Cover not available
Part of
A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating macro and micro dimensions
Edited by Goro Christoph Kimura and Lisa Fairbrother
[Studies in World Language Problems 7] 2020
► pp. 177–196

Chapter 9
Processes of destandardization and demotization in the micro-macro perspective

The case of Germanic languages

 | Charles University
The fact that the processes of language standardization can be interpreted in terms of language management has been well known for decades. However, this kind of language change should not be taken for a one-way process, because there is clear evidence of opposite processes in which the degree of standardization decreases. Some of these processes are called destandardization, others demotization (Auer & Spiekermann, 2011; Kristiansen & Coupland, 2011; Mattheier, 1997). This paper seeks to explore the differences between these concepts and to operationalize them for empirical research. To achieve these goals, it refers to different kinds of expectations, the phases of the language management process and micro-macro-perspectives, which are a part of language management theory (Nekvapil & Sherman, 2015; Fairbrother, Nekvapil & Sloboda, 2018).
Keywords: language expectations, standardization, destandardization, demotization, social agency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of the conceptual debate: Destandardization and demotization as processes related to language standardization
  • 3.The processual character of demotization and destandardization and their connection to sociocultural management
    • 3.1Demotization
    • 3.2Destandardization
    • 3.3Weakening the normative practices of language norm authorities
  • 4.Conclusion and suggestions for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.7.09dov
References (45)
References
Albrecht, J. (2005). Die Gemeinsprache als jüngstes Stadium der Nationalsprache [The common language as the most recent stage of the national language]. In A. Lenz, & K. Mattheier (Eds.), Varietäten – Theorie und Empirie [Varieties: Theory and empirical evidence] (pp. 127–140). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ammon, U. (2017). Grundbegriffe für plurizentrische Sprachen und ihre Operationalisierung – mit Bezug auf die deutsche Sprache und das “Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen” [Basic concepts for pluricentric languages and their operationalization: With regard to the German language and the “Dictionary of German variants”]. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 136, 5–21.Google Scholar
Ammon, U., Bickel, H., & Lenz, A. (Eds). (2016). Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz, Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien, Südtirol sowie Rumänien, Namibia und Mennonitensiedlungen [Dictionary of German variants. The standard language in Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, East Belgium, South Tyrol as well as Romania, Namibia and the Mennonite settlements]. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N., & Mackenzie, I. E. (2013). Standardization, ideology and linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (1997). Führt Dialektabbau zur Stärkung oder Schwächung der Standardvarietät? Zwei phonologische Fallstudien [Does the elimination of dialects strengthen or weaken the standard variety? Two phonological case studies]. In K. Mattheier, & E. Radtke (Eds.), Standardisierung und Destandardisierung europäischer Nationalsprachen [Standardization and destandardization of the European national languages] (pp. 129–161). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2017). The neo-standard of Italy and elsewhere in Europe. In M. Cerruti, C. Croco, & S. Marzo (Eds.), Towards a new standard: Theoretical and empirical studies on the restandardization of Italian (pp. 365–374). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Spiekermann, H. (2011). Demotisation of the standard variety or destandardisation? The changing status of German in late modernity. In T. Kristiansen, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe (pp. 161–176). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Biere, B. U. (1993). Schrift-los. Analphabetismus in Deutschland [Non-literate. Illiteracy in Germany]. Sprachreport, 2, 1–2.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (Ed). (1992). Pluricentric languages: Different norms in different countries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., & Kristiansen, T. (2011). SLICE: Critical perspective on language (de)standardization. In T. Kristiansen, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe (pp. 11–35). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. (2010). Imbodela zamakhumsha – Reflections on standardization and destandardization. Multilingua, 29(3 & 4), 243–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Meola, C. (2009). Rektionsschwankungen bei Präpositionen – erlaubt, verboten, unbeachtet [Variation in grammatical cases governed by prepositions: Permitted, forbidden, unnoticed]. In M. Konopka, & B. Strecker (Eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch [German grammar: Rules, norms, language use] (pp. 195–221). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dovalil, V. (2006). Sprachnormenwandel im geschriebenen Deutsch an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert [The change of language norms in written German on the threshold of the 21st century]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013a). Soziales Kräftefeld einer Standardvarietät als methodologischer Impuls für die Debatte über die Standardnormen [The social forces determining the standard variety as a methodological incentive for the debate on language norms] In K. Schneider-Wiejowski, B. Kellermeier-Rehbein, & J. Haselhuber (Eds.), Vielfalt, Variation und Stellung der deutschen Sprache [Diversity, variation and the position of the German language] (pp. 65–78). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Zur Auffassung der Standardvarietät als Prozess und Produkt von Sprachmanagement [On the conception of standard variety as a process and product of language management]. In J. Hagemann, W. P. Klein, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Pragmatischer Standard [The pragmatic standard] (pp. 163–176). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2015a). Language management theory as a basis for the dynamic concept of EU language law. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16, 360–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). The German standard variety at some universities in the Czech Republic in the light of decision-making processes of language management. In W. Davies, & E. Ziegler (Eds.), Language planning and microlinguistics (pp. 83–102). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Standard varieties of pluricentric languages: A language management approach. Working Papers in Language Management, 3. (URL: [URL]).
Elspaß, S. & Dürscheid, Ch. (2017). Areale Variation in den Gebrauchsstandards des Deutschen [Areal variation in the usage-based standards of German]. In M. Konopka, & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Grammatische Variation. Empirische Zugänge und theoretische Modellierung [Grammatical variation: Empirical approaches and theoretical modelling] (pp. 85–104). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J., & Sloboda, M. (Eds). (2018). The language management approach: A focus on research methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2011). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Havránek, B. (1947 & 1963). Demokratizace spisovného jazyka [Democratization of the standard language]. In B. Havránek (Ed.), Studie o spisovném jazyce [Studies on the standard language] (pp. 145–148). Praha: Československá akademie věd.Google Scholar
Kellermeier-Rehbein, B. (2013). Standard oder Nonstandard? Ungelöste Probleme der Abgrenzung [Standard or non-standard? Unresolved problems of delimitation]. In K. Schneider-Wiejowski, B. Kellermeier-Rehbein, & J. Haselhuber (Eds.), Vielfalt, Variation und Stellung der deutschen Sprache [Diversity, variation and the position of the German language] (pp. 3–22). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konopka, M. (2011). Grammatik verstehen lernen und korpusgestützte Analysen von Zweifelsfällen [Learning to understand grammar and the corpus-based analyses of unclear cases]. In K. M. Köpcke, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), Grammatik – Lehren, Lernen, Verstehen [Grammar: Teaching, learning, understanding] (pp. 265–285). Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, T., & Coupland, N. (Eds). (2011). Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Lehmkühler, A. (2015). Sprachliche Zweifelsfälle im sozialen Kräftefeld der bundesdeutschen Standardvarietät [Unclear cases of the social forces determining the standard variety in the FRG]. M. A. Thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2008). Rechtssoziologie [The sociology of law]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Mattheier, K. (1991). Standardsprache als Sozialsymbol. Über kommunikative Folgen gesellschaftlichen Wandels [Standard language as a social symbol. On the communicative consequences of the social change]. In R. Wimmer (Ed.), Das 19. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeschichtliche Wurzeln des heutigen Deutsch [The 19th century. The historical origins of contemporary German] (pp. 41–72). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Über Destandardisierung, Umstandardisierung und Standardisierung in modernen europäischen Standardsprachen [On destandardization, restandardization and standardization in modern European standard languages]. In K. Mattheier, & E. Radtke (Eds.), Standardisierung und Destandardisierung europäischer Nationalsprachen [The standardization and destandardization of the European national languages] (pp. 1–9). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2000). Die Herausbildung neuzeitlicher Schriftsprachen [The development of contemporary literary languages]. In W. Besch, O. Reichmann, & S. Sonderegger (Eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung [The history of language. A handbook on the history of the German language and its scholarly exploration] (pp. 1085–1107). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003). German. In A. Deumert, & W. Vandenbussche (Eds.), Germanic standardizations: Past to present (pp. 211–244). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language. Investigating standard English. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muhr, R. (2013). Codifying linguistic standards in non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages – adopting dominant or native norms? In R. Muhr, C. A. Negre, & C. F. Juncal (Eds.), Exploring linguistic standards in non-dominant varieties of pluricentric languages. Explorando estándares lingüísticos en variedades no dominantes de lenguas pluricéntricas (pp. 11–45). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2016). The state of the art of research on pluricentric languages: Where we were and where we are now. In R. Muhr (Ed.), Pluricentric languages and non-dominant varieties worldwide. Part I: Pluricentric languages across continents: Features and usage (pp. 13–37). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Muhr, R., & Marley, D. (Eds). (2015). Pluricentric languages: New perspectives in theory and description. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nekvapil, J. (2012). From language planning to language management: J. V. Neustupný‘s heritage. Media and Communication Studies, 63, 5–21.Google Scholar
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2015). An introduction: Language management theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neustupný, J. V. (2006). Sociolinguistic aspects of social modernization. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, Vol. 3.3. (pp. 2209–2223). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plewnia, A., & Witt, A. (Eds). (2014). Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation [Language decay? Dynamics – Change – Variation]. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandøy, H. (2013). Driving forces in language change – in the Norwegian perspective. In T. Kristiansen, & S. Grondelaers (Eds.), Language (de)standardization in late modern Europe: Experimental studies (pp. 125–151). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Schuppener, G. (2011). Alphabetisierung Erwachsener [Adult literacy]. In K. Knapp (Ed.), Angewandte Linguistik [Applied linguistics] (pp. 26–35). Tübingen and Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
Van Hoof, S. (2018). Civilization versus commerce: On the sociolinguistic effects of the deregulation of the TV market on Flemish public service broadcasting. Language Policy, 17, 199–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, R. (2007). De-standardization in the Dutch language territory at large. In C. Fandrych, & R. Salverda (Eds.), Standard, Variation und Sprachwandel in germanischen Sprachen [Standard, variation and language change in Germanic languages] (pp. 265–279). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Dovalil, Vít & Adriana Hanulíková
2023. Grammar and variation in the classroom. Pedagogical Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Dovalil, Vít
2022. Metalinguistic activities as a focus of sociolinguistic research: Language Management Theory, its potential, and fields of application. Sociolinguistica 36:1-2 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.