16.2398, Review: Lang Variation: Eichinger & Kallmeyer (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2398. Wed Aug 17 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2398, Review: Lang Variation: Eichinger & Kallmeyer (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 15-Aug-2005
From: Claudia Kunschak < claudia.kunschak at uem.es >
Subject: Standardvariation 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:55:39
From: Claudia Kunschak < claudia.kunschak at uem.es >
Subject: Standardvariation 
 

EDITORS: Eichinger, Ludwig M.; Kallmeyer, Werner
TITLE: Standardvariation
SUBTITLE: Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache?
SERIES: IDS Jahrbuch 2004
PUBLISHER: Mouton de Gruyter
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-677.html 

Claudia Kunschak, Departamento de Traducción e Interpretación y Lenguas 
Aplicadas, Universidad Europea de Madrid

The present volume on standard and variation in German, with the 
provocative subtitle of how much variation the German language can 
tolerate is the 2004 edition of the yearbook of the 'Institut für Deutsche 
Sprache' (IDS) and was published on the occasion of its fortieth annual 
conference. Edited by Ludwig Eichinger and Werner Kallmeyer, the book 
amply illustrates current research paradigms in German dialectology, 
sociolinguistics and applied linguistics from a variety of contrasting but 
complementary standpoints. From conceptual approximations to historical 
motivations, from formal linguistic categorizations to social identity 
formations, from pedagogical deliberations to German studies abroad, the 
collection of articles clearly demonstrates that variation has made its 
way into the sphere of the German standard language, leaving behind its 
formerly marginalized position of non-standard. The following paragraphs 
aim at briefly summarizing the different contributions to this volume, 
that is, the different answers its authors are suggesting with respect to 
the overarching question of how much variation the German language can 
accommodate.

In the first chapter, Heinrich Löffler explores the various concepts 
related to the degrees of standardization of the German language with 
respect to their usefulness for contemporary language description. 
Starting out from the traditionally used hierarchical 
standard/colloquialism/dialect divide and moving on to the continuum of 
standard/sub-standard/non-standard, he emphasizes the highly complex 
character of the multiple, overlapping and fluctuating categories that 
have been suggested by different contemporary linguists. Given the 
dynamics of linguistic and societal developments with the resulting 
impossibility of stable, unambiguous and clear-cut definitions, the author 
instead proposes operational definitions for the terms of standard and 
variation that would allow for empirically based decisions on whether 
certain variations should be considered as falling inside or outside the 
ever expanding scope of standard language. In this way, Löffler rejects 
prescriptive dogmatism in favor of a pragmatic approach to variation both 
within and beyond standard German.

These terminological quagmires are also at the heart of Ulrich Ammon's 
deliberations on the characteristics of standard and (diatopic) variation. 
Presupposing the recognition of national and regional variation of the 
German language, the author focuses on the sometimes neglected distinction 
between standard and norm. He suggests four instances of normative 
entities - model speakers, language codices, language experts and language 
authorities - reminding us that the existence, validity and legitimacy of 
a norm should also be viewed as separate notions. Ammon thus joins Löffler 
in his emphasis on the multi-layered dimensions of the question and 
prefers drawing a comprehensive picture to laying down hard and fast rules 
for the standard-variation decision.

After these two macro perspectives on the issue, Susanne Günther's 
contribution delves into the pragmatics of grammar variation at the 
example of two traditional verb final, i.e. subordinating conjunctions 
that seem to be developing into verb second, i.e. coordinating 
conjunctions in current spoken German, 'obwohl' and 'wobei'. Günther makes 
a case for regarding this phenomenon as an example of standard variation 
since it entails a change in function for these conjunctions. As corpus 
studies have demonstrated a clear increase in the use of these forms, the 
author suggests a potential scenario for language change and recommends 
them as accepted variations also within the context of teaching German as 
a second language.

This pro-variation stance is also salient in the following article by 
Stephan Elspass, who challenges traditional top-down approaches to the 
history of the German language that are based on an unattainable, elitist, 
written standard. Drawing on a wide range of examples, Elspass furthermore 
questions the notion of a finished German standard of the latter 19th 
century. Instead, he proposes a bottom-up history of the German language 
that would be truly generalized, featuring oral regional standard 
varieties, the notion of acceptance (Haugen, 1994), and contemporary 
phenomena of linguistic development.

The general tendencies of a current development with a potential for 
language change, destandardization, are discussed by Helmut Spiekerman in 
the next chapter. Based on corpus data from SW Germany comparing phonetic 
variation between the years of 1961 and 2001, the author describes two 
parallel trends, regional standardization and national destandardization. 
While dialectal forms seem to be decreasing, non-standard non-regional 
variations seem to be more widely used and thus maybe gain more acceptance 
in the future. While a clear-cut case for language change cannot be made 
due to ambivalent developments for more regional variants, Spiekerman's 
data support the general bottom-up trend of destandardization and a more 
heterogeneous standard language.

Beyond the written-oral dichotomy of standardization, Peter Schlobinski 
frames 'destandardization' in the context of new media. The synchronous 
character of hypermedia together with its typical combination of image, 
sound and text requires a new variation of communication - a hybrid that 
is not a lesser form of standard language but a purposefully optimized 
functional variation. At the example of internet chat and SMS 
communication, Schlobinski describes a variety of discursive patterns that 
characterize this new variation. According to the author, these phenomena 
should be seen as parallel developments and not necessarily as threats to 
conventional written language.

Returning to the realm of spoken German, Nina Berend charts the territory 
for a new research project on the description of regional standards of 
use. Based on phonetic, syntactic, morphological and lexical regional 
variation from a corpus collected in the 1970s by Werner König, Berend 
suggests four major zones of spoken standard German: north, central, south-
east and south-west. With a learner of German in mind and in keeping with 
Durrell's (1999) principles of formal vs. informal standard, the author 
calls for a paradigm shift in the description of standard language and an 
applied linguistics focus that would result in the production of 
empirically grounded, inclusive, current works of reference.

Bottom-up language change through youth language is another path to 
language variation compatible with a contemporary view of standard 
language. For the purpose of documenting this process, Jannis 
Androutsopoulos suggests a model of language change that combines an 
accommodation and network-oriented micro approach with a media-oriented 
macro approach developed by Kotsinas (1997). Based on a newspaper corpus, 
the author illustrates his point at the example of 'cool', 'geil' 
and 'chillen', lexical items that have made their way into main-stream 
journalistic jargon beyond the realm of specialized genres like music, 
sports, young people.

As with the above examples, much of lexical innovation originating in the 
youth stratum,, tends to migrate over from the English speaking sphere of 
influence. Within this larger scope, Ulrich Busse discusses pronunciation 
dilemmas for English loan words in the German language. Depending on the 
type of word, the speaker's linguistic background, and the context of use 
(e.g., the media), a more English or more German oriented pronunciation 
may be chosen. In this context, Busse refers the reader to the critical 
issue of "standard" English and the need for specific inclusion of 
phonetic variation in works of reference.

Switching back to grammatical variation, the following contribution by 
Richard Schrodt illustrates the case of lack of subject-verb agreement. 
While some prescriptive grammar manuals tend to be restrictive in this 
matter, Schrodt argues that an UG-inspired approach that keeps in mind 
thematic rather than grammatical agreement would support a speaker-
mediated decision. Term quality, subjectivity and pragmatics are key words 
that help frame this discursive approach to a seemingly formal linguistic 
cause. Once more we are faced with a paradigm shift in the direction of 
greater inclusiveness bolstered by a range of examples from a variety of 
textual sources.

In a regional study on citylects, Margret Selting examines yet another 
potential lieu of variation, intonational contours. Comparing Berlin 
speech with standard German intonational patterns and, furthermore, 
variations within Berlin speech of more or less standard character, 
Selting finds variations in the timing of pitch summit, in accent 
contours, in the structure of intonational phrases and in salient overall 
intonational contours. Even though, at this point, the study has a 
geographically limited focus, the results from the large-scale project on 
dialect intonations that is currently being undertaken should provide some 
interesting comparative data.

In the following chapter, Jürgen Erich Schmidt examines the different 
normative levels of the German language. Based on the premise of Standard 
German as one (literary) variety with three different oral norms (Austria, 
Germany, and Switzerland), Schmid suggests three levels of areality within 
and across these normative boundaries: trained speaker, colloquial 
standard and regional accent. Empirical studies seem to coincide with such 
a theory-based drawing of standard boundaries due to the saliency factor 
of areal markers. Schmid thus proposes delimiting standard German based on 
this factor and the concept of full variety, coinciding at the same time 
with the variation awareness of lay speakers.

A view from across the border, presented by Peter Bassola from the 
Hungarian perspective, suggests a methodological approach to the teaching 
of the varieties of the German language. Bassola makes a case for 
functional inclusion of variation according to level of schooling with a 
view to combining language and content in the pursuit of 
bilingual/bicultural identities. Language for specific purposes with its 
intralingual (Austria and Germany) and interlingual (Hungarian-German) 
variation would then be embedded in a comprehensive framework of 
variation, history and culture.

Another view from across the border, comparing approaches to variation in 
German and English, has Stephen Barbour comment on communicative 
interferences between English-speaking learners of German and German-
speaking learners of English. Different concepts of norm (prescriptive 
versus descriptive) and new learner varieties, German English in this 
case, that is, English words used by Germans in non-English ways, can 
create invisible barriers in seemingly germane linguistic contexts. The 
author thus strongly recommends a language in society approach to language 
teaching from the beginning levels onwards.

In the third contribution concerning German studies abroad, Marisa Siguan 
portrays the language policy interplay between Spanish and Catalan and its 
effect on the teaching of German philology in Barcelona. Juxtaposing 
Spanish as a language with a long normative history and Catalan as a 
language which is still undergoing standardization while maintaining and 
extraordinary openness toward variation, Siguan considers this 
constellation fertile ground for variation awareness, particularly at a 
higher level of competence. This state of affairs leads to a focus on 
communication, a high degree of tolerance toward mistakes, an 
understanding of the arbitrariness of norms and a will to compromise.

Language users at home seem less open to variation. In his article on the 
prescriptive-descriptive dilemma, Matthias Wermke finds users more rule-
oriented than the general tendency toward destandardization may seem to 
imply. Editors of normative texts are thus in a bind over what degree of 
prescriptiveness to include into their publications. One way out of this 
dilemma, according to the author, would be to introduce a distinction 
between descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries and thus allow for 
informed choices as to which manifestations of the same basic functions to 
use.

As a conclusion, Ludwig M. Eichinger takes the concept of norm one step 
further. Acknowledging the move towards more empirical research and the 
now accepted difference in norms for written and oral language, the author 
puts forward the provocative of question of whose norm is it anyway. While 
talking about situative norms, expectations toward genre, and 
appropriateness, Eichinger stresses the dynamic nature of standardization, 
the interplay between the linguistic and the social. He concludes by 
sketching the three current realms of norms to be taken into consideration 
by speakers: mistakes to avoid, options to choose from and symbolic social 
positionings to enact.

As can be seen from the above paragraphs, the IDS yearbook shows the 
current state of affairs in German language standardization research from 
a wide variety of standpoints. Conceptual pieces alternate with empirical 
studies, general overviews with foci on a specific linguistic feature. 
While this wide range of different subtopics among a total of 17 
contributions has something to offer for everyone, that same diversity 
makes a cohesive read difficult. In this respect, the collection may have 
benefitted from a thematic rather than purely chronological order, maybe 
even supported by some introductory section paragraphs. Concerning the 
underlying frameworks of reference, a number of contributions echo recent 
developments in applied linguistics from pluricentricity (Clyne, 1995) to 
language awareness (Davies, 2000) and language variation as social 
practice (Eckert, 2000), opening the field of inquiry beyond the 
traditional dialectology focus in German sociolinguistics or combining the 
two. In a future edition of the IDS yearbook, this scope may be broadened 
to include other recent approaches like critical linguistics, which has a 
lot to offer to the whole debate of standard, variation, and norms. Still, 
as is, the present collection provides a most valuable state of the art 
overview of conceptual, empirical, and methodological developments in the 
study of the German language and should be included as a work of reference 
in any German studies library both within and without the German speaking 
areas.

REFERENCES

Clyne, Michael (1995). German as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne 
(ed.), Pluricentric languages, 117-147. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Davies, Winifred (2000). Language awareness amongst teachers in a central 
German dialect area. Language Awareness 9(3), 119-134.

Durrell, Martin (2003). Register, Variation und Fremdsprachenvermittlung. 
In G. Stickel (eds.), Deutsch von Aussen, 239-258. Berlin: Walter de 
Gruyter.

Eckert, Penelope (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: 
Blackwell.

Haugen, Einar (1994). Standardization. In E. R. Asher (ed.), The 
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics vol. 8, 4340-4342.

Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt (1997). Young people's language: Norm, variation and 
language change. Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology, New Series 11, 109-
132. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Claudia Kunschak received her PhD in Education with a minor in German 
Studies from the University of Arizona (2003). She is currently teaching 
translation and languages for specific purposes at the Universidad Europea 
de Madrid. Her research interests include language variation, 
multilingualism and second language teaching and testing.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2398