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. 187–195

Chapter 9
Pluricentricity AND pluriareality

Building the case for complementarity

ORCID logo | Ruhr University Bochum, Germany | University of Münster, Germany
ORCID logo | University of Münster, Germany | University of Campinas, Brazil
Moving beyond the contention which has characterized the pluricentricity and pluriareality debate, this summative chapter draws together the argumentative strands in the chapters in the volume to build the case for their complementarity. We show the various ways in which terminological differences, of geography and of sociolinguistics, have somewhat obscured the underlying similarities of these models, and highlight many of the key findings of this book’s contributors in doing so. The chapter ends by highlighting how some of the issues related to the pluri-concepts might lie in the different assumptions and foci of different linguistic paradigms, and with a request that further work on pluricentricity and pluriareality view the models as flexible constructs which can work together towards mutual benefits.
Keywords: pluricentricity, pluriareality, complementarity, epicenter, language variation, standard
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (22)
References
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
Clyne, Michael G. (ed.). 1992. Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google 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
Gries, Stefan T. & Tobias Bernaisch. 2016. Exploring epicentres empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 37(1). 1–25. 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
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
Mair, Christian. 2009. Corpus linguistics meets sociolinguistics: Studying educated spoken usage in Jamaica on the basis of the International Corpus of English. In Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds.), World Englishes — problems, properties and prospects: Selected papers from the 13th IAWE conference, 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
Muhr, Rudolf. 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
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
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
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
2018. World Englishes. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. 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