In verschiedenen europäischen Ländern ist in letzter Zeit in der Soziolinguistik die Frage diskutiert worden, ob sich zwischen der traditionellen Standardsprache und den regionalen bzw. Substandardvarietäten ein neuer Standard („Neo-Standard“) herausgebildet hat; ein Standard, der sich nicht nur strukturell vom alten unterscheidet, sondern sich auch durch ein anderes Prestige auszeichnet als dieser: Er wirkt (im Vergleich) informeller, subjektiver, moderner, kreativer etc. In diesem Beitrag werden einige wesentliche Eigenschaften von Neo-Standards diskutiert und ihre Entwicklung als Folge der „Demotisierung“ (Mattheier) der Standardsprache beschrieben. Neben dem potenziellen Neo-Standard in Deutschland werden auch die Entwicklungen in Dänemark, Belgien und Italien diskutiert.

Revista Internacional del TrabajoVolume 135, Issue 4 p. 763-765 Libros International and comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes. Sexta edición. Directores de publicación: Greg J. BAMBER, Russell D. LANSBURY, Nick WAILES y Chris F. WRIGHT Peter Auer, Peter Auer pauer@wanadoo.fr Exjefe de la Unidad de Análisis e Investigación sobre el Empleo y exinvestigador del Instituto Internacional de Estudios Laborales de la OITSearch for more papers by this author Peter Auer, Peter Auer pauer@wanadoo.fr Exjefe de la Unidad de Análisis e Investigación sobre el Empleo y exinvestigador del Instituto Internacional de Estudios Laborales de la OITSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 April 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/ilrs.12041AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume135, Issue4Special Issue: LA ERA DE LA FLEXIBILIDADDecember 2016Pages 763-765 RelatedInformation

Revue internationale du TravailVolume 155, Issue 4 p. 781-784 Livres International and comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes. Sixième édition. Ouvrage publié sous la direction de Greg J. BAMBER, Russell D. LANSBURY, Nick WAILES et Chris F. WRIGHT Peter Auer, Peter Auer pauer@wanadoo.fr Ancien chef de l'Unité des recherches et analyses sur l'emploi, Ancien membre honoraire de l'Institut international d'études sociales, Bureau international du TravailSearch for more papers by this author Peter Auer, Peter Auer pauer@wanadoo.fr Ancien chef de l'Unité des recherches et analyses sur l'emploi, Ancien membre honoraire de l'Institut international d'études sociales, Bureau international du TravailSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 April 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/ilrf.12041AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume155, Issue4Special Issue: L'ÈRE DE LA FLEXIBILITÉDecember 2016Pages 781-784 RelatedInformation

This chapter discusses employment protection regulation and the employment-related parts of the social protection system from the perspective of an optimal institutional setting to allow workforce adjustment in relative security without jeopardizing productivity and labour market performance. It reviews the impact of stability/flexibility on productivity and at more length the impact on workers' perception of security, as well as on a series of labour market indicators, mainly for EU15 countries. It examines the need for a new combination of employment security and social security and puts this in the context of the industrial relations systems. The chapter also discusses the implications of these findings for a new framework of protected mobility, which is one possible form of an optimal institutional setting for a globalizing world, at least for the developed world. It provides evidence that there are European countries that have succeeded in transforming the trade-off into a complementarity.

Proceeding from 22 authors and 22 different concepts, the book provides an overview of the essential present-day knowledge of the analysis of linguistic interaction. The authors selected include not only linguists, but also major sociologists, cultural scientists, and language philosophers, as well as some recent authors of rank.

The term 'flexicurity' was coined by politicians, researchers and, most prominently, the European Commission as an encompassing labour market reform agenda for the 27 member countries of the European Union. As part of the European social model it offered an alternative to the Anglo Saxon 'flexibility of the labour market' mantra and attracted widespread attention around the world, lately also in the USA and in Australia. The recent global financial crisis, which often saw internal adjustment by shortening hours of work instead of external adjustment through lay-offs, has challenged the original concept based on easier hiring and firing coupled with sound social protection for the unemployed. Also the increasing irritation of trade unions with the term, coupled with mounting scepticism among researchers and uncertainties in support from a newly nominated EU Commission, means that the concept faces an uncertain future. However, the present widespread critique of flexicurity will probably not lead to the demise of the various policies that the term comprises, but to reinforcing internal adjustment options and supporting policies. At stake may be also a renaming of the concept.

In many of the world's bilingual communities, fluent bilinguals sometimes engage in code-switching by producing discourses which, in the same conversational turn or in consecutive turns, include morphemes from two or more of the varieties in their linguistic repertoire.1 Thanks to a plethora of publications and conference presentations on code-switching since the late 1970s, an overview of CS in the middle 1990s can offer a rich characterization of CS itself, as well as comparing it more precisely with other language contact phenomena involving two or more languages.

OBJECTIVE:Interactions between patients suffering from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and their physicians are usually perceived as difficult and unsatisfactory by both parties. In this qualitative study, patients' reactions to psychosomatic attributions were analyzed on a micro-level. METHODS:144 consultations between consultation-and-liaison (CL) psychotherapists and inpatients with MUS, who were treated according to a modified reattribution model, were recorded. Linguists and psychologists evaluated these consultations by applying conversation and positioning analysis. RESULTS:When introducing a psychosomatic attribution, therapists use discursive strategies to exert interactional pressure on the patient; while simultaneously using careful and implicit formulations. Three linguistic patterns could be found in which patients subtly refute, drop or undermine the psychosomatic attribution in their reply. Moreover, in this context patients position themselves as somatically ill or justify their own life situation. CONCLUSION:The results suggest that patients interpret psychosomatic attributions and even subtle suggestions from the psychotherapists as face-threatening 'other-positionings'. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:When implementing the reattribution model, it should be taken into account that interactional resistance might be a necessary step in the process of the patient's understanding. Nevertheless therapists should introduce reattribution in a patient-centered rather than persuasive way and they should openly address patients' fears of being stigmatized.