Cover not available
Part of
Pluricentricity and Pluriareality: Dialects, Variation, and Standards
Edited by Philipp Meer and Ryan Durgasingh
[Studies in Language Variation 32] 2025
► pp. 1–14

Chapter 1
Modeling variation

Pluricentricity and pluriareality — The debate surrounding both models, and potentials for their complementarity

ORCID logo | University of Münster, Germany | University of Campinas, Brazil
ORCID logo | Ruhr University Bochum | University of Münster, Germany
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.
Keywords: pluricentricity, pluriareality, language standardization, language variation, German, English, Dutch, World Englishes, epicenter, national varieties
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of individual contributions
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (69)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allsopp, Richard. 1996. Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich. 1995. Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Plurinationalität oder Pluriarealität? Begriffliche und terminologische Präzisierungsvorschläge zur Plurizentrizität des Deutschen — mit Ausblick auf ein Wörterbuchprojekt. In Peter Ernst & Franz Patocka (eds.), Deutsche Sprache in Raum und Zeit, 313–323. Wien: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2014. Enregistering pluricentric German. In Augusto S. d. Silva (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language variation and sociocognitive dimensions. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias. 2012. Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka. World Englishes 31(3). 279–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias & Christopher Koch. 2016. Attitudes towards Englishes in India. World Englishes 35(1). 118–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolander, Brook. 2020. World Englishes and transnationalism. In Daniel Schreier, Marianne Hundt & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes, 676–701. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah & Alexander Kautzsch (eds.). 2020. Modelling world Englishes: A joint approach to postcolonial and non-postcolonial varieties. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah, Alexander Kautzsch & Edgar W. Schneider. 2018. From colonial dynamism to current transnationalism: A unified view on postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes. In Sandra C. Deshors (ed.), Modelling World Englishes in the 21st century: Assessing the interplay of emancipation and globalization of ESL varieties, 15–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael G. (ed.). 1992. Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
1995. The German language in a changing Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar. 2013. Towards endonormative standards of English in the Caribbean: A study of students’ beliefs and school curricula. Language, Culture and Curriculum 26(2). 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. English in the Caribbean: Variation, style and standards in Jamaica and Trinidad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar, Stephanie Hackert, Eva C. Hänsel, Alexander Laube, Mahyar Hejrani & Catherine Laliberté. 2021. The norm orientation of English in the Caribbean: A comparative study of newspaper writing from ten countries. American Speech. Advance online publication. 1–40.Google Scholar
Devonish, Hubert & Ewart A. T. Thomas. 2012. Standards of English in the Caribbean. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Standards of English: Codified varieties around the world, 179–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2019a. The Pluricentricity Debate. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019b. Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties. Journal of Linguistic Geography 7(2). 98–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebner, Jakob. 2014. Österreichisches Deutsch: Ein Klärungsversuch. In Bundesministerium für Bildung (ed.), Österreichisches Deutsch als Unterrichts — und Bildungssprache, 7–9. Vienna.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan & Christa Dürscheid. 2017. Areale grammatische Variation in den Gebrauchsstandards des Deutschen. In Marek Konopka & Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten (eds.), Grammatische Variation: Empirische Zugänge und theoretische Modellierung, 85–104. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Christa Dürscheid & Arne Ziegler. 2017. Zur grammatischen Pluriarealität der deutschen Gebrauchsstandards — oder: Über die Grenzen des Plurizentrizitätsbegriffs. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 136. 69–91.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan & Stefan Kleiner. 2019. Forschungsergebnisse Zur Arealen Variation Im Standarddeutschen. In Joachim Herrgen & Jürgen E. Schmidt (eds.), Deutsch: Sprache und Raum — ein Internationales Handbuch der Sprachvariation, 159–184. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan & Konstantin Niehaus. 2014. The standardization of a modern pluriareal language: Concepts and corpus designs for German and beyond. Orð og tunga 16. 47–67.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Tobias Bernaisch. 2016. Exploring epicentres empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 37(1). 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike. 2012. Standards of English in West Africa. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Standards of English: Codified varieties around the world, 213–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie. 2022. The epicentre model and American influence on Bahamian Englishes. World Englishes 41(3). 361–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hänsel, Eva C. Michael Westphal, Philipp Meer & Dagmar Deuber. 2022. Context matters: Grenadian students’ attitudes towards newscasters’ and teachers’ accents. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 37(1). 16–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Tobias Bernaisch & Stefan T. Gries. 2017. Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal 41(1). 111–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Marianne Hundt & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2011. Indian English — An emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia 129(3–4). 258–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2013. The diversification of English: Old, new and emerging epicentres. In Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds.), English as a contact language, 182–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Randolph Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800, 2nd edn. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Leitner, Gerhard. 1992. English as a pluricentric language. In Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations, 179–237. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2021. World Englishes: From Methodological Nationalism to a Global Perspective. In Britta Schneider, Theresa Heyd & Mario Saraceni (eds.), Bloomsbury World Englishes Volume 1: Paradigms, 27–45: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meer, Philipp & Dagmar Deuber. 2020. Standard English in Trinidad: Multinormativity, translocality, and implications for the Dynamic Model and the EIF Model. In Sarah Buschfeld & Alexander Kautzsch (eds.), Modelling world Englishes: A joint approach to postcolonial and non-postcolonial varieties, 274–297. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meer, Philipp & Ryan Durgasingh. 2024. Sociophonetic and morphosyntactic variation in Caribbean creoles and Englishes. In Kingsley Bolton (ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of World Englishes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Meer, Philipp, Robert Fuchs, Dagmar Deuber, Véronique Lacoste & Eva C. Hänsel. 2023. Prosodic variation of English in Dominica, Grenada, and Trinidad. World Englishes 42(1). 48–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meer, Philipp, Michael Westphal, Eva C. Hänsel & Dagmar Deuber. 2019. Trinidadian secondary school students’ attitudes toward accents of Standard English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 34(1). 83–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4). 530–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, Hugo. 1959. Neuere und neueste Zeit. Von den 80er Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts zur Gegenwart. In Friedrich Maurer & Friedrich Stroh (eds.), Deutsche Wortgeschichte (Vol. 2). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muhr, Rudolf. 1997. Zur Terminologie und Methode der Beschreibung plurizentrischer Sprachen und deren Varietäten am Beispiel des Deutschen. In Rudolf Muhr & Richard Schrodt (eds.), Österreichisches Deutsch und andere nationale Varietäten plurizentrischer Sprachen in Europa: Empirische Analysen, 40–67. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
. 2012. Linguistic dominance and non-dominance in pluricentric languages: A typology. In Rudolf Muhr (ed.), Non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages: Getting the picture, 23–48. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Misconceptions about pluricentric languages and pluricentric theory — an overview of 40 years. In Rudolf Muhr & Benjamin Meisnitzer (eds.), Pluricentric languages and non-dominant varieties worldwide: New pluricentric languages — old problems, 17–56. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Cecil L. Z. G. Proshina, Daniel R. Davis, Braj B. Kachru & Yamuna Kachru (eds.). 2020. Handbook of world Englishes, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Niehaus, Konstantin. 2015. Areale Variation in der Syntax des Standarddeutschen: Ergebnisse zum Sprachgebrauch und zur Frage Plurizentrik vs. Pluriarealität. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 82(2). 133–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pam, Adam Smith & Tobias Bernaisch. 2019. Shared Lexical Innovations in Australian and New Zealand English. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 40(2). 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platt, John, Heidi Weber & Ho M. Lian. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Platt, John T. & Heidi Weber. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, features, functions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pohl, Heinz D. 1997. Gedanken zum Österreichischen Deutsch (als Teil der „pluriarealen” deutschen Sprache). In Rudolf Muhr & Richard Schrodt (eds.), Österreichisches Deutsch und andere nationale Varietäten plurizentrischer Sprachen in Europa: Empirische Analysen, 67–87. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Pride, John (ed.) (1982). New Englishes. Rowley, MA: Newsbury House.Google Scholar
Reiffenstein, Ingo. 2001. Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten. Rezensionsaufsatz zu Ulrich Ammon: Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten, Berlin/New York 1995. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie (1). 78–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruette, Tom, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2014. Lexical variation in aggregate perspective. In Augusto S. d. Silva (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language variation and sociocognitive dimensions. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scharloth, Joachim. 2005. Asymmetrische Plurizentrizität und Sprachbewusstsein: Einstellungen der Deutschschweizer zum Standarddeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 33(2–3).Google Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1996. Das Deutsche als pluriareale Sprache: Ein Beitrag gegen staatlich begrenzte Horizonte in der Diskussion um die deutsche Sprache in Österreich. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German 29(2). 147–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidlin, Regula, Eva Wyss & Winifred Davies. 2017. Plurizentrik revisited — aktuelle Perspektiven auf die Variation der deutschen Standardsprache. In Winifred Davies, Annelies Häcki Buhofer, Regula Schmidlin, Melanie Wagner & Eva Wyss (eds.), Standardsprache. zwischen Norm und Praxis: Theoretische Betrachtungen, empirische Studien und sprachdidaktische Ausblicke, 8–20. Tübingen: Narrr.Google Scholar
Schneider, Britta. 2019. Methodological nationalism in linguistics. Language Sciences 76. 101169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Global diffusion, regional attraction, local roots? Sociocognitive perspectives on the pluricentricity of English. In Augusto S. d. Silva (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language variation and sociocognitive dimensions. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schreier, Daniel, Marianne Hundt & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.). 2020. The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Leen Impe & Dirk Geeraerts. 2014. Phonetic distance and intelligibility in Dutch. In Augusto S. d. Silva (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language variation and sociocognitive dimensions. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Starr, Rebecca L. 2021. Transnational dialect contact and language variation and change in World Englishes. In Alexander Onysko (ed.), Research Developments in World Englishes, 149–172. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Amelia & Lars Hinrichs. 2020. Mobility and the English language. In Bas Aarts, April M. S. McMahon & Lars Hinrichs (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 2nd edn. 637–652. Hoboken NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tupas, T. R. F. (ed.). 2015. Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vergeiner, Philip C. Elisabeth Buchner, Eva Fuchs & Stephan Elspaß. 2021. Weil STANDARD verständlich ist und DIALEKT authentisch macht. In Toke Hoffmeister, Markus Hundt & Saskia Naths (eds.), Laien, Wissen, Sprache, 417–442. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Norbert R. 1994. Österreichisches zum österreichischen Deutsch. Aus Anlaß des Erscheinens von: Wolfgang Pollak: Was halten die Österreicher von ihrem Deutsch? Eine sprachpolitische und soziosemiotische Analyse der sprachlichen Identität der Österreicher. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 61(1). 66–76.Google Scholar
Yurchenko, Asya, Sven Leuckert & Claudia Lange. 2021. Comparing written Indian Englishes with the new Corpus of Regional Indian Newspaper Englishes (CORINNE). ICAME Journal 45(1). 179–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar