ATTITUDES TOWARDS LANGUAGE AMONG STUDENTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF

SERBIA
(University of Belgrade and University of Pristina temporarily settled in Kosovska Mitrovica
as a case study)

SUMMARY

For the requirements of this research, we see both language attitudes and language
ideologies as psychological, social, and cognitive constructs; we consider language ideologies as
a broader construct compared to language attitudes, and we may say that they are social
attitudes. We define language attitudes both as: (1) subjective evaluations of a speaker of a
particular language towards his own language as a concept, towards his standard language, his
native dialect and different local vernaculars and linguistic variations that exist in the language,
but which differ to varying degrees from what is prescribed as the standard language; (2) when
language attitudes are considered this way, they lead to the evaluation of the speaker based on an
evaluation of his speech, according to certain parameters mostly on the level of prestige,
intelligence, education, social status (in the meaning of the profession of the speaker and in the
sense of financial prosperity) and, ultimately, on the level of solidarity if we see that speaker as
a member of our own community of practice, ethnic, cultural or other community, or not, and if
that speaker seems friendly, appealing, kind, witty and trustworthy.
On the other hand, we define language ideologies as mental constructs that exist in the
mind of a number of speakers of the particular language, by which they are frequently
unconsciously led, and which are part of what speakers consider as the common sense because of
educational process, media, and (mostly) unwritten conventions that exist in the society itself.
Guided by theoretical and practical research, after a pilot study conducted through focus group
research which indicated that there is the need for a further deeper research of this topic, our aim
was to examine the general hypothesis from which we started this research:

We assume that there are deeply grounded attitudes towards some problem issues related to
Serbian language, towards some Serbian dialects and their speakers.

Results of both qualitative and quantitative research predominantly confirm this

hypothesis to be true. We also wished to check if the attitudes would differ depending on certain
non-linguistic factors. We assumed that different speakers may have different attitudes depending
on their gender, on their age (in the age range typical for students of bachelor level), on the
university they attend, their department (if they are philologists and students of Serbian language
or not), on the place where they live and their native dialect. Our subjects are speakers of Serbian
language, and students who we consider as the paradigmatic group for the research of language
attitudes and language ideologies.
Our method for quantitative research is survey, and as instruments we used two
questionnaires specifically made for the requirements of this research, with a few questions
already used in some studies in the Republic of Serbia (Vlahovi 1989; 2005), as we
wanted to see if there is a change of certain attitudes in different periods of time.
The first questionnaire consisted of 30 attitudes which were evaluated by our research
subjects on the 5-point Likert scale, with given answers varying from I totally disagree to I
totally agree; with this questionnaire, we aimed to explore issues in the relationship of the
standard Serbian language and its dialects in the perception of our participants. The second
questionnaire was also closed-type and it consisted of 15 questions which we considered in some
way problematic and interesting for Serbian language. Beside this quantitative research,
conducted with 240 participants (60 of whom are students of Serbian language at the University
of Belgrade (BU) and 60 students of Serbian language at the University of Pristina temporarily
settled in Kosovska Mitrovica (UPKM); 60 of whom are students of natural sciences at BU and
60 at UPKM), we gave the addition by conducting a qualitative focus group research. Informants
for that part were 16 students (all female) from these two universities, whose major was Serbian
language.
Many results we received in this case study are similar to familiar research from this area.
For example, our research indicated that there is the existence of a prevalent difference in

attitudes based on gender of our participants, which may be viewed as mens and womens
language, which has been the focus of interest by a number of authors (see for example Labov
1969; Holmes 1992; Lakoff 2004). Our female informants demonstrated a stronger level of
inclination for the ideology of standard language, because (we will mention only few examples)
even when explicitly asked, they considered standard language better and more prestigious
compared to dialect; they are very sensitive to certain non-standard forms, they relate their
education to the high competence in the standard language and they are more prone to code
switching than males. In contrast, the male informants are more prone to feeling proud when they
speak local variety and it is more understandable to them than standard language. Because of that,
we consider this hypothesis to be confirmed there is a significant difference in students
language attitudes towards Serbian language depending on their gender; on the other hand, that
difference turned out to be statistically significant only for a few questions.
The universities our informants attend turned out to be important for the existence of
certain differences in their attitudes; informants who attend UPKM are more prone to using
dialect than their colleagues who attend BU, but, on the other hand, they tend to use standard
language forms (especially in the context where standard language is traditionally used), so we
may say that such tendency leads to linguistic homogenization towards the standard language
(which is explicitly perceived as highly prestigious), to the loss of highly marked linguistic
features that are typical for the dialect and to the frequent code-switching. Even though there are
no diametrically opposed attitudes and great and meaningful differences among attitudes of
students from BU and UPKM, we may say that this hypothesis is proved as there are differences
in the level of (dis)agreement to some attitudes. We may say this difference may be characterized
as the existence of the standard language ideology in both groups of our participants, but we may
say that UPKM informants developed overt prestige towards standard language which is
manifested in their behavior by highly developed consciousness of situational usage of different
varieties. That implies their further language habits. For dialects, they have a very high level of
solidarity, and the usage of dialects is mostly connected to private, intimate, and familiar
contexts.
The greatest difference in attitudes of our informants is between two groups: one that studies
Serbian language and other one that studies natural sciences. Here in the first questionnaire 21

out of 30 questions turned out to be statistically significant, so we confirmed the hypothesis that
language attitudes between these two groups will differ drastically and that students of Serbian
language will we more influenced by the standard language ideology. For example, students of
Serbian language have a developed consciousness of (dis)agreement with certain attitudes, while
students of natural sciences tend to be more indifferent; students of Serbian language are more
prone to correcting their behavior towards others depending on the variety they use and their
linguistic behavior is situationally dependent more than in the case of students of natural
sciences. Even though students of Serbian language are highly influenced with standard language
ideology manifested by ideologically colored attitudes towards the qualities of the standard
language, there is solidarity towards different non-standard varieties, though at the emotional
level only, and not on a behavioral and cognitive level.
We assumed that there will be a significant difference between attitudes of our informants
depending on the place where they live, and for this hypothesis we may say that it is largely
proven to be true. Our informants who live in villages are emotionally very attached to their
variety and are not so familiar with the standard language variety compared to the other two
groups who live in the city and suburban areas. Informants who live in villages are used to
forming a strong connection between their local variety and their identity, and their local variety
is a bond with other members of their community and a manifestation of the common intergroup
value system. On the other hand, informants who live in villages consider standard language
more prestigious and they have some dose of a linguistic insecurity while code-switching (to
which they are more prone to) towards what they implicitly consider more prestigious, whether it
is urban vernacular or academic discourse. All of that may in a way be considered as a
consequence of the standard language ideology.
One of the variables in this research was also a native variety of our informants, and we
may say that the hypothesis that there would be a difference between attitudes of our informants
depending on their native variety turned out to be true. The results indicate that attitudes of
informants whose native dialect is prizrensko-timocki are in a way more specific than attitudes of
other informants. Informants from prizrenskotimocki dialect are primarily prone to codeswitching depending on the situational context. They are also prone to connecting standard
language variety with media and education and we found that correcting the idiolect towards the

traditional usage sphere of their local variety or the standard language variety. Thats why we
think that one of the dominant segments of their language competence is developing
communicative strategies connected to the use of a certain code in accordance with the situational
context, which they are very aware of, as well as being aware of the distance between their
dialect and the standard Serbian language. On the other hand, speakers whose native dialect is
zetsko-sjenicki, more than other informants, prefer using their local variety than standard
language, they feel proud when they speak their dialect, they feel a special closeness and
affection to the speaker of their dialect, and they find dialect more natural. More than other
informants they agreed with the claim that they love dialects because they remind them of the
past, familiar surroundings and family, with the claim that the dialect is more understandable than
the standard language, and they like using their dialect far more than other informants. The
highest correlation between informants dialect and identity was found among the informants
whose native dialect is zetsko-sjenicki and prizrensko-timocki. It appears that the standard
language is explicitly valued higher among the informants whose dialect is further from said
standard. It is considered more prestigious especially among the speakers of zetsko-sjenicki and
prizrensko-timocki dialects, but they also value their own variety very high in the meaning of
solidarity, and emotionally are very attached to it. When we compare speakers of zetsko-sjenicki
and prizrensko-timocki dialects, we find the first more consistent in using local language forms in
the formal situations that require using of the standard language forms compared to the speakers
of the prizrensko-timocki dialect, who are more prone to code-switching to what they consider
standard Serbian language.
As the general conclusions about attitudes towards the standard Serbian language and its
dialect among the students we observed in this case study, we would like to put forth the
following conclusions:
Students find dialects to be interesting and diverse; they believe they reflect tradition and
the past; they are more spontaneous, colorful and more natural. Our participating students enjoy
using their local dialect, but they are very conscious about when they should use which variety.
Towards the speaker of their dialect they feel closeness and affection, and the dialect is an
important component of their identity. Speakers of certain dialects find their dialect more
understandable than standard language and they are able to express themselves easier when using

their dialect than the standard language. Dialect-marked variables are used as a trigger for having
a benevolent attitude towards a speaker they meet for the first time.
Furthermore, standard language is explicitly considered better, more appealing and more
prestigious than dialects, and it is usually related to the level of education of the person we are
talking with. The usage sphere of standard Serbian language is connected to the broad domains of
usage, especially in the areas traditionally connected to social power, culture, education, media,
political and economic structures, and this usually leads to code-switching, especially among the
informants whose local dialect is further from standard Serbian language.
There are certain language attitudes towards particular language forms which lead to
evaluating the person we are talking with, mostly when we talk about the first impression.
Students of Serbian language value nonstandard forms less than dialectmarked forms.
Raising standard language competences is a crucially important task for the academic
community, as local dialects are subordinate to the standard language which is the form of
language used for communication in a broad region. That doesnt mean that it should suppress
dialects, but rather that students should have a clear idea of when and for what purpose each
variety should be used.
Key words: language attitudes, language ideology, standard Serbian language, dialects, students.
Field of study: linguistics
Specific field of study: sociolinguistics