Abstract The question of how to conceptualize variation in languages with more than one standard variety, such as English, Dutch, or German, has been a central one to variation linguistics. Variation in these languages is sometimes modeled according to two opposed approaches: pluricentricity and pluriareality, though not uncontroversially. The present chapter first introduces the pluricentricity/pluriareality debate and then identifies several aspects that warrant a more extensive and thorough discussion of their potential complementarity. It then introduces the volume, which is the first of its kind to consolidate pluricentric and pluriareal perspectives on modeling standard language variation in a systematic manner. A major contribution of the volume lies in the fact that most chapters seek to integrate both concepts in modeling variation.
Abstract Contemporary German linguistics uses either pluricentric or pluriareal models to investigate geographic variation in standard German. In this article, I argue for an integration of both concepts by including language ideologies and enregisterment (Agha 2007) more rigorously. First, I will elaborate on the idea of “core” areas in standard language use and ideologies where specific standard variants are most frequent or are promoted in discourse by ideology brokers. Speakers’ ideologies allow for salient geographic variants to index social meaning (e.g. national stereotypes) and constitute a linguistic register of identity. The interaction of use and indexicality is mediated by attitudes. I propose to integrate standard use, attitudes, and indexicality in a single preliminary framework which could also be useful for other languages with several standards.
Abstract This study tests the implications of the pluricentric and pluriareal models with respect to prosody by analyzing the Scottish Vowel Length Rule (SVLR) in Scottish Standard English (SSE). Scotland is a particularly interesting example for the pluricentricity/pluriareality debate due to its linguistic and political situation. After a brief introduction of the context, this study applies linear mixed-effects modeling to account for variation in SVLR patterns while taking prosodic features as well as sociolinguistic factors into account. The findings are interpreted from the pluricentric and pluriareal perspectives and show that intralinguistic features rather than geographical factors influence variation in SVLR patterns. I therefore conclude that a mutual juxtaposition of the two approaches is neither necessary nor beneficial when it comes to modeling variation in standard languages.
Abstract The third, fully revised version of the Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS), the main reference grammar of Dutch, aims to describe grammatical variation in the national standard varieties of Dutch. This paper investigates whether this pluricentric perspective is compatible with the geographical distribution patterns of Dutch grammatical variants. We provide an overview of the distribution patterns described in the second edition of the ANS and we check this description against frequency data from newspaper corpora for four selected variants which represent different distribution patterns. Although the observed distribution patterns do not always coincide with national borders, we argue that the pluricentric model does not (necessarily) conflict with linguistic reality and that it is the appropriate choice to meet the needs of Dutch language users.
Abstract This paper investigates the issue of what data from the English-speaking world can contribute to the ongoing debate on the notions of “pluricentricity” versus “pluriareality” — and to the interpretation of English(es) as pluricentric or pluriareal, respectively. After brief definitions and discussions of the core notions, areal distributions in the English-speaking world — which can be viewed as evidence for either perspective — are systematically screened and exemplified. This includes differences between national varieties of English and evidence for “epicentric” linguistic influences on the one hand, and areal distributions on local, regional, supra-national, and global scales on the other. I conclude that both notions do not exclude each other; rather, each captures and highlights different aspects of reality. “Pluriareality” describes language production, while “pluricentricity” focuses on perception.
