Standard(s) aus der Perspektive von „Nicht- LinguistInnen“ in Österreich (original) (raw)
Related papers
Standard(s) aus der Perspektive von Nicht-LinguistInnen in Österreich draft
This article focusses on socio-linguistic parameters of ‘standardness’ which are defined to be constitutive elements of standard language from a German-determined research literature´s (hence ‘experts’) perspective. These parameters will be discussed with regard to perceptions and notions of non-linguists’ (hence, ‘laypersons’) point of view. Attitudinal statements from interviews conducted in rural areas in Austria are taken as the empirical basis of the analyses.
Zgl Zeitschrift Fur Germanistische Linguistik, 2009
Sociolinguistic variation in Austria and the German-speaking part of Switzerland has traditionally been described in very different terms. In Austria, the linguistic range between the standard language and the local dialects has been referred to as a 'standard-dialect-continuum', whereas the German-speaking part of Switzerland has often been cited as the typical example of a 'diglossic' language community. The sociolinguistic situation in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg, which is part of a primarily Bavarian-speaking but also of the Alemannic dialect region, has not been thoroughly examined in any studies up to date. In this paper, we present results from an online-survey in Austria and Switzerland on the everyday use of dialect and the standard language. According to our informants' estimates, the sociolinguistic situation in both Austria and German-speaking Switzerland is characterised by a significant percentage of dialect use. Still, the standard language is regarded quite differently in the two countries. A considerable proportion of the Swiss informants perceive the standard language as a 'foreign language'. However, this does not seem to be a common attitude among the Austrian informants. The main difference between the two countries lies in the observation that Austrians feel they use an intermediate form between dialect and the standard language, a so-called 'Umgangssprache', in many situations, whereas the Swiss indicate that they speak their local dialect or the standard language under specific communicative circumstances. However, the German-speaking Swiss population, as well as the informants from Vorarlberg, do not seem to use an intermediate form. The situation in Vorarlberg is particularly interesting. On the one hand, as far as the status of dialect and the dichotomy of dialect and standard are concerned, Vorarlberg patterns similar to the German-speaking part of Switzerland. On the other hand, people from Vorarlberg have to adapt to their Bavarian-speaking fellow countrymen and -women and switch to standard German in intra-national communication (e.g. at the workplace or on national help lines).
Die "Nationalvarietät" österreichisches (Standard-)Deutsch
2017
This thesis discusses the linguistic concept of Pluricentricity and aims to critically examine the key terms the theory operates with. The pluricentric approach states that a standard language can be comprised of multiple standard varieties of the same value represented by so called centres. The theory of Pluricentricity, especially its plurinational interpretation, has attracted considerable attention in recent years and the concept of a pluricentric German language is widely accepted among linguists. In regard to German this means there are at least an Austrian, a German (for matters of distinction the term bundesdeutsch is used here in German) and a Swiss standard variety of the German standard language. Two presuppositions essential to the plurinational interpretation of this theory have, however, been disregarded so far. For one, most previous research has overlooked the fact that the concept of nation that is used to substantiate the different centres is rooted in Western Euro...
Sociolinguistic variation in Austria and the German-speaking part of Switzerland has traditionally been described in very different terms. In Austria, the linguistic range between the standard language and the local dialects has been referred to as a ‘standard-dialectcontinuum’, whereas the German-speaking part of Switzerland has often been cited as the typical example of a ‘diglossic’ language community. The sociolinguistic situation in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg, which is part of a primarily Bavarian-speaking country but also of the Alemannic dialect region, has not been thoroughly examined in any studies up to date. In this paper, we present results from an online-survey in Austria and Switzerland on the everyday use of dialect and the standard language. According to our informants’ estimates, the sociolinguistic situation in both Austria and German-speaking Switzerland is characterised by a significant percentage of dialect use. Still, the standard language is regarded quite differently in the two countries. A considerable proportion of the Swiss informants perceive the standard language as a ‘foreign language’. However, this does not seem to be a common attitude among the Austrian informants. The main difference between the two countries lies in the observation that Austrians feel they use an intermediate form between dialect and the standard language, a so-called ‘Umgangssprache’, in many situations, whereas the Swiss indicate that they speak their local dialect or the standard language under specific communicative circumstances. However, the German-speaking Swiss population, as well as the informants from Vorarlberg, do not seem to use an intermediate form. The situation in Vorarlberg is particularly interesting. On the one hand, as far as the status of dialect and the dichotomy of dialect and standard are concerned, Vorarlberg patterns similarly to the German-speaking part of Switzerland. On the other hand, people from Vorarlberg have to adapt to their Bavarian-speaking fellow countrymen and women and switch to standard German in intra-national communication (e.g. at the workplace or on national help lines).
Standardsprachliche Variationen in der deutschen Wortbildung
In: Jianhua Zhu, Jin Zhao, Michael Szurawitzki (Hrsg.): Akten des XIII. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Shanghai 2015 – Germanistik zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Band 2. Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main , 2016
Standardsprachliche Variationen in der deutschen Wortbildung Die deutsche Wortbildung weist einen variablen Ausnutzungsgrad der vorhandenen sprachlichen Mittel auf. Viele Morpheme treten innerhalb von Wortbildungskonstruktionen in unterschiedlichen Formen auf. Nach Schippan (1992: 83) ist ein Allomorph "eine durch die Stellung des Morphems im Wortganzen bedingte phonemische Variante". Dabei bleibt, wie Stepanova / Fleischer (1985: 74) bemerken, die "formale und semantische Grundstruktur" erhalten. Nach Bußmann (2008: 29) ist ein Allomorph eine "konkret realisierte Variante eines Morphems". Die Identifizierung der unterschiedlichen Realisationsformen als Varianten ein und desselben Morphems wird nach Gumirova (1981: 52) gesichert durch die Invarianz der Bedeutung und durch eine phonemische Invariante, d. h. "die Erkennbarkeit des Morphems beruht auf der semantischen Identität und einer phonemisch-graphischen Ähnlichkeit aller verschiedenen Formen" (Fleischer / Barz 1995: 31). Phonemischgraphische Ähnlichkeit allein ist nach Fleischer / Barz jedoch kein hinreichendes Argument, Allomorphie anzunehmen. "Der Bedeutungszusammenhang zwischen den Formen muß in jedem Fall gegeben sein." (ibid). Die wichtigsten Mittel zur Realisierung der Formvariation sind Phonemtilgung und Phonemalternation. Bei den freien und gebundenen Morphemen sind diese Möglichkeiten der Variation unterschiedlich ausgeprägt. Bei den Grundmorphemen variieren der Morphem-bzw. Wortausgang durch Phonemtilgung oder-alternation. Lohde (2006: 19) bemerkt, dass Phonemtilgungen hauptsächlich an den Morphemgrenzen bzw. am Wortende erfolgen. Besonders typisch ist der Wegfall des unbetonten-e im Auslaut, e. g. Rose-rosig. Substantive mit dem Auslaut-el,-er bewahren teilweise das-e-, teilweise fällt es aus: Eifer-eifrig, aber Hügel-hügelig/hüglig, Faser-faserig/fasrig. Die Phonemalternation erfolgt ihrerseits auf unterschiedliche Art und Weise. Ist das Auftreten von Allomorphen an bestimmte Wortbildungsmodelle gebunden, so liegen kombinatorische Allomorphe vor (cf. Wellmann 1975: 38). Bei Grundmorphemen mit den Stammvokalen a, o, u und au tritt an die Stelle dieser Vokale ein Umlaut, wenn die Morpheme mit den Suffixen-in,-chen,-lein,-ig,-isch oder-lich kombiniert werden: Ärztin, Häuschen. In manchen Wortpaaren fungiert der Basisumlaut als bedeutungsunterscheidendes Merkmal, cf. zugig-zügig, vertraglich-verträglich. Mitunter ist der Umlaut fakultativ: dickbauchig / dickbäuchig, Hundchen / Hünd
2017
Il contributo si inserisce nel quadro di un progetto di ricerca che esamina in che modo le politiche orientate al pari trattamento linguistico di donna e uomo vengono attuate nei testi giuridicoamministrativi della Svizzera plurilingue. Le nostre indagini si basano su un corpus costituito dai testi del Foglio Federale pubblicati nelle tre lingue ufficiali a partire dalla fine del 1800. In questo articolo, ci concentriamo sulle soluzioni linguistiche il cui uso è sconsigliato dalle direttive in lingua tedesca. In particolare, ci chiediamo se le forme non ammesse nei manuali siano attestate nei testi ufficiali e quali possano essere le ragioni di un eventuale scarto tra la teoria e la pratica. La questione è affrontata da tre angolazioni: le forme divergenti rispetto alle norme linguistiche sono rilevate attraverso gli strumenti della linguistica dei corpora; le cause a cui sono riconducibili determinati usi sono indagate a partire da un approccio di linguistica testuale; la prospetti...