,000 entries).
  • Jovan Ćirilov: Hrvatsko-srpski rječnik inačica. Srpsko-hrvatski rečnik varijanata. Beograd 1989, 1994.

Interesting for German speakers for comparison: the German variant dictionary .

  • Leopold Auburger: The Croatian Language and Serbo-Croatism. Ulm / Donau 1999. ISBN 3-87336-009-8 .
  • Daniel Blum: Language and Politics . Language policy and language nationalism in the Republic of India and socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991) (=  contributions to research on South Asia . Volume 192 ). Ergon, Würzburg 2002, ISBN 3-89913-253-X , p. 200 .
  • Dalibor Brozović: Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language. In: Michael Clyne (Ed.): Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1992, ISBN 3-11-012855-1 , pp. 347-380.
  • Robert D. Greenberg: Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration. Oxford et al. a. 2004. ISBN 0-19-925815-5 .
  • Bernhard Gröschel : Post-Yugoslav Official Language Regulations - Sociolinguistic Arguments Against the Uniformity of Serbo-Croatian? In: Srpski jezik . tape 8 , no. 1–2 , 2003, ISSN  0354-9259 , pp. 135-196 ( scindeks.ceon.rs ).
  • Miro Kačić: Croatian and Serbian: errors and falsifications. In collaboration with Ljiljana Šarić. Translated by Wiebke Wittschen, Ljiljana Šarić. Zagreb 1997, ISBN 953-6602-01-6 .
  • Enisa Kafadar: Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian - How do you actually speak in Bosnia-Herzegovina? In: Beate Henn-Memmesheimer, Joachim Franz (ed.): The order of the standard and the differentiation of the discourses . Part 1. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2009, OCLC 699514676 , p. 95-106 ( books.google.hr [accessed January 29, 2013]).
  • Snježana Kordić: Pros and Cons: 'Serbo-Croatian' today . In: Marion Krause, Christian Sappok (Hrsg.): Slavistische Linguistik 2002. Papers of the XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavist working meeting, Bochum 10.9 . – 12.9.2002 (=  Slavist contributions ). tape 434 . Sagner, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-87690-885-X , p. 97–148 ( bib.irb.hr [PDF; 4.2 MB ; accessed on August 9, 2010]).
  • Snježana Kordić : Pluricentric languages, extension languages, distance languages ​​and Serbo-Croatian . In: Journal of Balkanology . tape 45 , no. 2 , 2009, ISSN  0044-2356 , p. 210–215 ( zeitschrift-fuer-balkanologie.de [accessed on December 3, 2012]).
  • Snježana Kordić : Language and Nationalism (=  Rotulus Universitas ). Durieux, Zagreb 2010, ISBN 978-953-188-311-5 , p. 430 , doi : 10.2139 / ssrn.3467646 (Serbo-Croatian, bib.irb.hr [PDF; 1.6 MB ; accessed on February 3, 2011] Original title: Jezik i nacionalizam .).
  • Miloš Okuka: One language - many heirs: language policy as an instrument of nationalization in ex-Yugoslavia. Klagenfurt 1998. ISBN 3-85129-249-9 .
  • Amela Osmanović: Hot air, beaten: Linguistic paratism in the Yugoslav language area. In: the daily newspaper , October 15, 2005, p. IV.
  • Velimir Piškorec: Croatian and Serbian between understanding and misunderstanding - a documentation . In: Trans. Internet magazine for cultural studies , No. 15 (2004).
  • Hans-Dieter Pohl: Serbo-Croatian - Review and Outlook . In: Ingeborg Ohnheiser (Ed.): Interrelationships between Slavic languages, literatures and cultures in the past and present. Files from the conference on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Institute for Slavic Studies at the University of Innsbruck (=  Innsbruck contributions to cultural studies, Slavica aenipontana ). tape 4 . Non Lieu, Innsbruck 1996, OCLC 243829127 , p. 205-219 .
  • Branko Tošović (Ed.): The differences between Bosnian / Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian . LIT, Vienna 2008, ISBN 978-3-8258-0144-1 (3 volumes).

The general transferable theory chapters in: Ulrich Ammon: The German language in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: The problem of national varieties are recommended for comparison, especially for German-speaking readers . Berlin u. a. 1995, ISBN 3-11-014753-X .