Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:12:52.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Living with L: H-Speakers’ Perceptions of the L-Variety in Northern Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2012

Heiko Wiggers
Heiko Wiggers*
Affiliation:
Wake Forest University
*
Department of German and Russian, Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7353, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on two sociolinguistic field studies from 2003 and 2009, this paper discusses the language attitudes of High German speakers (H-speakers) toward Low German (the L-variety) in the county of Bentheim, a diglossic speech community in northwestern Germany. While language attitudinal studies are largely absent from the sociolin-guistic corpus in Germany and from Low German research altogether, diglossic studies largely focus on the L-variety and its speakers and evolution. This paper is one of the first attempts to analyze the H-speakers’ perceptions and evaluations of the L-variety over a longer period of time within the fields of diglossia and Low German.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 19 November 2012 , pp. 325 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2012

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

REFERENCES

Aguirre, Adalberto. 1982. Language use pattern of adolescent Chicanos in a California border town. Bilingualism and language contact: Spanish, English and Native American languages, ed. by Barkin, Florence, Brandt, Elizabeth, & Ornstein-Galicia, Jacob, 278–289. New York, NY: Teachers College.Google Scholar
Anders, Christiana Ada. 2010. Wahrnehmungsdialektologie. Das Obersächische im Alltagsverständnis von Laien. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe's sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative, ed. by Delbecque, Nicole, van der Auwera, Johan, & Geeraerts, Dirk, 7–43. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, Stephen, & Patrick, Stevenson. 1990. Variation in German. A critical approach to German sociolinguistics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Besch, Werner. 1979. Schriftsprache und Landschaftssprache im Deutschen. Zur Geschichte ihres Verhältnisses vom 16. bis 19. Jahrhundert. Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter 43. 323–343.Google Scholar
Bichel, Ulf. 1985. Die Überlagerung des Niederdeutschen durch das Hochdeutsche. Sprachgeschichte. 2. Halbband, ed. by Besch, Werner, Betten, Anne, Reichmann, Oskar, & Sonderegger, Stefan, 1865–1873. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Britto, Francis. 1986. Diglossia: A study of the theory with application to Tamil. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2006. Language and the Internet, 2nd ed.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daltas, Periklis. 1993. The concept of diglossia from Ferguson to Fishman to Fasold. Themes in Greek linguistics. Papers from the First International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Reading, September 1993, ed. by Nicolaidis, Katerina, Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, & Sifianou, Maria, 341–348. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eichhoff, Jürgen. 2000. Sterben die Dialekte aus? Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende: Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall, ed. by Eichhoff-Cyrus, Karin M. & Hoberg, Rudolph, 80–88. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Erickson, Jim. 1998. Cyberspeak: The death of diversity. Asiaweek 15. 36–37.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W. 2002. Comment: The importance of community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157. 85–92.Google Scholar
Fellman, Jack. 1985. Sociolinguistic notes on Maltese. Orbis 31. 220–225.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1991. Diglossia revisited. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10. 214–234.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, Mauro. 1993. Diglossia. A comprehensive bibliography, 1960–1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fishman, Joshua. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23. 29–49.Google Scholar
Garland, Eric. 2006. Can minority languages be saved? The Futurist, July-August. 31–37. Available at: www.omniglot.com/language/articles/minority_languages.pdf (accessed on January 3, 2012).Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert. 2011. Dialecten vernederlandsen en worden regiolecten. Radio Nederland Wereldomroep. Available at: http://www.rnw.nl/nederlands/article/dialecten-vernederlandsen-en-worden-regiolecten (accessed on January 3, 2012).Google Scholar
Hudson, Alan. 2002. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157. 1–48.Google Scholar
Hundt, Markus. 1992. Einstellungen gegenüber dialektal gefärbter Standard-sprache. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Hundt, Markus. 1996. Zum Prestige gesprochener Alltagssprache: Sächsisch und Schwäbisch. Deutsche Sprache 3. 224–249.Google Scholar
Kaye, Alan. 2001. Diglossia: The state of the art. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152. 117–129.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1966. Types of multilinguistic communities: A discussion of ten variables. Sociological Inquiry 47. 135–147.Google Scholar
Koller, Werner. 1992. Deutsche in der Deutschschweiz. Eine sprach-soziologische Untersuchung. Aarau: Sauerländer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2003. Language attitudes and language politics in Denmark. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 159. 57–71.Google Scholar
Küpers, Gerd. 1997. Unsere Plattdeutsche Sprache. Eine Betrachtung. Bentheimer Jahrbuch, vol. 139, ed. by Voort, Heinrich, 289–293. Nordhorn: Heimatverein der Grafschaft Bentheim e.V.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom (ed.). 1992. The Oxford companion to the English language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Menge, Heinz. 1997. Zum Stand des Niederdeutschen heute. Quickborn 87. 30–45.Google Scholar
Möller, Frerk. 2008. Plattdeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert. Bremen: Verlag Schuster Leer.Google Scholar
Papapavlou, Andreas Nicholas. 1998. Attitudes toward the Greek Cypriot dialect: Sociocultural implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 134. 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindler-Schjerve, Rosita, & Eva, Vetter 2003. Historical sociolinguistics and multilingualism: Theoretical and methodological issues in the development of a multifunctional framework. Diglossia and power. Language policies and practice in the 19th century Habsburg Empire, ed. by Rindler-Schjerve, Rosita, 35–70. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. Comment: Can stable diglossia help to preserve endangered languages?. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157. 135–140.Google Scholar
Schiffman, Harold. 2002. Comment. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157. 141–150.Google Scholar
Stellmacher, Dieter. 1987. Wer spricht Platt? Zur Lage des Niederdeutschen heute. Bremen: Verlag Schuster Leer.Google Scholar
Stewart, William A. 1963. The functional distribution of French and Creole in Haiti. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. by Woodworth, Elisabeth D. & Di Pietro, Robert J.. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Timm, Leonora A. 1981. Diglossia old and new—a critique. Anthropological Linguistics 23. 356–367.Google Scholar
von Polenz, Peter. 1999. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. New York, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiggers, Heiko. 2011. The future of Low German: Results from a socio-linguistic field study. Linguistic diversity and cultural identity: A global perspective, ed. by Lê, Thao, 157–173. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Wirrer, Jan. 1998. Zum Status des Niederdeutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 26. 309–340.Google Scholar