Language ideologies in the public consultations on the Bill on the Croatian language

This paper analyses language ideologies in the public consultations on the Bill on the Croatian language (javno savjetovanje o prijedlogu Zakona o hrvatskom jeziku) in August 2024, applying the principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. The focus of the study is on the comments that convey attitudes toward the impact of English on the Croatian language, its presence within Croatian society, and related issues, such as language contact and borrowing. The results show the presence of various language ideologies in the analysed corpus, including the ideology of purism, the ideology of the standard language, the monoglossic ideology, the ideology of territorialization, and the ideology of assimilation. The comments revealed purist and prescriptivist views of the participants who supported safeguarding Croatian from foreign elements and encouraged the use of the standard variety in public domains, such as education, media, and business. They also favoured words of Croatian origin, advocating for erasure of loanwords while expressing preference for older and traditional forms and sources of borrowing. Furthermore, monoglossic ideology was present in many comments that opposed mixing Croatian with other languages, advocating for Croatian-only communication. In addition, the ideology of territorialization was found in the comments that viewed Croatian as naturally tied to the geographical territory and essential to the Croatian national identity. Some of them called for regulations that reinforce its use within Croatia’s borders. perceiving the use of English as potentially harmful. Finally, some suggested that immigrants should learn Croatian to integrate effectively, which represents the ideology of assimilation. The study demonstrates that language attitudes often reflect broader social and political beliefs, especially about national and cultural identity. It emphasizes the importance of critically examining language ideologies, as they can be used to promote linguistic insecurity, stigmatization and cultural exclusion.