LINGUIST List 29.822
Tue Feb 20 2018
Sum: Pluricentric Languages: Fundamentals
Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <kenlinguistlist.org>
Date: 20-Feb-2018
From: Stefan Dollinger <stefan.dollinger
ubc.ca>
Subject: Pluricentric Languages: Fundamentals
E-mail this
message to a friend Summary pertaining to LingList Discussion
28-3400 (15 Aug. 2017):
https://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3400.html
My query from August 2017 on the modelling of languages in a
pluricentric framework triggered only a couple, yet highly interesting
contributions. This return rate may have been owed to the high-summer time frame, as
the topic is otherwise quite popular. Here are the responses in summary:
Greville
Corbett (University of Surrey, Guildford, UK) states that on the South Slavic Balkan
language a ''heartening initiative'' can be found at:
http://jezicinacionalizmi.com/deklaracija/
The declaration states that Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian are
four standards of one pluricentric language, and offers two English language
articles on it:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/post-yugoslav-common-language-declaration-challenges-nationalism-03-29-2017,
https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/04/economist-explains-4
Martin Stegu (WU Wien, Vienna, Austria) commented specifically on the
situation of Austrian and German German, which has indeed been complex. One of the
key ongoing problems seems to be, Stegu argues, that key sociolinguistic proponents
in Germany do not agree that the political dimension is allowed to play a role in
sociolinguistics, while many Austrian commentators (those socialized in Austria)
deken such function as a-priori. As the discussion has been polemic at times,
Stegu argues for a mediating middle ground. Wise counsel, surely.
Meanwhile,
I've continued to work on the topic as relating to Austria vs. Germany and Canada
vs. the US and have refined my own position. The main problem I have is that the
term ''pluri-areality'', which was coined in express opposition to pluricentricity,
is theoretically doubtful, to say the least. It is, by all analyses I was able to
find, synonymous with the a-theoretical term ''geographical variation'' and is
therefor no replacement for a theoretical concept like pluricentricity. This finding
has profound science-theoretical and knowledge-theoretical implications. I recommend
to avoid the term ''pluri-areality'' and replace it with the original ''geographical
variation'', leaving pluricentricity its rightful place in cross-border modelling.
The following paper argues for this case in the Germanic languages (teaser
version only due to journal constraints):
https://www.academia.edu/35962423/Debunking_pluri-areality_on_the_indispensible_pluricentric_perspective_in_Germanic_languages
There is also a short monograph forthcoming on the same topic a the paper
(book proposal, not the finished manuscript):
https://www.academia.edu/35786982/The_Pluricentricity_Debate_On_Parallels_Differences_and_Distortions_in_German_versus_English_and_other_languages
The latter features an open discussion, which will last for another two
week.
I hope you'll find these sources useful.
With apologies for
the delay, and thanks to all those who contributed or considered to do so.
Sincerely,
Stefan D.
Linguistic Field(s): Anthropological Linguistics
Applied
Linguistics
Computational
Linguistics
Discipline
of Linguistics
Discourse
Analysis
General
Linguistics
Historical
Linguistics
History
of Linguistics
Language
Documentation
Sociolinguistics
Text/Corpus
Linguistics
Page Updated: 20-Feb-2018