As is well known, the language policy of the former SFRJ (= Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) tried to create a "Serbo-Croatian standard language" [As to the differentiation between the concepts of "literary language" and "standard language" see Auburger 1991, 23-24.] under the domination of the Serbian language (cf. Auburger 1997). An important part of this policy were attempts to eliminate those characteristics of the Croatian literary language by which it distinguishes itself from the Serbian literary language. [Cf. the observation by Auburger (1997, 25) concerning the transformation of the variance relationship from lower linguistic levels to variance relationships on higher levels up to the lectological and general linguistic level with entire language systems such as sociolects, professional languages, dialects, etc. as items of the variance relation.] The methods used were manyfold. Even still in the eighties, a common "argument" was to claim that the opponents of the official Yugoslav language policy were sympathising with the Ustaša regime of World War 2, and that the incriminated words were "ustašoid" as well. [For example, in a report called Linguistic problems in the function of nationalist ideology in the SR Croatia (Selak 1992, 53-119; 107) written in 1980/81 for official internal use, the Croatists of that time were compared to the politicians concerned with the politics of language during the NDH-State period. (NDH = Nezavisna država Hrvatska , 1941 – 1945). ] Another method was to punish authors that fought against censorship. Therefore, when M. Šimundić (1971, 238) asking a television newscaster why he avoided the word glazba (music ), he got the reply: "Ah, you know, it would not be appropriate." Why it would not have been "appropriate" is illustrated by the fact that the editor of the Croatian edition of the official newspaper of the SFRJ ("Službeni list SFRJ"), Blaško Grce, was relegated from his former function and degraded to the function of a corrector in 1976 after he had tried to circumvent that censorship (Selak 1992, 28-52). Besides, authors of dictionaries, grammars, etc. were not allowed to write their works freely and according to the best of their professional knowledge and competence. Thus, for example, the whole edition of the Croatian Orthography edited by Babić-Finka-Moguš (1971) was destroyed in a paper factory just because it had been titled "Croatian" Orthography instead of "Serbocroatian" or "Croatoserbian" Orthography.

Most foreign scholars of "serbocroatistics" in the Western democratic world were not aware of these methods of the Yugoslav language policy and of this way of "standardizing" the Croatian literary language. This is not surprising since the ideas of many foreign serbocroatists about the Croatian language were similar to the concepts of Yugoslav language policy. Therefore, they did not show any interest in this problem when in 1971 D. Brozović described the Yugoslav language policy as a unique form of unitarianism that partly resembled the old Czechoslovakism (Brozović 1971, 197-198). According to Brozović, this unitarianism, as a vehicle of Greater Serbian ambitions hiding behind older traditions of south-Slavic solidarity, corresponded with, more or less well-known, tendencies of language policy in expansionist states. [See also Brozović 1998. In a non-terminological sense Brozović 1971 calls this unitarianism serbocroatism. L. Auburger shows that such a serbocroatism was developed already in the 19th century. He also gives a detailed description of its nature and its development (Auburger, 1997; 1999). ]

If we examine Croatian dictionaries of the eighties, e.g. B. Klaić’s dictionary of foreign words, we can find lots of "Croatisms" which were more or less proscribed in former Yugoslavia (shown here in italics):

Depending on whether they belong to the active or passive vocabulary of the primary Croatian speakers in former Yugoslavia, not all of these words can be treated equally. Odvjetnik (lawyer ) , tvrtka ( company ) , proračun ( budget ) , sustav ( system ) , glazba ( music) were examples of active usage while pričuva ( reserve ) , vojarna ( barracks ) , časnik ( officer ) , and uhićivati ( to arrest ) belonged to the passive vocabulary. The number of references of the words odvjetnik and advokat in the frequency dictionaries by Šojat (1983) and by Moguš – Bratanić- Tadić (in the following: Moguš 1999) shows that the frequency of some of the (partial) doublets mentioned above varied substantially in the language of Croatian journals even before 1991. The corpus on which Moguš’ frequency dictionary is based was compiled in the seventies. It contains 952,327 word units (tokens) extracted from texts published in the period between 1935 and the seventies. The abbreviations DNPSU represent the different sub-corpora: D= drama, N= newspapers, P= prose, S= poetry, U= textbooks. The newspapers consulted ( Borba, Glas Slavonije, Novi list, Slobodna Dalmacija, Večernji list, Vjesnik ) were published in 1975 and 1977 and contain 200,000 word units. The corpus on which Šojat’s frequency dictionary (1983) is based consists of 130,279 word units taken from the newspapers Večernji list and Vjesnik , both published in 1980.

For instance, the fact that the words glazba, skladatelj ( composer ) and sustav probably did not occur in certain types of texts before 1991 does ot imply that these words can now be considered "reactivated" (cf. Samardžija 1998, 149). The references in Moguš (1999) and Šojat (1983) show hat these words were in use already in the Croatian language of the seventies and early eighties. There is no reason to assume that they generally isappeared in the eighties.

Prior to 1991, the passive Croatian vocabulary contained many banished Croatian words equivalent to the actively used ords of the politically approved vocabulary. E.g. the officers of the JNA (= Jugoslavenska narodna armija, Yugoslav People’s Army ) publicly only ould be called oficir (Sg.) – oficiri (Pl.), and not časnik – časnici . (For using the word časnik ( officer ) instead of oficir the physician I. Šreter was entenced to 50 days in jail in 1987 (Vuković 1996, 78-79).) Accordingly, the possibility of using the previously frequent word časnik was already educed in such a way that before 1991 it could only occur in special contexts, e.g. in relation to historical events. Such suppressive relations changed onsiderably after the dissolution of the SFRJ and the founding of the Republic of Croatia as a sovereign state (1991) (cf. Auburger 1999, 332f.). The regained freedom to use previously forbidden words in all domains of communication without any restrictions made it possible for the Croatian terminology in the semantic field of administration, army, etc. to be based on and continue existing Croatian naming traditions. So, formerly suppressed words switched from the more or less passive vocabulary of the Croatian literary language to the active one without any special stylistic marking. On the whole, various tendencies can be observed. Although e.g. the Slavic word uljudba can be found more often in newspapers since the beginning of the nineties, no competitive relation with its synonym civilizacija , which is still common, can be observed. Another development can be seen in the pair of words klavir – glasovir (piano). The word glasovir occurs a little more often in the current newspapers than its synonym klavir although before 1991 glasovir probably was not used in the newspapers at all or only rarely. Such developments were partly influenced by the war that Serbia started against the Republic of Croatia in the name of Yugoslavia in the early nineties. People began to identify particular lexical elements of the former regime as symbols of the military aggressor. Therefore, in wartime literary language use a word like oficir had a pejorative connotation. Nowadays, this word appears in newspapers mostly as a reference to history, in particular when referring to J(N)A officers. Similarly the word kasarna has been fully replaced by vojarna, and is now being used only as a reference to history (JNA barracks). The word armija (compare the self-styled Yugoslav People’s Army = Jugoslavenska narodna armija) is still very frequent, but no in its primary meaning (cf. Šonje, 2000), which is covered by vojska: In the newspapers, it mainly occurs within compound terms belonging to the inventory of names: Jugoslavenska armija, Armija BiH, Irska republikanska armija, Ruska armija, Sovjetska armija, Crvena armija, Ukrajinska ustanička armija. Less frequently it can be found in syntagms with the metaphorical meaning "a lot of": navijačka armija, omanja armija pomoćnika javnoga tužitelja. Recently, however, vojska is also being used in this sense: vojska njezinih obožavatelja, vojska znanstvenika.

In the rare case that the word ambasador is used in newspapers with the meaning "ambassador", it almost exclusively refers to foreign ambassadors (američki ambasador , francuski ambasador, bosanski ambasador , etc.). It is also used in a new metaphorical sense (exponent, advocate, representative): ambasador dobre volje, umjetnost je najbolji ambasador Hrvatske, svaka hrvatska (poštanska) marka je ambasador koji promiče hrvatsku kulturu, uspješan ambasador naše zemlje, u funkciji ambasadora kampanje "Engleska 2006", svojevrsni ambasadori ugostiteljske struke, ambasadori bogate hrvatske glazbene tradicije, ambasadori hrvatske znanosti. The word veleposlanik does not occur in this sense, but it has largely replaced the word ambasador as a designation for Croatian and foreign ambassadors. This explains why its frequency in the newspapers is considerably higher than that of the word ambasador.

Another development can be studied analyzing the recent history of the pair of words dobrovoljac – dragovoljac and of the word prvoborac . In 1991 the average speaker would associate the word dobrovoljac (volunteer) and prvoborac (earliest partisan/soldier) with the volunteers and the first generation (1941) of Tito's partisans (1941-1945). The word dragovoljac, which was not in common usage before 1991 and which did not have this denotation (cf. Brodnjak 1991, dragovoljnik), therefore could establish itself as a designation for the volunteers on the Croatian side of the war in the nineties. In the language of Croatian newspapers in the nineties, the distinction is quite clear: dobrovoljci (Pl.) stands for the volunteers of World War 2, while dragovoljci (Pl.) stands for the Croatian volunteers of the last war. At the same time, it can be observed that the word dragovoljac replaces the word dobrovoljac in all other contexts as well, except in those cases where Tito's partisans are mentioned. A definitive redefinition of its meaning, however, has not occurred yet. It remains to be seen whether the tendency described here is only a temporary phenomenon or whether the reference in Šonje (2000), according to which there is no semantic difference between dobrovoljac and dragovoljac , will still hold true in future dictionaries. Obviously a similar differentiation was not possible for the word prvoborac because prvoborac did not have a corresponding synonym. Considering the context in which the word prvoborac still appears in the modern Croatian language of the newspapers, one would conclude that it does not describe the Croatian volunteers of the last war. The term is avoided in two ways: 1) originally by calling them dragovoljci ; and 2) later on by referring to them as "veterans" (veterani ). Consequently, the frequency of the word veterani increased significantly, despite the fact that the puristic tendency against internationalisms had become stronger in the nineties (cf. Samardžija, 2000a). Under the influence of this tendency the internationalism fronta, for example, was not used as a description of the fronts in the last war but replaced by Slavic words or syntagms: bojište, bojišnica, prva crta bojišta and prva crta bojišnice. In compound names, however, the word fronta is still used, often occuring in the non-standard form front (cf. Brodnjak 1991, front ). The use of this word in the quoted functions was obviously not influenced by the previous use in Narodnooslobodilačka fronta (1941-1945). Similarly, the word omladina (youth), which is also marked by socialist usage, was not only largely replaced by the word mladež but is in Šonje (2000) even limited to its first meaning as a description of the former Yugoslav Youth Organisation. It should be noted that before 1991 the word omladina could replace mladež because of the Yugoslav language policy. The use of the word sekretarica, which has been to a great degree replaced by tajnica (or masc. tajnik ) in the meaning "secretary", shows a similar development. Surprisingly, however, it occurs quite often in the meaning of "answering machine": telefonska sekretarica, automatska sekretarica . The corresponding tajnica (or tajnik ) occurs almost exclusively in all other meanings, also when referring to foreign employees, who are called secretary in their own language. This does not, however, apply to the ministers of the SFRJ, who are called sekretar(i) according to their own inventory of names.

Before analysing the pair of words priopćiti – saopćiti ( to inform, to notify) to show how older normative tendencies still influence the latest language changes, I would like to mention the puristic tendency against Serbisms, which increased in the first half of the nineties. On the one hand, the most influential normativists had already pointed out in the early nineties that necessary future codifications of the Croatian literary language must take place independently of the relationship between Croatian and Serbian. [Cf. e.g. Babić (1995, 29-32; first published: 1991). ] On the other hand, the results of linguistic contact with the Serbian language, which had been dominant in the process of language standardisation during the "Yugoslav era", could not be denied. The war that Serbia started against Croatia at the beginning of the nineties strengthened puristic tendencies against serbisms: Amateur linguists became involved in language politics, writing Serbian-Croatian contrastive dictionaries of their own. The old Croatian purism, which had worked against Serbisms in earlier times, was continued with renewed zeal during the war in the nineties. [Whether the paranormative advices could have a considerable influence on the Croatian language changes still has to be examined. ] Therefore, it is not surprising that words like bezbjednost (= sigurnost ) ( security, safety ) , obezbijediti (= osigurati ) ( to secure ) , uslov (= uvjet ) ( condition ) , osmatranje (= promatranje ) ( observe ) , inostranstvo (= inozemstvo ) ( foreign countries ) do not occur in Croatian newspapers today (except partly in quotations of Serbian and other texts). On the other hand, some words that are labelled as "Serbisms" and are commonly known to be such occur rather often (see e.g. the already mentioned word front). Their usage, however, should be discussed in a separate contribution.

Turning to the above mentioned pair saopćiti - priopćiti and the influence of older normative tendencies, first of all we have to note that the verb saopćiti and the verbal noun saopćenje were completely replaced by priopćiti and priopćenje at the beginning of the nineties, both in administrative and media language. The word saopćiti seems to have entered the Croatian vocabulary by the mediation of B. Šulek (1860), who probably had taken it from J. Stulli (cf. ARj) as a Church Slavonic word. Leaving aside the question whether saopćiti was as common as priopćiti in the 19th century, I would like to point out that this word was not influenced by any purism before the beginning of the 20th century. [Therefore, it was not a problem for I. Filipović (1870) to include this word in his dictionary. So we find the following entries here: report: izvješće; izviest, poviedanje; to permit: dopustiti, dopuštati, dozvoliti, dozvoljavati; to excuse: ispričati, izvinjavati; present: prisutan, nazočan; insurance: osjeguravanje, obezbjeda, obezbjednja; to be part of something: učestvovati, biti učestnik; ally: dionik, učestnik; to inform: priobćiti, saobćiti; care: obskrbljivanje, obskrba, snabdjenje. In Parčić (1901) among others the following headwords can be found: bezbiednost, izviniti se, prisutan, saobćiti, snabdievati, učestnik. Except for saopćiti these headwords are not used in Broz-Iveković (1901).] It was not until the official, politically supported measures in language standardization of the Croatian "Vukovci" (Croatian philologists following the linguistic doctrine of V. S. Karadžić) that the later Croatian linguistic purism against words originating from Church Slavonic or Russian arose. T. Maretić, the founder of this part of Croatian purism, was not bothered by the fact that these Russianisms, as he called them rather generally, were very frequent in the Serbian language of that time. For those cases where older, "native" equivalents existed he suggested, in his Jezični savjetnik (1924), to completely remove "unnecessary Russianisms" from the Croatian and Serbian vocabulary. [Cf. among others Vidović (1969) as to the question how Maretić's Jezični savjetnik influenced the later Croatian normativistics in this respect.] Many of his suggestions were fairly broadly accepted in Croatia, among others his the recommendation not to use saopćiti instead of priopćiti . Therefore, in the article under the headword saopćiti in S. Pavešić’s influential language advisor (1971) we find the statement that "our words" are (among others) priopćenje and priopćiti . In the official language of the SFRJ, in accordance with the situation in the Serbian language, only saopćiti – saopćenje were "allowed". After saopćiti and saopćenje had been replaced by priopćiti and priopćenje in official correspondence of the Croatian administration at the beginning of the nineties, there was no reason for the Croatian linguists to try to retain the word saopćiti and to declare the previously proscribed "Croatism" priopćiti to be "false". [As we have seen, this kind of development has nothing in common with a return to the period before 1918. Therefore, the remark in M. Wingender (1997, 375): "The clock has to be turned back to the period before 1918", is not at all correct.]

Because there was no semantic difference between priopćiti, priopćenje and saopćiti, saopćenje , the latter pair disappeared also from the language of the media. When these words do occur in today’s language of the media, these are rare cases of interference or quotations of older texts. Only in some magazines (see Hrvatska ljevica and Feral ) saopćiti/saopćenje still occur as the result of a conscious choice. These magazines, or rather their texts, form an exception in the Croatian press and should be therefore discussed separately.

Besides the already mentioned types of changes there are also others, e.g. those resulting from the naming of new objects (see e.g. the reactivated word domovnica ). The fast spread of the new form perilica (( dish ) washer ) instead of the older syntagm stroj za pranje (rublja, posuđa) was not caused by normative influences but solely by language economy. In Anić (1998) perilica is mentioned, however it is not in Šonje (2000). In the media, similar cases led to the formation and spread of the verb nazočiti (prisustvovati= to be present). First, the frequency of the adjective nazočan and of the noun nazočnost , equivalent to prisutan – prisutnost but not used very frequently before, increased strongly. Almost at the same time, journalists considered it possible and necessary to have the corresponding verb nazočiti . This happened despite repeated claims by philologists that the new form nazočiti is unnecessary. It is still not clear whether this new form will make its way into the vocabulary or will be replaced by e.g. pribivati (see Šonje 2000, prisustvovati ) or prisustvovati. Currently, the word pribivati is not in common use. Unlike in the case of the verb nazočiti, suggested neologisms for helikopter (helicopter) were completely rejected by the journalists.

In the following paragraphs I will list the words discussed so far and others which have undergone a change in frequency in newspaper language. The first figure, the one behind the respective word, gives the number of references in Moguš (1999); the second figure, the one behind the hyphen, gives its number in Šojat (1983); the third figure, the one behind the slash, indicates the number of references in the Mannheim Croatian Corpus . The Mannheim Croatian Corpus (further: MCC) contains texts from the daily newspapers Vjesnik, Večernji list, Slobodna Dalmacija and the cultural magazine Hrvatsko slovo from the period from 1997 to 1999 and at present covers approximately 14,000,000 tokens. Later, I will give some further information about this corpus and the whole project which lead to its creation. It has to be pointed out that the underlying corpora are not ideally suited for a comparison like the following one. More appropriate linguistic material for such a comparison, however, is not available to me at the present. The aforementioned numerical ratios can be regarded only as indicators of the fact that in newspaper language some changes (probably) occured. To answer the question how and why these changes took place, it would be necessary to describe the problems of the previous and recently appearing semantic differentiations. In some cases one would also have to consider further (partial) synonyms and derivatives:

From the table it can be inferred that words like avion (plane), direktor (direktor, manager), centar (centre), generacija (generation), kvaliteta (quality) or komisija did not disappear "almost completely" from today's "publishing style of the Croatian standard language" as e.g. I. Pranjković claims (cf. Pranjković 2000, 71). Equally, the supposedly new productivity of the type of nouns ending in -(id)ba like odmoridba, zagladba, gladidba and odželjezidba which according to I. Pranjković is "particularly frequent" (Pranjković 2000, 70), is not supported by the MCC. On the word koštovnik (price list) Pranjković notes the following:

The word koštovnik does not occur even once in the MCC (neither do its derivatives). Cjenik, on the other hand, has got 238 references. Unfortunately Pranjković does not give any proof for his statements and makes all the "changes" that are discussed by him appear to be commonly "well known". With such misrepresentations frequent in recent works, R. Katičić's account of a foreign colleague who came to Croatia after a long time wondering at the fact that everyone was actually still speaking "like in former times" is not surprising (Katičić 1997, 28). The searches in the Croatian national corpus , which is accessible to everyone on the internet (http://www.hnk.ffzg.hr/), also show that the specifications supplied by Pranjković are to a large extent wrong. Under the influence of such disinformation about the changes in the Croatian language, these are generally explained by individual authors as the result of monolithic institutionalised political forces. This "institutionalisation" is judged to have a negative influence, often without any consideration for scientific objectivity.

M. Wingender repeatedly stresses that "pointing out the differences between Serbian and Croatian" is a distinguishing trait of the Croatian side and especially of "the guidelines" of the Croatian "new language policy" (cf. Wingender 2000, 265). As an example she quotes the dictionary by Brodnjak (1991) which was supposedly written in the nineties. However, Brodnjak’s dictionary was not written in the nineties, under the rule of the new Croatian "rigorous language policy" (Wingender 2000, 251), but could not be published earlier for political reasons. Under the conditions of the political era in which it was written, it would have been simply "forbidden", like many other works of Croatists in Croatia. Unfortunately M. Wingender has not taken into account that Croatian-Serbian differences were first registered by a Serbian linguist, namely by R. Bošković (1935) (cf. Brodnjak 1991; Wingender 1997, 376) and that, still in the political era of communist Yugoslavia, a Serbian author published a Croatian-Serbian dictionary (Ćirilov 1989).

However, the examples with which B. Kunzmann-Müller tries to circumstanciate the "changes in the derivational morphology" are misinterpreted and thus the just quoted conclusion concerning the "distinction in relation to Serbian" is wrong too. While the verb * suraditi (50), quoted as an "old derivative from su - ", does not exist in the Croatian language, almost all of her aforementioned "innovations" were already in common use before 1991 (cf. the words mentioned together with supredsjedatelj in the same series of "new forms" like suautor, sufinancirati, suigrač, suosnivač, suvlasnik or međuvrijeme, poluvrijeme, polumjer, etc.). With such "innovations" "the changes in the derivational morphology" and the purpose "of a maximisation of the difference to the Serbian language" can surely not be supported. B. Kunzmann-Müller does not prove her thesis convincingly, not even by repeatedly referring to the article by I. Pranjković mentioned above, which she obviously considers a "favourable case" in which Croatian linguistics is aiming for objectivity.

Even in cases when constructions like zamolili smo ga doći are used instead of the correct zamolili smo ga da dođe B. Kunzmann-Mueller identifies a connection to the Croatian "official side". This "official side" does "little or nothing at all" against the penetration of the infinitive constructions from the spoken language into the language of the Croatian press, and thereby promotes "the distinction from Serbian" (Kunzmann-Müller 2000a, 52; 53). The construction zamolili smo ga doći is not mentioned even once in the MCC. In spoken language, it is not familiar to me and other Croatian speakers whom I know. Significantly, contemporary Croatian normativists agree with each other on the fact that unfortunately there has been no centrally led Croatian language policy since 1991 (cf. Samardžija 1999, 308-351). Kunzmann-Müller in no way indicates who, in her opinion, might have established the said Croatian "official side".

How can we explain that even in the most recent period interest in the Croatian language and its development in many works on Croatian language changes is still reduced to the relation between Croatian and Serbian, and that the autonomy of the Croatian language is readily treated as "something ridiculous" without offering any linguistic arguments? Such positions can perhaps be explained by the basic postulates of Slavic philology in the 19th century [Cf. Grčević 1997a, 85-126,1997b, 1997c. ]. This historical "problem" in the development of slavistics can be explained only in connection with the theoretical, methodological and philosophical presuppositions and "apories" of serbocroatism (Auburger 1997, 1999, here especially: 351-406). On the basis of these presuppositions "serbocroatistics" was thought of primarily as a prescriptive discipline of language planning, which did not understand that a "satisfying solution to the theoretical problem of the existence of a diversity of autonomous single languages" needs "a type of linguistic personalism as a general theoretical basis" and must not ignore "in an individualist and reductionist way the reality of existing groups of speakers and language communities …" (Auburger 1993, 272). Methodically appropriate philological research on the recent Croatian language changes therefore requires a professional, objective procedure, which does not ignore or distort realities, trying to model the linguistic realities along concepts in favour of an outdated linguistic policy.

The lexical developments which have been briefly described here have led to changes in the previous system of lexical variants. Apparently this process is far from being completed. The way in which the previous and the contemporary lexical structures currently co-exist [Cf. e.g. the results of the research done by Gnjidić (2000, 161) on the acceptance of the "reactivated" words among Croatian speakers. Her inquiry shows that the ''reactivated'' words mentioned by her, are known, used and perceived positively by the speakers.], their functional and quantitative relations to each other, the situational patterns of their usage, and the semantic consequences of these developments, all these aspects are at the centre of research in a project on "Institutionalising Processes" based at the Slavic Seminar at the University of Mannheim. Director of the project is Professor Dr. Jadranka Gvozdanović. Researchers are Dr. S. Rittgasser and the author of this article. The project is financed by the German Research

The central part of the investigation is dedicated to the study of the language of contemporary Croatian newspapers and magazines. In addition, the spoken and written Croatian language of native speakers from Croatia and abroad is to be examined. In order to be able to analyse the language of the newspapers systematically J. Gvozdanović assigned me to compile a corpus of newspaper texts which can be searched by computer. This was done before the approval of the project by the German Research Foundation. Thanks to the additional assistance of M. Gazdíková and M. Dragičević during the preparation of the texts it was possible to enlarge the corpus to its present size of approx. 14,000,000 word units. It contains texts from the following publications:

At present, the corpus is being supplemented by texts from Feral and from the latest editions (2000/01) of Večernji list, Vjesnik and Slobodna Dalmacija . In order to empirically determine the units that are relevant as indicators for language changes in the newspapers and in order to be able to make comparisons beyond the word level the compilation of a second corpus is planned. It will contain texts from Croatian newspapers and magazines of the period before 1991.

1. Anić 1991 / 1998: Anić, Vladimir: Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb, 1991; 3rd edition: 1998.
2. Arj: Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, 23 vol., Zagreb, 1880-1976.
3. Aubuger 1991 Auburger, Leopold: "Entwicklungsprobleme der kroatischen Standardsprache", Natalicia Johanni Schröpfer octogenario a discipulis amicisque oblata - Festschrift für Johannes Schröpfer zum 80. Geburtstag, Ed.: Auburger, L.; Hill, P., München, 1991, 1-31.
4. Auburger 1993 Leopold, Auburger: Sprachvarianten und ihr Status in den Sprachsystemen, Philosophische Texte und Studien 36, Hildesheim; Zürich; New York, 1993.
5. Auburger1997 Auburger, Leopold: "Der Status des Kroatischen als Einzelsprache und der Serbokroatismus: ein Lehrstück aus der kontaktlinguistischen Begriffsgeschichte", Neue Forschungsarbeiten zur Kontaktlinguistik. Plurilingua, 19, Ed.: Moelleken, W. W.; Weber, P. J., Bonn, 1997, 21-29.
6. Auburger 1999 Auburger, Leopold: Die kroatische Sprache und der Serbokroatismus, Ulm/Donau, 1999.
7. Babić 1990 Babić, Stjepan: Hrvatski jezik u političkom vrtlogu, Zagreb, 1990.
8. Babić 1995 Babić, Stjepan: Hrvatski jezik jučer i danas, Zagreb, 1995.
9. Barth 1999 Barth, Gregor: "Veränderungsprozesse und -tendenzen im kroatischen Wortschatz", Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (Polyslav) 2, Ed.: Böttger, K.; Giger, M.; Wiemer, B., München, 1999, 25-32.
10. Bašić 1994 Bašić, Nataša: " 'Nasilna kroatizacija' ", Jezik, 41, 5, 1994, 157-160.
11. Brodnjak 1991 Brodnjak, Vladimir: Razlikovni rječnik srpskoga i hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb, 1991.
12. Broz-Iveković 1901 Broz, Ivan; Iveković, F.: Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb, 1901.
13. Brozović 1971 Brozović, Dalibor: "O sadanjem času na kružnici jezičnoga sata", Kritika, 17, 1971., 190- 210.
14. Brozović 1997 Brozović, Dalibor: "Stanje i zadatci jezikoslovne kroatistike", Prvi hrvatski slavistički kongres, 2 vol., Ed.: Damjanović, Stjepan, Zagreb, 1997, 1st vol., 9-13.
15. Brozović 1998 Brozović, Dalibor: "Povijesna podloga i jezičnopolitičke i sociolingvističke okolnosti", Hrvatski jezik, Ed.: Lončarić, Mijo, Opole, 1998, 3-34.
16. Croatian National Corpus http://www.hnk.ffzg.hr/
17. Ćirilov 1989 Ćirilov, Jovan: Hrvatsko-srpski rječnik inačica. Srpsko-hrvatski rečnik varijanti, Beograd, 1989.
18. Filipović 1870 Filipović, Ivan: Neues Wörterbuch der kroatischen und deutschen Sprache, Zagreb, 1870.
19. Gnjidić 2000 Gnjidić, Maja: "Stav govornika hrvatskog standardnog jezika prema oživljenicama", Govor, XVII, 2, 2000, 155-162.
20. Grčević 1997a Grčević, Mario: Die Entstehung der kroatischen Literatursprache, Köln; et al., 1997.
21. Grčević 1997b Grčević, Mario: "Zašto slavistika 19. stoljeća nije priznavala postojanje hrvatskoga jezika? Uzroci i posljedice", Jezik, 45, 1, 1997, 3-28.
22. Grčević 1997c Grčević, Mario: "Karadžićeva gledišta o hrvatskome jeziku u slavističkome okružju", Jezik, 45, 2, 1997, 41-58.
23. Grubišić 1985 Grubišić, Vinko: "Hrvatski jezik nakon II. svjetskog rata", Hrvatska revija, 35, 2, 1985, 272-286.
24. Gvozdanović 1985 Gvozdanović, Jadranka: Language System and its Change, Berlin, 1985. Gvozdanović 1997 Gvozdanović, Jadranka (Ed.): Language Change and functional Explanations, Berlin; New York, 1997.
25. Katičić 1994 Katičić, Radoslav: "Hrvatski jezik kao pojava određena svojom poviješću", Jezik, 41, 5, 1994, 129-134.
26. Katičić 1997 Katičić, Radoslav: "Hrvatski jezik u svijetu", Prvi hrvatski slavistički kongres, 2 vol., Ed.: Damjanović, Stjepan, Zagreb, 1997, 1st vol., 23-30.
27. Kirfel 2000 Kirfel, Sabine: "Die kroatische Sprache des Rechts - Kontinuität in der Diskontinuität", Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute. Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Ed.: Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara, Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 118-136.
28. Klaić 1985 Klaić, Bratoljub: Rječnik stranih riječi, Zagreb, 1985.
29. Kunzmann-Müller 2000a Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara: "Sprachliche Wende und Sprachwandel im Kroatischen/ Serbischen", Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute. Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Ed.: Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara, Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 42-65.
30. Kunzmann-Müller 2000b Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara: "Sprachlicher Wandel im modernen Kroatischen", Sprachwandel in der Slavia, 2 vol., Ed.: Zybatow, Lew N., Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 1st vol., 129-140.
31. Mamić 1999 Mamić, Mile: Temelji hrvatskoga pravnog nazivlja, Zagreb, 1999.
32. Maretić 1924 Maretić, T.: Hrvatski ili srpski jezični savjetnik, Zagreb, 1924.
33. Moguš 1999 Moguš, Milan; Bratanić, Maja; Tadić, Marko: Hrvatski čestotni rječnik, Zagreb, 1999.
34. Parčić 1901 Parčić, Dragutin: Rječnik hrvatsko-talijanski, Zadar, 1901.
35. Pavešić 1971 Pavešić, Slavko, et al.: Jezični savjetnik s gramatikom, Zagreb, 1971.
36. Pederin 1991 Pederin, Marko: "Neopravdano potisnute riječi", Jezik, 38, 4, 1991, 128.
37. Peti 1994 Peti, Mirko: "Nerazlikovnost razlika", Rasprave Zavoda za jezik, 20, 1994, 245-272.
38. Pranjković 2000 Pranjković, Ivo: "Normative und paranormative Neuerungen in der kroatischen Sprache", Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute. Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Ed.: Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara, Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 66-74.
39. Samardžija 1993 Samardžija, Marko (Ed.): Jezični purizam u NDH, Zagreb, 1993.
40. Samardžija 1998 Samardžija, Marko: "Leksik", Hrvatski jezik, Ed.: Lončarić, Mijo, Opole, 1998, 133-152.
41. Samardžija 1999 Samardžija, Marko (Ed.): Norme i normiranje hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika, Zagreb, 1999.
42. Samardžija 2000a Samardžija, Marko: "Internationalismen in der kroatischen Sprache - Vergangenheit und aktueller Stand", Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute. Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Ed.: Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara, Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 75-93.
43. Samardžija 2000b Samardžija, Marko: "Normierung und Standardisierung des Kroatischen", Sprachwandel in der Slavia, 2 vol., Ed.: Zybatow, Lew. N., Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 1st vol., 583-597.
44. Selak 1992 Selak, Ante (Ed.): Taj hrvatski, Zagreb, 1992.
45. Sesar/Vidović 2000 Sesar, Dubravka; Vidović, Ivana: "Što je novogovor učinio hrvatskomu jeziku?", Jezik, 47, 3, 2000, 81-94.
46. Silić 1997 Silić, Josip: "Novinarski stil hrvatskoga standardnog jezika", Kolo, 3, 1997, 495-513.
47. Silić 1999 Silić, Josip: "Leksik i norma", Norme i normiranja hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika, Ed.:
48. Samardžija, Marko, Zagreb, 1999, 282-292.
49. Šimundić 1971 Šimundić, Mate: "O kulturi jezika i govora na zagrebačkom radiju i televiziji", Kritika, 17, 1971, 225-240.
50. Šojat 1983 Šojat, Zorislav: Čestotni rječnik Večernjeg lista i Vjesnika, Zagreb, 1983.
51. Šonje 2000 Šonje, Jure; et al.: Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb, 2000.
52. Šulek 1860 Šulek, Bogoslav: Deutsch-kroatisches Wörterbuch, Agram, 1860.
53. Tadić 1997 Tadić, Marko: "Računalna obradba hrvatskih korpusa: povijest, stanje i perspektive", Suvremena lingvistika, 43-44, 1997, 387-394 (http://www.hnk.ffzg.hr/mt/).
54. Tadić 1998 Tadić, Marko: "Raspon, opseg i sastav korpusa suvremenoga hrvatskoga jezika", Filologija, 30-31, 1998, 337-347 (http://www.hnk.ffzg.hr/mt/).
55. Tafra 1999 Tafra, Branka: "Povijesna načela normiranja leksika", Norme i normiranja hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika, Ed.: Samardžija, Marko, Zagreb, 1999, 260-281.
56. Težak 1999 Težak, Stjepko: Hrvatski naš (ne)zaboravljeni, Zagreb, 1999.
57. Vidović 1969 Vidović, Radovan: Kako ne valja - kako valja pisati, Zagreb, 1969.
58. Vuković 1996 Vuković, Milan: "Hrvatski jezik u kaznenim progonima", Jezik, 44, 2, 1996, 77-80.
59. Wingender 1997 Wingender, Monika: "Sprachpolitik in Kroatien. Eine exemplarische Analyse der Sprachratgeber im Vjesnik", Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik 58, Ed.: Schulze, Jana; Werner, Eduard, München, 1997, 372-392.
60. Wingender 2000 Wingender, Monika: "Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der kroatischen Standardsprache", Die Sprachen Südosteuropas heute. Umbrüche und Aufbruch, Ed.: Kunzmann-Müller, Barbara, Frankfurt am Main; et al., 2000, 251-270.