Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-9g8ph Total loading time: 0.452 Render date: 2022-06-30T02:34:53.907Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Stefan Dollinger*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literatures, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Stefan Dollinger, Email: Stefan.Dollinger@ubc.ca

Abstract

Pluricentric approaches to international varieties have been a mainstay in English dialectology since the 1980s, often implied rather than expressed. What is standard lore in many philologies is today questioned in one philology, however. This paper assesses the pros and cons of the so-called “pluri-areal” perspective, which has in the past few years become prominent in German dialectology. Intended to replace the pluricentric model, “pluri-arealist” perspectives affect the modelling of German standard varieties in Austria and Switzerland, among others. Attempting to falsify claims on both sides, this paper argues from an English-German comparative perspective that the idiosyncratic treatment of national varieties in one context is a problem that threatens the unity of the field regarding how the standard is seen in relation to other varieties. It is shown that the base of the “pluri-areal” paradigm is an a-theoretical perspective of geographical variation that adheres implicitly to a One Standard German Axiom. This meta-theoretical paper suggests three principles to prevent such terminologically-fuelled confusion henceforth.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich et al. 2016. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich. 1995. Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. ed. London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Hinskens, Frans. 1996. The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. Sociolinguistica 10(1). 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans & Kerswill, Paul (eds.). 2005. Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. The construction of linguistic borders and the linguistic construction of borders. In Delbecque, Nicole, van der Auwera, Johan & Geeraerts, Dirk (eds.), The Language and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, 330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2011. Dialect vs. standard: a typology of scenarios in Europe. In The Language and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, ed. by Kortmann, Bernd and van der Auwera, Johan, 485500. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2013. Enregistering pluricentric German. In Da Silva, Augusto Soares (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions, 1743. Berlin: De Grutyer.Google Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1954. Speech differences along the Ontario-United States border. I: Vocabulary. Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 1(1, Oct.). 1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1955. Speech differences along the Ontario-United States border. II: Grammar and syntax. Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 1(1, Mar.). 1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1956. Speech differences along the Ontario-United States border. III: Pronunciation. Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 2(1, Mar.). 4159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1972. So Eh? is Canadian, Eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17(2). 89104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1973. The English language in Canada In Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 10/1, Sebeok, Thomas (ed.), 4074. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2000. Geolinguistic diffusion and the U.S.-Canada border. Language Variation and Change 12. 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2005. The North American Regional Vocabulary Survey: New variables and methods in the study of North American English. American Speech 80. 2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2010. The English Language in Canada: Status, History and Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britain, David. 2010. Conceptualizations of geographic space in linguistics. In Auer, Peter and Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (eds.), Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, Volume 2. 6997. Berlin (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 30.2)Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. 1973. The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1998. Social embedding of changes in progress. Journal of English Linguistics 26(1). 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2000. Region and language variation. English World-Wide 21(2). 169199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2009. Sociolinguistic Theory. 3rd revised edn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2019. Borders and language. In Jansen, Sandra & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), Processes of Change in English: Studies in Late Modern and Present Day English, 248259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. & Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael G. (ed.) 1992. Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael G. 1984. Language and Society in the German-speaking countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael G. 1995. The German Language in a Changing Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2017. The future of new Euro-Englishes. World Englishes 36(3). 330–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Cillia, Rudolf. 2015. Deutsche Sprache und österreichische Identität/en. In: Lenz et al., 149–64.Google Scholar
de Cillia, Rudolf & Ransmayr, Jutta. 2019. Österreichisches Deutsch macht Schule? Bildung und Deutschunterricht in Spannungsfeld von sprachlicher Variation und Norm. Mitarb. von Ilona Elisabeth Fink. Vienna: Böhlau. https://services.e-book.fwf.ac.at/api/object/o:1357/diss/Content/getCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana & Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.). 2003. Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan (chief editor) & Fee, Margery (associate editor). 2017. DCHP-2: The Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles, Second Edition. With the assistance of Baillie Ford, Alexandra Gaylie, and Gabrielle Lim. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. www.dchp.ca/dchp2Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliaries. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2011. Academic and public attitudes to the notion of ‘standard’ Canadian English. English Today 27(4). 39. https://www.academia.edu/4049232/ (24 Sept. 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2012. The western Canada-U.S. border as a linguistic boundary: the roles of L1 and L2 speakers. World Englishes 31(4). 519533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2015. The Written Questionnaire in Social Dialectology: History, Theory, Practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2017. Revising the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles: World Englishes and linguistic variation in real-time. In Pedro, A. Olivera, Fuertes (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography, 367382 (in the section on “Innovative Online Dictionaries”). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2019a. Creating Canadian English: The Professor, the Mountaineer, and a National Variety of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2019b. English in Canada. In Nelson, Cecil, Proshina, Zoya & Davis, Daniel (eds.), Handbook of World Englishes, 2nd edn, 5269. Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley. https://www.academia.edu/14933782/ (24 Sep. 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2019c. The Pluricentricity Debate: On Austrian German and Other Germanic Standard Varieties. London: Routledge (Focus).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997. Review of Ammon, Ulrich. 1995. Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten. Language in Society 26(4). 608611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa & Elspaß, Stephan. 2015. Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen. In Kehrein, Roland, Lameli, Alfred and Rabanus, Stefan (eds.), Regionale Variation des Deutschen—Projekte und Perspektiven, 563584. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan & Niehaus, Konstantin. 2014. The standardization of a modern pluriareal language. Concepts and corpus designs for German and beyond. Orð og tunga 16. 4767.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Engel, Julia & Niehaus, Konstantin. 2013. Areale Variation in der Grammatik des Standarddeutschen—Problem oder Aufgabe? German as a Foreign Language 2. 4464. http://www.gfl-journal.de/Issue_2_2013.php (24 Sep. 2018).Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Dürscheid, Christa & Ziegler, Arne. 2017. Zur grammatischen Pluriarealität der deutschen Gebrauchsstandards - oder: Über die Grenzen des Plurizentrizitätsbegriffs. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 136. 6991.Google Scholar
Embleton, Sheila, Uritescu, Dorin & Wheeler, Eric S.. 2013. Defining dialect regions with interpretations: advancing the multidimensional scaling approach. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28(1). 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glauninger, Manfred M. 2001. Zur Sonderstellung des Deutschen innerhalb der “plurizentrischen” Sprachen. Reflexionen anhand eines sprachgeschichtlichen Vergleichs zwischen Englisch und Deutsch, In Canisius, Peter, Gernr, Zsuzsanna & Glauninger, Manfred M. (eds.), Sprache—Kultur—Indentiät. Festschrift für Katharina Wild zum 60. Geburtstag, 171179. Pécs: University of Pécs.Google Scholar
Glauninger, Manfred. 2013. Deutsch im 21. Jahrhundert: »pluri«-, »supra«- oder »postnational«? In Fiala-Fürst, Ingborg, Joachimsthaler, Jürgen, Schmitz, Walter (eds.). Mitteleuropa. Kontakte und Kontroversen. II. Kongress des Mitteleuropäischen Germanistenverbandes (MGV) in Olmütz, 13-16. September 2007 .Dresden: Thelem.Google Scholar
Glauser, Beat. 1974. The Scottish-English Linguistic Border: Lexical Aspects. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1984. Dialektometrische Studien: Anhand italoromanischer, rätoromanischer und galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF. 3 volumes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine and Tremblay, Mireille. 2006. Eh? and Hein?: Discourse particles or national icons? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2&3). 247264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & van Hout, Roeland. 2011. The Standard language situation in the Low Countries: top-down and bottom-up variations on a diaglossic theme. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23(3). 199243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Language Conflict and Language Planning: the Case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Havinga, Anna D. 2018. Invisibilising Austrian German: on the Effect of Linguistic Prescriptions and Educational Reforms on Writing Practices in 18th-century Austria. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrgen, Joachim. 2015. Entnationalisierung des Standards. Eine perzeptionslinguistische Untersuchung zur deutschen Standardsprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. In: Lenz & Glauninger (2015), 139164.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2012. Standards of English: Codified Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. 1993. Dialekt als lingua franca? Dialektgebruik in het algemeen en bij grensoverschijdend contact in het Nederrijnland en Twenet. In Kremer (ed.), 209245.Google Scholar
Horner, Kristine. 2005. Reimagining the nation: discourses of language purism in Luxembourg. In Langer & Davies (eds.), 166185.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1950. Description of language design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22. 701–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the Outer Circle. In Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, Henry G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning of Language and Literature, 1136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kellermeier-Rehbein, Birte. 2014. Plurizentrik: Einführung in die nationalen Varietäten des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1967. Bilingualism and nationalism. Journal of Social Issues 23(2). 3947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1993. Abstand languages and ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 35(1). Selected Papers, 1959-1985: 158170.Google Scholar
Kremer, Ludger & Niebaum, Hermann. 1990. Zur Einführung: Grenzdialekte als Gradmesser des Sprachwandels. In Kremer, Ludger and Niebaum, Hermann (eds.), Grenzdialekte: Studien zur Entwicklung kontinentalwestgermanischer Dialektkontinua, 721. Hildesheim: Olms (= Germanistische Linguistik 101–103), 7-21.Google Scholar
Kremer, Ludger. 1979. Grenzmundarten und Mundartgrenzen. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2015. Language and Complex Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2005. The Atlas of North American English. Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Social Factors [Language in Society 29]. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2003. Pursuing the cascade model. In Britain, D. and Cheshire, J. (eds.). Social Dialectology: In Honor of Peter Trudgill, 922. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, N. & Davies, W. V. (eds). 2005. Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter (Studia Linguistica Germanica 75).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra N., Ahlers, Timo & Glauninger, Manfred M. (eds.) 2015. Dimensionen des Deutschen in Österreich: Variation und Varietäten im sozialen Kontext. Frankfurt/Main: Lang (=Schriften zur Deutschen Sprache in Österreich, 42).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llamas, Carmen, Watt, Dominic, & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Linguistic accommodation and the salience of national identity markers in a border town. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28(4). 381407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2014. Was ist deutsch? 2nd ed. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Mattheier, Klaus. 2003. German. In Deumert & Vandenbussche (eds.), 211244.Google Scholar
McKinnie, Meghan & Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer. 2002. A perceptual dialectology of Anglophone Canada from the perspective of young Albertans and Ontarians. In Preston & Long (eds.), Vol. 2: 277–94.Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 2007. Northern and Insular Scots. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muhr, Rudolf & Marley, Dawn (eds.) 2015. Pluricentric languages: new perspective in theory and description. In collaboration with Heinz L. Kretzenbacher and Anu Bissoonauth. Frankfurt/Main: Lang (=Österreichisches Deutsch—Sprach der Gegenwart, 17).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muhr, Rudolf. 1996. Österreichisches Deutsch—Nationalisms? Einige Argumente wider den Zeitgeist. Tribüne 96/1. 1318.Google Scholar
Muhr, Rudolf. 2003. Language change via satellite: the influence of German television broadcasting on Austrian German. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4. 103127.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2015. Review of Pickl, Simon. 2013. Probabilistische Geolinguistik. Stuttgart: Steiner. Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft. 7(1–2). 124129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niehaus, Konstantin. 2015. Areale Variation in der Syntax des Standarddeutschen: Ergebnisse zum Sprachgebrauch und zur Frage Plurizentrik vs. Pluriarealität. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 82(2). 133168.Google Scholar
Oakes, Leigh. 2001. Language and national identity: comparing France and Sweden. Amsterdam: Benjamins (IMPACT 13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Thompson W. & Baker, Paul M.. 1984. Linguistic insecurity in Winnipeg: validation of a Canadian index of linguistic insecurity. Language in Society 13. 337350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, Eric & Clark, John W. (eds.). 1968 [1951]. British and American English since 1900. With contributions on English in Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and India. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Peter, Klaus. 2015. Sprachliche Normvorstellungen in Österreich, Deutschland und der Schweiz. In Lenz, Ahlers and Glauninger (eds.), 123147.Google Scholar
Pfrehm, James W. 2007. An empirical study of the pluricentricity of German: comparing German and Austrian nationals’ perceptions of the use, pleasantness, and standardness of Austrian Standard and German Standard lexical items. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison dissertation.Google Scholar
Pickl, Simon, Spettl, Aaron, Pröll, Simon, Elspaß, Stephan, König, Werner & Schmidt, Volker. 2014. Linguistic Distances in Dialectometric Intensity Estimation. Journal of Linguistic Geography 2. 2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1966. Logik der Forschung. Zweite, erw. Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. & Long, Daniel (eds.) 1999-2002. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Vol. 1, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus & Kazmierski, Kamil. 2016. How rarities like gold have come to exist: On co-evolutionary interactions between morphology and lexical phonotactics. English Language and Linguistics 20(1). 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Widdowson, Henry. 2017. Thoughts on independent English. World Englishes 36(3). 360–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1990a. Sprachentwicklung in Bayern und Österreich. Eine Analyse des Substandardverhaltens der Städte Braunau am Inn (Österreich) und Simbach am Inn (Bayern) und ihres Umlandes. Hamburg: Buske (= Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 3).Google Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1990b. Bayerisches Bairisch und österreichisches Bairisch. Die deutsch-österreichische Staatsgrenze als Sprachgrenze? In Kremer & Niebaum (eds.), 361–81.Google Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1996. Das Deutsche als pluriareale Sprache: ein Beitrag gegen staatlich begrenzet Horizonte in der Diskussion um die deutsche Sprache in Österreich. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German 29(2). 147153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidlin, Regula. 2011. Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich & Herrgen, Joachim. 2011. Sprachdynamik: Eine Einführung in die moderne Regionalsprachenforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag (= Grundlagen der Germanistik, 49).Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segev, Tom. Interview with Renata Schmidtkunz on 17 May 2018, Ö1 radio, Austria, c. minute 39-41. https://oe1.orf.at/player/20180517/513770 (18 May 2018).Google Scholar
Seifter, Thorsten & Seifter, Ingolf. 2016. Wir gegen uns: das “österreichische Deutsh” im Klassenzimmer—und der regio-normative Ausweg. Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 57. 3960.Google Scholar
Pickl, Simon. 2013. Probabilistische Geolinguistik: Geostatistische Analysen lexikalischer Variation in Bayerisch-Schwaben (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik Beihefte 154). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Sutter, Patrizia. 2017. Diatopische Variation im Wörterbuch: Theorie und Praxis. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Julia T. & Babel, Molly. 2018. Dialect identification across a nation-state border: Perception of dialectal variants in Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 24(2). 146156.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 2017. International English. A Guide to Varieties of English Around the World. 6th edn. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 4th edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Umbach, Maiken (ed.). 2002. German Federalism: Past, Present, Future. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim. 2011 Standardisation through the media: the case of Dutch in Flanders. In Gilles, Peter, Scharloth, Joachim & Ziegler, Evelyn (eds.), Variatio Delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation, 309322. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Villstrand, Nils Erik. 2011. I freden i Roskilde. In Sveriges Historia. Vol. 4, 1600–1721, 296306. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Von Polenz, Peter. 1999. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte: Vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Band 3: 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warkentyne, Henry J. 1983. Attitudes and language behavior. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28. 7176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic, Llamas, Carmen, & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2010. Levels of linguistic accommodation across a national border. Journal of English Linguistics 38(3). 270289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whaley, Joachim. 2002. Federal habits: the Holy Roman Empire and the continuity of German federalism. In Umbach (ed.), 1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth et al. (eds.) 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Norbert. 1994. Österreichisches zum Österreichischen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 61. 6676.Google Scholar
Woolhiser, Curt. 2011. Border effects and European dialect continua: dialect divergence and convergence. In Kortmann, Bernd and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Language and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, 501–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zehetner, Ludwig. 1995. Review of “Scheuringer, Hermann. 1990. Sprachentwicklung in Bayern und Österreich. Eine Analyse des Substandardverhaltens der Städte Braunau am Inn (Österreich) und Simbach am Inn (Bayern) und ihres Umlandes. Hamburg.” Zeitschrift für Dialektolgoie und Linguistik 62(3). 354357.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *