Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics) book.
Happy reading Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Linguistic Minorities and Modernity, Second Revised Edition (Advances in Sociolinguistics) Pocket Guide.
In what follows, we consider prohibitives and normatives as indices to a corrective practice exemplified through corrective repertories such as the ones discussed in section 2. Johnson and Ensslin 6— At the present time, we are unable to suggest a definite methodology for identifying explicatives, given that there is no precise means of predicting textual interpretation. In other words, we expect patterns of German and Greek prescriptivism to be characterized by differing corrective practices operating nonetheless under similar conceptual schemes.
Specific kinds of corrective repertories, we can assume, will then prevail within certain circles, in certain gen- res or registers, or in a particular period of time. In what follows, we will take a closer look at some specific examples of these phenomena. This means that the actual practices to be classified as prescriptivist emerge from within the data as opposed to either prefiguring the corpus or being applied post hoc. In this section, we present the results of this procedure starting with some general findings before turning to more specific phenomena.
Accordingly, both type and token references had to be counted. Finally, there are seven texts on media language that contain no correctives. The results are summarized in Table 2.
Identity and language learning
The next step was to categorize all metalinguistic references accord- ing to one of the seven types of grammatical or discourse phenomena to which they referred as follows: 1. Lexicon, 2. Semantics, 4. Morpho-syntax, 5. Phraseology, 6.
Orthography and 7. The percentage values for both corpora can be found in Figure 2. Figure 2.
About Linguistic Minorities and Modernity
As it becomes clear from Figure 2. After outlining the various types of correctives in each category in the following sections, we will go on to suggest that this difference is in fact significant in relation to the particular models of prescriptivism typical of the print-media in each of the two countries. Loanwords, in particular Anglicisms, are a recurrent topic in the German corpus see Table 2.
Here the percentage would have been considerably lower In addition to loanwords, there are many references in the Greek corpus to either archaic or modern demotic words suggesting ongoing concern about the diglossic situation in Greece. Correctives in this category fre- quently refer to the overuse of certain expressions e.
In the Greek corpus, it is interesting to note how most metalinguistic references in this category refer not to the usage of particular words or set phrases but rather to the structure of media discourse more generally i. Other instances concern the loss of seman- tic differentiation due to changes in meaning. Syntagms, in this traditional conception, are understood on the basis of prototypical constructions.
Linguistic Minorities and Modernity : A Sociolinguistic Ethnography, Second Edition - jourzacarsi.tk
Accordingly, there is no real boundary between Morpho-syntax and Phraseology from the point of view of our corpora. Most correctives in the Greek corpus occur in these two fields: if we add the number of phraseological to morpho-syntactic correctives, the total amounts to occurrences According to Moschonas 61—64 , this increase in phraseological and syntactic correctives is a relatively recent development in the evolution of Greek prescriptivism.
In Greece, the central subject of the relevant discussions is the writ- ing system itself Greek vs. Roman alphabet as well as its varieties monotonic vs. Meanwhile, there are only three references in favour of the Roman script in some registers such as e-mails versus ten against the Roman script in any register see Table 2. In Germany, by contrast, the spelling reform that was introduced during the period of our analysis in the mids was one of the main metalinguistic issues in the media, and certainly fuelled a high level of prescriptivism in and about the media. Which spellings a newspaper preferred became a crucial question that threatened the very implemen- tation of the reform.
Here it is interesting to note those correctives that refer to the pronunciation of loans 1. This is insofar as the form and function of any language are to a considerable extent shaped both in and by public and typically media discourse about language. Arguably, there is also a variety of standards between these two extremes. Standard Modern Greek is supposed to be based on the demotic model, permitting never- theless a certain number of archaisms, especially in the higher registers of the language.
And here it is interesting to observe how, as vernacular forms have gradually become accepted as standard, it is the archaic forms in turn that have been seen to be in need of corrective instruction and guidance. In Germany, there has also been a long tradition of prescriptivism in relation to the process of standardization. Similarly the pragmatic—semantic model that corresponds to these processes of re-standardization is meant to be all-embracing and pan-historical.
The German model of purism is also largely external i. These differences in the conception and process of re- standardiza- tion can be seen clearly in practices that can be described as purist. Mean- while references to diglossia in the Greek corpus amount to It is apparent therefore that prescriptive practices in the Greek press are primarily concerned with, and shaped by, the diglossic situation in Greece as opposed to questions of borrowing or language contact.
In the German press, on the other hand, Anglicisms have become a major focus for corrective practices.
Despite their differences, however, both the Greek and German models of standardization share certain presuppositions in relation to the kind of correctives i. For a corrective to be issued, it is presupposed — at the very least by those who do the issuing — that there is variation between the linguistic forms X and Y, and it is the task of those engaging in such corrective repertories to try to promote language awareness of that variation to a wider public.
Could correctives have a lasting impact under particular circumstances? In this chapter, we have only been able to touch upon the idea that shared presuppositions about the undesirable nature of language vari- ation are what underpin corrective suggestions, in particular, and pre- scriptivism, in general.
- Identity and language learning - Wikipedia.
- Herzlich willkommen.
- Readings in Han Chinese Thought.
- Anabolics (10th Edition).
- Account Options.
- Linguistic Minorities and Modernity.
It will therefore be the task of future research to categorize more comprehensively the kinds of correctives and correc- tive practices that will allow us to access the ideologies of, say, pre- scriptivism at a higher meta-level. This in turn will allow us to go some way towards an analysis of prescriptivism that manifests itself at the level of actual discourse — in this case, print- media discourse — and can thereby be subject to the discursive analysis of actual linguistic performance that can and should, in our view, be an integral part of language ideology research.
Acknowledgements Both writers wish to thank Sally Johnson for her meticulous editing and proofreading of an earlier version of this chapter. Babiniotis, G. Ethnos, 29 November Charis, J. Ta Nea, 29 January Kriaras, E. Thessaloniki: Malliaris. Natorp, K. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 March Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 August Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 June Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 6 November Ta Nea, 2 March References Blommaert, J.
Braudel, F. Paris: Flammarion, pp. Browning, R. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 35, 49— Delveroudi, R. Philologie im Netz, 24, 1— Jaffe, A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4 4 , — Jakobson, R. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston eds , On Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kroskrity, P. Oxford: James Currey. Majer, K. Moschonas, S. Journal of Applied Linguistics [Thessaloniki], 17, 49— Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 22 2 , — Georgakopoulou and M. London: Ashgate, pp.
Niedzielski, N. Pfalzgraf, F. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
http://taylor.evolt.org/lahir-sur-mujeres.php Preston, D.