Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T19:43:34.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sociophonological methods in the study of sociolinguistic variation in Viennese German*1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Wolfgang U. Dressler  and
Ruth Wodak
Wolfgang U. Dressler
Affiliation:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Wien
Ruth Wodak
Affiliation:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Wien
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper surveys and illustrates ten years of research done on sociophonological variation in Viennese German from a methodological point of view. It shows how variants of the same word form are collected and analyzed and how two types of rules are differentiated: (1) phonostylistic (optional) phonological rules of the fast/casual and formal hyperarticulate speech, both of Standard Austrian German and Viennese German Dialect; and (2) bidirectional input switch rules between these two strata. Psycholinguistic lab experiments are summarized, which vouch for the psychological reality of sociolinguistic concepts used. A theory of sociopsychological speech situations is described as well as the application of quantitative and qualitative sociolinguistic methods used. A major illustration of our approach is taken from the sociolinguistic study of defendants at court. The conclusion summarizes major claims. (Courtroom discourse, hermeneutics, phonological theory, phonological variation, psycholinguistic experiments, qualitative and quantitative methods, sociophonology, speech situations, style repertoires, switching, text linguistics, therapeutic discourse; Standard Austrian German, Viennese German.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 339 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Adorno, W. et al. , (1969). Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Berlin: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Bailey, Ch.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailey, Ch.-J (1980). Old and new views on language history and language relationships. In Lüdtke, H. (ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. 139–81.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (ed.) (1970). Soziale Struktur, Sozialisation und Sprachverhalten. Amsterdam: De Munter.Google Scholar
Berruto, G. (1980). La variabilità sociale della lingua. Turin: Loescher.Google Scholar
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interactionism. In Rose, A. (ed), Human behavior social process. London: McMittan. 187–203.Google Scholar
Brickenkamp, R. (1962). Test d2. Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Goettingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1979). Social structure, groups, and interactions. In Scherer, K. & Giles, (eds.), Social markers in speech. Cambridge University Press. 291–341.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50: 333–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. (1970). Methode und Messung in der Soziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (1980). Style-shifting in a Cardiff work setting. Language in Society 9 (I): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Camp, D. (1971). Implicational scales and sociolinguistic linearity. Linguistics 73: 30–43.Google Scholar
Deutscher, I. (1971). Words and deeds: Social science and social policy. In Filstead (1971): 27–57.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1973). Soziolinguistik. Exemplarische und Kritische Datstellung ihrer Theorie, Empirie und Anwendung. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Donegan, P., & Stampe, D. (1979). The study of Natural Phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–73.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1973). Pour une stylistique phonologique du latin: A propos des styles négligents d'une langue morte. Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris 68: 129–45.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1974a). Essai sur la stylistique phonologique du breton: les débits rapides. Etudes Celtiques 14 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. (1974b). Desaktivierung und phonologische Nachlässigkeit. Wiener linguistische Gazette 6: 20–28.Google Scholar
(revised in Grazer linguistische Studien 2(1975): 34–42).Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1975a). Methodisches zu Allegro-Regeln. In Dressler, W. & Mareš, F. (eds.), Phonologica 1972. Munich: Fink. 219–31.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1975b). Grundprobleme der Soziophonologie. Grazer linguistische Studien 1 25–31.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1975c). La variazione fonologica: concetti melodic e problemi dei lavori Viennesi. Lingua e Contesto 2: 141–59.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1975d). For a socio-psycho-linguistic theory of phonological variation. Salzburger Beiträge zur Linguistik 1: 13–23.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1976). Inhärente Variation und variable Regel (zur Relativierung eines amerikanischen soziolinguistischen Konzepts). In Schaff, A. (ed.), Soziolinguistik. Vienna: Europa-Verlag. 53–74.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1979). Arguments and non-arguments for naturalness in phonology: On the use of external evidence. In Fischer-Jørgensen, E. et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences II. 93–100.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (forthcoming). Morphonology. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Karoma Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W., & Hufgard, J. (1980). Etudes phonologiques sur le breton sud-bigouden. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. et al. , (1972). Phonologische Schnellsprechregeln in der Wiener Umgangssprache. Wiener linguistische Gazette 1: 1–29.Google Scholar
Revised in Viereck, W. (ed.), Sprachliches Handeln Soziales Verhalten. Munich: Fink, 1976. 71–92.Google Scholar
Elizaincín, A. (1979) Métodos en sociodialectología. Estudios Filologicos 14: 45–58.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. W. (1978). Language variation and linguistic competence. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation. New York: Academic Press. 85–95.Google Scholar
Filstead, W. (ed.) (1971). Qualitative methodology. Chicago: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1971). Sociolinguistics. A brief introduction. Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gal, S. (1979). Language shift. Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (1979). Sociolinguistics and social psychology: An introductory essay. In Giles, H. & Clair, R. St. (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. 1–20.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. Supplement to American Anthropologist 9/2.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1971) (with J. P. Blom). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In Dil, A. S. (ed), Language in social groups. Essays by John J. Gumperz. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 274–310.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1976). The sociolinguistic significance of conversational code-switching. Language Behavior Research Laboratory Working Paper 46. Berkeley, Ca.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1970). Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1977). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hathaway, L. (1970). Der Mundartwandel in Imst in Tirol zwischen 1897 und 1973. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Herdan, G. (1966). The advanced theory of language as choice and chance. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holenstein, E. (1975). Roman Jakobsons phänomenologischer Strukturalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Holenstein, E. (1976). Linguistik. Semiotik, Hermeneutik. Plädoyer für eine strukturale Phänomenologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morpho-phonological change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 95–105.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist 6.6.2: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1967). Logische Propädeutik. Mannheim: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1979). On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8 (2): 151–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1981). On the meaning of variable rules. Language in Society 10 (2): 251–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1974). Variation in der Sprache. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Koekkoek, B. (1955). Zur Phonologie der Wiener Mundart. Giessen: Schmitz.Google Scholar
Krappmann, L. (1972). Soziale Dimension von Identität. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1978). Toward a theory of social dialect variation. Language in Society 7(1): 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23: 30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972a). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leodolter, R. (1973). Das Sprachverhalten von Angeklagten vor Gericht. Wiener linguistische Gazette 5: 3–36.Google Scholar
Leodolter, R. (1975a). Das Sprachverhalten von Angeklagten vor Gericht: Ansätze zu einer soziolinguistischen Theorie der Verbalisierung. Kronberg: Scriptor.Google Scholar
Leodolter, R. (1975b). Die Kategorie der ‘Sprechsituation’: Zur soziolinguistischen Theorienbildung. Grazer linguistische Studien 1: 142–50.Google Scholar
Leodolter, R., & Stark, H. (1972). Soziolinguistische Interpretation der “Schnellsprechregeln.” In Dressler, et al. (1972). 4–9.Google Scholar
Lorenzer, A. (1976). Die Wahrheit der psychoanalytischen Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. London: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & Margrain, S. (1980). Vernacular language loyalty and social network. Language in Society 9(I): 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mioni, A., & Trumper, J. (1977). Per un' analisi del ‘continuum’ linguistico veneto. In Simone, R. & Ruggiero, G., Aspetti sociolinguistici dell' Italia contemporanea. Rome: Bulzoni. 329–72.Google Scholar
Oevermann, U. et al. , (1980). Die Methodologie einer ‘objektiven Hermeneutik.’ in Soeffner, H. (ed), Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Metzler. 352–434.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1978). The stratification of bilingualism. In Paradis, M. (ed.), Aspects of bilingualism. Columbia, S.C. Hornbeam Press. 165–75.Google Scholar
Reiffenstein, I. (1972). Österreichisches Deutsch. In Haslinger, A. (ed.), Deutsch Heute. Munich: Hueber. 19–26.Google Scholar
Rennison, J. (1979). Toward the homogeneous description of linguistic variation. Wiener linguistische Gazette 20: 31–40.Google Scholar
Rennison, J. (1980a). The abstractness problem and bidialectal grammar. Wiener linguistische Gazette 22–7–14.Google Scholar
Rennison, J. (1980b). What is shwa in Austrian German? The case for epenthesis and its consequences. Wiener linguistische Gazette 24: 33–42. To appear Dressler, W. et al. (eds.), Phonologica 1980 (Innsbruck). 351–56.Google Scholar
Rennison, J. (1981). Bidialektale Phonologie. Die Kompetenz zweier Salzburger Sprecher. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory. Journal of Linguistics 17: 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8(2): 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. (1960). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Vienna: Styria.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, P. (1979). Internal variability in competence. Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.Google Scholar
Shank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Siebs, T. et al. , (1969). Deutsche Hochsprache. Bühnenaussprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Slama-Cazacu, T. (1973). Quo vadis, psycholinguistics? Is a ‘sociopsycholinguistics’ necessary? International Journal of Psycholinguistics 2: 93–104.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society. 443–54.Google Scholar
Švejcer, A. (1971). Voprosy Sociologii Jazyka v sovremennoj amerikanskoj lingvistike. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tonelli, L. (1981). überlegungen zur Natürlichen Phonologie: Eine kontrastive Analyse des Boznerischen und Südtiroler Italienischen. PhD thesis. University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1978). Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
van den Broeck, J. (1977). Class differences in syntactic complexity in the Flemish town of Maaseik. Language in Society 6(2): 149–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaneček, E., & Dressler, W. (1977). Untersuchungen zur Sprechsorgfalt als Aufmerksamkeitsindikator. Studia Psychologica 19: 105–18.Google Scholar
Veith, W. (1975). Generativ-phonologische Dialektdeskription mit einem synchronen Bezugssystem. In Dressler, W. & MareŠ, F. (eds.), Phonologica 1972. Munich: Fink. 169–84.Google Scholar
Vidich, A. (1971). Participant observation and the collection and interpretation of data. In Filstead (1971): 164–73.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1980a). Wie sage ich mein Problem? Problemdarstellung in Therapie und Interview. Wiener linguistische Gazette 22/23: 99–124.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1980b). A sociolinguistic study of group therapy with patients in danger of suicide. Sigmund Freud House Bulletin 4.I. 54–64.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1981a). Das Won in der Gruppe. Linguistische Studien zur therapeutischen Kommunikalion. Vienna: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1981b). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes 3: 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (1981c). Women relate, men report. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 261–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (1981d). Geschlechtsspezifische Strategien in einer therapeutischen Gruppe: Aspekte einer sozio- und psycholinguistischen Untersuchung. In Autorinnengruppe, UNI-Wien (eds.), Das ewige Klischee. Wien: BÖhlau. 232–52.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1981e). How do I put my problem? Problem presentation in therapy and interview. Text 1/2: 181–213.Google Scholar
Wodak-Leodolter, R. (1980). Probleme der soziolinguistischen Feldforschung am Beispiel der Analyse spontansprachlicher Texte. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A (Arbeitsberichte) 72/II. 50–75.Google Scholar
Wodak-Leodolter, R. (forthcoming). Erhebung von Sprachdaten in natürlich- oder simuliert-natürlicher Sprechsituation. In Besch, W. et al. (eds.), Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialekforschung.Google Scholar
Wodak-Leodolter, R., & Dressler, W. (1978). Phonological variation in colloquial Viennese. Michigan Germanic Studies 4(I): 30–66.Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Moosmüller, S. (1982). Sprechen TÖchter anders als ihre Mütter? Eine sozio- und psycholinguistische Studie zum Wienerdeutschen. Wiener linguisrische Gazette 26: 35–64.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. (1970). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. (1981). Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. In Heidoiph, K. E. et al. (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 898–990.Google Scholar
Zetterberg, H. (1962). Theorie, Forschung und Praxis in der Soziologie. In KÖnig, R. (ed), Handbuch für Empirische Sozialforschung. Cologne: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag. 607–15.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1972). On casual speech. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 607–15.Google Scholar