Open Access

Maciej Czerwiński

• U radu se analiziraju učinci jezične politike u hrvatskoj u dvama vremenskim presjecima: u pedesetim godinama 20. stoljeća na primjeru popularnoznanstvene historiografije te u 2000. godini na primjeru tiskanih medija. Empirijska analiza pokazuje da se u prvom razdoblju (u tom konkretnom žanru) nije nametao ujednačen hrvatsko-srpski jezični izraz te da se ni u drugom slučaju nije nametnulo isključivo hrvatsku preskriptivnu normu (odnosno koristili su se srbizmi i navodni srbizmi). Kad je u pitanju druga vremenska razina, analiza pokazuje da su se mediji polarizirali po tom pitanju: izbor poželjnih jezičnih jedinica ovisio je o ideološkom profilu medija. U radu se zaključuje da nam još uvijek nedostaje znanje o jezičnoj zbilji koja bi mogla verificirati teze generalizirajućeg tipa: »U Jugoslaviji su se hrvatskom jeziku nametali srbizmi.« ili »U neovisnoj su se Hrvatskoj potiskivali srbizmi.« ili koje druge. Tek nam empririjska istraživanja u više domena komuniciranja, u više stilova i žanrova, u više vremenskih razdoblja, s brigom o frekvenciji jezičnih pojava, mogu odgovoriti na pitanje o načinu, vremenu i mjestu ostvarivanja jedne ili druge jezične politike.
• In the article, the results of Croatian linguistic policy from two periods are taken into consideration: the first during the 1950's in popular science historiography, and the second in the year 2000 in Croatian press. an empirical analysis demonstrates that there was no effort made to impose unified Serbo-Croatian linguistic expression during the first period (in this concrete genre), and likewise no such attempt to impose exclusively Croatian linguistic varieties was successful in the second period (meaning that Serbianisms and alleged Serbianisms were in use). As for the second period, the analysis demonstrates that various types of media were polarized in this respect: the choice of preferred linguistic items depended on the ideological profile of the media. The article draws the following conclusion: data concerning linguistic reality that would enable us to verify the general theses »In Yugoslavia, Serbianisms were imposed on the Croatian language« or »In independent Croatia Serbianisms were banned« etc., is still unavailable. Only empirical investigations in various domains of communication, in various styles/genres, on various temporal levels, with frequency taken into consideration, will enable us to answer the question of how, when and where the first and second language policy were put into practice.