To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
Angewandte Linguistik und (Sprach-) Ideologien: einige grundsätzliche Fragen
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
In this paper, we first address the question of how language ideology research relates to similar research fields dealing with attitudes towards language (for example, attitude research, language awareness, folk linguistics). Then we suggest that not only language ideologies of non-linguists should be investigated, but also language ideologies of linguists, or rather the relation of these two types of ideologies to each other. (Whereby the question arises whether we are dealing with two fundamentally different ideology patterns at all.) Finally, the role of "ideology / ideologies" in general for applied linguistics will be briefly addressed, which can be very salient especially in the case of critical-applied approaches – but by far not only for these …
Im Allgemeinen interessieren sich angewandte Linguist:innen für folk ideologies, also für (Sprach-) Ideologien linguistischer Lai:innen; ganz selten geht es um Ideologien von Linguist:innen, ebenso wenig um das gegenseitige Verhältnis, das zwischen Linguist:innen- und folk Ideologien gesehen werden kann. Ähnliches lässt sich im Übrigen auch für die attitudes- und die language awareness-Forschung feststellen – auch hier stehen folk beliefs im Zentrum, so als ob Linguisten a prioriattitude- und ideologiefrei wären. Hier interferiert möglicherweise die nach wie vor verbreitete Vorstellung von Ideologie als „falschem (in diesem Fall: nicht-wissenschaftlichem) Bewusstsein" (Kopp / Steinbach 2018, 181; Woolard 1998, 7).
Ich sehe in diesem Zusammenhang drei Forschungsanliegen für die angewandte Linguistik: Erstens sollten Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen all den Ansätzen, die sich mit „metasprachlichen" (inzwischen meist „metapragmatisch" genannten) Äußerungen, Einstellungen, Überzeugungen von Lai:innen und Linguist:innen befassen, näher untersucht werden – dabei ist nämlich anzunehmen, dass es sich bei der Attitude-, Language Awareness-, Language Ideology-Forschung und auch bei Folk Linguistics (vgl. Wilton / Stegu 2011; Stegu et al. 2018) zu einem beträchtlichen Teil gar nicht um unterschiedliche Forschungsinteressen und -objekte handelt, sondern feststellbare Unterschiede vor allem durch die Zugehörigkeit zu verschiedenen research communitiesbedingt sind.
Zweitens: Wenn es eine Aufgabe Angewandter Linguistik ist, zwischen wissenschaftlichen und folk approaches zu vermitteln, müsste noch mehr über die Unterschiede zwischen diesen Ansätzen reflektiert werden (auch über die Grenzen einer solchen Unterscheidbarkeit) und gefragt werden, wo folk beliefs & ideologies als solche belassen werden können und wo sie hingegen durch angewandt-linguistische Expertise beeinflusst und modifiziert werden sollten.
Drittens: Zweifellos bedarf es ganz allgemein auch einer genaueren Auseinandersetzung mit (Nicht-nur-Sprach-) Ideologien von Linguist:innen, z. B. einerseits mit dem doch noch immer verbreiteten Ideologem, dass echte Wissenschaft ideologiefrei ist oder sein sollte, aber auch andererseits mit dem Faktum, dass sehr viele, vor allem kritische Linguist:innen sehr prononcierte ideologische Positionen vertreten – etwa im Bereich der Critical Discourse Analysis oder auch von Queer Linguistics (Stegu 2021), ohne dass die Rolle von stark und weniger stark ausgeprägten ideologischen Bestandteilen in der Angewandten Linguistik sehr oft aus einer grundsätzlichen, z. B. wissenschaftstheoretischen Perspektive diskutiert wird.
Hier handelt es sich um einen Beitrag, der vor allem Grundsatzfragen behandelt; zur Illustration sollen jedoch Beispiele aus den Bereichen genderfaire Sprache und Mehrsprachigkeit angeführt werden.
Bibliografie:
Kopp, Johannes / Steinbach, Anja (Hrsg.) 2018. Grundbegriffe der Soziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Stegu, Martin / Preston, Dennis R. / Finkbeiner, Claudia / Wilton, Antje. 2018. Panel discussion: language awareness vs. folk linguistics vs. applied linguistics. Language Awareness 27 (1-2), 186-196.
Stegu, Martin / Wilton, Antje 2011. Bringing the "folk" into applied linguistics: An introduction. AILA Review 24, 1-14.
Presenters Martin Stegu Professor (retiredI, Vienna University Of Economics And Business (WU)
Essentialism in nineteenth- and twentieth-century linguistics
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
In stark contrast to the development of linguistic research during the nineteenth century, the Cours de linguistique générale promotes a primacy of synchronic linguistics and introduces the idea of language as an abstract concept (langue) next to the observable linguistic usage (parole). This distinction has shaped linguistic thinking since the early twentieth century. My main claim is that this view is not compatible with empirical language data, but is motivated by eighteenth and nineteenth-century discourses about language (and reproduces them in a modernized guise). More generally, I wish to show that varying and changing discourse about linguistic essentialism is an example of the way long-term change of ideologies is based on implicit continuations of some of its crucial tropes. The discovery of the historicity of language(s) competes all through the nineteenth century with an essentialist stance on language which presupposes that languages are clearly definable entities and which is based on a conceptual unity both between 'language' and 'writing/literature' and between 'a language' and 'a nation'. As neither side argues completely isolated from the other, the two ideological strands eventually culminate in the claim that linguistics needs to take "deux routes absolument divergentes" (Saussure). While nobody would adhere to any such radical distinction nowadays, the distinctions between 'system' and 'usage' in linguistics still represents and reinforces that between languages as pre-given, natural (and, ultimately, political) entities and the underlying dynamics and fluidity of vernacular speaking practices. In spite of the complete absence of claims such as 'one nation has one language' within linguistics, I will show that several prevailing tenets in present-day linguistics – rather than resulting from observation – are consequences of exactly that essentialist thinking which emerged in the context of the European nation-building process. Deconstructing these ideological foundations which helped shaping twentieth-century linguistics will enable us to deal with a number of so far unsolved (untackled) questions. Examples are the language/dialect distinction and the definition and operationalization of 'well-formedness', but also the commonly accepted distinction between 'system' and 'usage' (langue / parole). My contribution will therefore provide evidence that an analytic deconstruction of language ideologies and meta-linguistic discourses will directly contribute to an enhanced understanding of the character and emergence of linguistic structures and should therefore be taken as an indispensable methodological tool in linguistic studies. References: von Mengden, Ferdinand & Britta Schneider. To appear 2022: Modern Linguistics – A Case of Methodological Nationalism? Language, History, Ideology: The Use and Misuse of Historical-Comparative Linguistics. Edited by Camiel Hamans and Hans Henrich Hock. Oxford: OUP. de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916 [1972]. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye. Avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Payothèque. Paris: Payot.
Playback interviews in research on language ideologies
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
Playback interviews were pioneered as a method in interactional sociolinguistics to elicit language users' retrospective commentary on linguistic practices (Gumperz 1982; Tannen 2005 [1984]). In the interview session, audio or video recordings of interactions are played back to the participants to ask them about their perceptions of the communicative moves that were made in these interactions. Research on language ideologies has hitherto neglected the potential that this form of interviewing bears in order to investigate how social actors position themselves vis-à-vis language use.
Drawing on theories that stem from linguistic anthropology, this contribution conceptualizes playback interviews as explicit metapragmatic discourse that (re-)contextualizes spatiotemporally separated interactional events, i.e. the recording of interactions and the interview, thus establishing interdiscursivity. By presenting examples of my own research on the co-construction of native speaker ideologies and ideologies of communicative competence in interactions of L1 and L2 users of Japanese, I demonstrate that playback interviews are a fruitful method to conduct research on language ideologies.
Playback interviews were pioneered in the 1980s as a method in interactional sociolinguistics to elicit language users' retrospective commentary on linguistic practices (Gumperz 1982; Tannen 2005 [1984]). In the interview session, the researcher plays back sequences of audio or video recordings of interactions to the participants to ask them about their perceptions of the communicative moves that were made in these interactions. Research on language ideologies has hitherto neglected the potential that this form of interviewing bears in order to investigate how social actors position themselves vis-à-vis language use, different styles, and how they evaluate the various resources in their linguistic repertoire. Drawing on theories that stem from linguistic anthropology, this contribution conceptualizes playback interviews as explicit metapragmatic discourse (Silverstein 1993) which allows participants to look back on and interpret their linguistic practices. In the course of the interview, participants may produce narratives in which they position themselves vis-à-vis their language use. Playback interviews are therefore a promising method to build a bridge between interactional practices and social structures, a central effort of research into language ideologies (Spitzmüller et al. 2021). On a theoretical level, I conceptualize playback interviews as a way to establish interdiscursivity between spatiotemporally separated interactional events, i.e., audio recordings of interactions and the interview. Performance and evaluation of communicative practices in the recordings are entextualized and socially enregistered, as social actors contextualize various indexical expressions in their interactions. In the next step, these expressions are de- and recontextualized within the interview. By giving a coherent account of how this interdiscursive process works, we can get an insight into how language ideologies emerge in interaction. Playback interviews, however, like any other form of interviewing, are also an interactional event and should be analyzed as such (Talmy 2010), to account for the researcher's own ideological positioning. Therefore, playback allows all participants in an interview setting to reflect on their linguistic behavior and may also be used in critical sociolinguistic research. In my contribution, I want to briefly introduce the history of playback interviews and conceptualize them as a form of retrospection and reflection. By presenting examples of my own research on the co-construction of native speakers ideologies and ideologies of communicative competence in interactions of L1 and L2 users of Japanese, I demonstrate that playback interviews are a promising method to conduct research on language ideologies. Specifically, I will analyze interactionally enregistered discursive elements in audio recordings and how the participants in these recordings reflect and interpret them in playback interview sessions. This contribution will therefore touch on methodological questions, such as how to conduct playback interviews, and develop a theoretical model to illustrate the process of contextualization and how interdiscursivity is established. References Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spitzmüller, Jürgen, Brigitta Busch & Mi-Cha Flubacher. 2021. Language ideologies and social positioning: The restoration of a "much needed bridge". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 272. 1–12. Talmy, Steven. 2010. Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 128–148. Tannen, Deborah. 2005 [1984]. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sprachideologien der Linguistik im Wandel? Die Fachdebatte über Frauensprache 1978/79
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
In my talk I am going to analyse changing language ideologies in German linguistics using the example of the debate on women's language in the linguistic journal Linguistische Berichte in 1978 and 1979. My argument is that research insight on language and gender were marginalised in German linguistics because they were seen to challenge or even threaten contemporary self-evident assumptions about what language is and about the role of linguistics. In the analysed debate, Hartwig Kalverkämper defended structuralist and descriptivist linguistic ideologies. This is especially interesting because the contribution by Selma Trömel-Plötz that he reacted to can be said to exhibit the same kind of ideological perspective. Only in a defence of Trömel-Plötz' position did Luise Pusch introduce a change in linguistic ideologies towards a pragmatic view of language.
In meinem Vortrag werde ich Sprachideologien innerhalb der Linguistik qualitativ untersuchen und damit einen Beitrag zur im Call aufgeworfenen Methodendiskussion leisten. In einer 4-Text-Diskursanalyse (vgl. Fix 2015) arbeite ich die expliziten und impliziten Aussagen über Sprache heraus, in dem ich Präsuppositionen und Implikaturen analysiere. Grundlage dafür bildet die Fachdebatte über Frauensprache in den Linguistischen Berichten in den Jahren 1978 und 1979, in der Senta Trömel-Plötz (1978), Hartwig Kalverkämper (1979a und 1079b) und Luise F. Pusch (1979) kontrovers und polemisch darüber stritten, ob Geschlecht ein Thema der Linguistik sei.
Die Debatte über Sprache und Geschlecht wurde und wird in der deutschsprachigen germanistischen Linguistik besonders heftig geführt (vgl. Acke 2022). Erkenntnisse der internationalen linguistischen und interdisziplinären Forschung über Sprache und Geschlecht haben sich erstaunlich lange nicht durchgesetzt bzw. keine Rolle gespielt. Bis auf weiteres gibt es in der Germanistik keine Professur, die dem Thema gewidmet wäre. Meine These ist, dass einer der Gründe hierfür ist, dass die Erkenntnisse über das Thema einen sprachideologischen Wandel voraussetzen bzw. mit diesem einhergehen, der in der Germanistik nicht zeitgleich vollzogen wurde wie beispielsweise in der englischsprachigen und skandinavischen Linguistik.
Die Fachdebatte in den Linguistischen Berichten kann als deutschsprachige „Ur-Debatte" über das Thema Sprache und Geschlecht bezeichnet werden. Darin wurden die strukturalistischen und streng deskriptivistischen ideologischen Annahmen der zeitgenössischen germanistischen Linguistik in Frage gestellt. Interessanterweise begann diese Infragestellung jedoch nicht mit dem Eröffnungstext von Trömel-Plötz zum Thema Frauensprache. Trömel-Plötz argumentierte strukturalistisch und damit gewissermaßen „innerideologisch". Dennoch sah Kalverkämper seine strukturalistischen Grundannahmen durch Trömel-Plötz' Beitrag bedroht, setzte zu einer Verteidigung an und damit die Infragestellung in Gang. Erst in Puschs Reaktion auf Kalverkämper verschoben sich dann sprachideologische Annahmen von einer Fokussierung auf das Sprachsystem hin zu einer perspektivisch-pragmatischen Vorstellung von Sprache als Handlung und Gebrauch. Obwohl Trömel-Plötz und Pusch im Anschluss an die Debatte noch zwei Sonderhefte der Zeitschrift herausgaben, blieb das Thema in der Germanistik und der deutschsprachigen Linguistik insgesamt marginal und die beiden Forscherinnen wurden marginalisiert. Sprachideologisch waren sie der Linguistik ihrer Zeit zu weit voraus. Um die sprachideologischen Grundannahmen nicht zu gefährden, wurde ihre Forschung ignoriert und lächerlich gemacht.
Literatur
Acke, Hanna (2022): Widerspruch einlegen. Sprachhandlungen zum Ausdruck von Widerspruch in einer linguistischen Kontroverse. In: Julia Nintemann und Cornelia Stroh (Hg.): Über Widersprüche sprechen. Linguistische Beiträge zu Contradiction Studies. Springer VS, S. 1–39.
Fix, Ulla (2015): Die EIN-Text-Diskursanalyse. Unter welchen Umständen kann ein einzelner Text Gegenstand einer diskurslinguistischen Untersuchung sein? In: Heidrun Kämper und Ingo H. Warnke (Hg.): Diskurs – interdisziplinär. Zugänge, Gegenstände, Perspektiven. De Gruyter, S. 317–334.
Kalverkämper, Hartwig (1979a): Die Frauen und die Sprache. In: Linguistische Berichte 62, S. 55–71.
Kalverkämper, Hartwig (1979a): QUO VADIS LINGUISTICA? – Oder: Der feministische Mumpsismus in der Linguistik. In: Linguistische Berichte 63, S. 103–107.
Pusch, Luise F. (1979): Der Mensch ist ein Gewohnheitstier, doch weiter kommt man ohne ihr. In: Linguistische Berichte 63, S. 84–102.
Trömel-Plötz, Senta (1978): Linguistik und Frauensprache. In: Linguistische Berichte 57, S. 49–68.
Language Ideologies in the German Discourse on Gendering
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
In the German-language discourse on gender fair language (called „gendering/Gendern" in the German speaking world), a decided pro and con prevails to a large extent, and both sides substantiate their stances also scientifically (Kotthoff 2020). The lecture will address the question of where and how the potentials for ideology are located in this discourse and could possibly be gradually stratified. What is the argumentative power of a theory of linguistic ideologies that lumps ideological potentials together (and scientific underpinnings along with them), as I take it from Blommaert (2006), for example? In the context of gendering in German, its different realizations and justifications, I would like to pursue a question concerning the gradability of ideology that Cavanaugh (2020) also raises.
In the German-language discourse on gender fair language (called „gendering/Gendern" in the German speaking world), a decided pro and con prevails to a large extent, and both sides substantiate their stances also scientifically (Kotthoff 2020). One side (contra gendering) argues, among other things, with Jakobson's markedness theory (Bayer 2019) and sets it as absolute (thus the criticism by Haspelmath 2006). The other side (pro) argues with results from psychological experimental research with context-free short texts (Stahlberg/Szessny 2001) and sometimes a strong linguistic relativism (Jakiela/Ouzier 2020 ), which directly relates the linguistic gender factor to women's labor market participation. So are both positions equally ideological? Does the ideologicity diminish if, for example, in the pro position, the reference of gender language to labor market participation is thought of in a more mediated way? Are there intermediate tones? The lecture will address the question of where and how the potentials for ideology are located in this discourse and could possibly be gradually stratified. What is the argumentative power of a theory of linguistic ideologies that lumps ideological potentials together (and scientific underpinnings along with them), as I take it from Blommaert (2006), for example? In the context of gendering in German, its different realizations and justifications, I would like to pursue a question concerning the gradability of ideology that Cavanaugh (2020) also raises.
Bayer, Josef (2019): „Sprachen wandeln sich immer, aber nie in Richtung Unsinn." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [10.04.2019]. Blommaert, Jan (2006): Language Ideology. In: Keith Brown (ed.): Encyclopedia of Language&Linguistics, 2nd edition.Vol. 6, pp. 510-522. Oxford: Elsevier. Cavanaugh, Jillian R. (2020): Language ideology revisited. Intern. Journal of the Sociology of Language 263. Haspelmath, Martin (2006): „Against markedness (and what to replace it with)." Journal of Linguistics 42/1: 25–70. Jakiela Pamela/Owen Ozier (2020): Gendered Language, Institut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. IZA Discussion Paper 13126. Kotthoff, Helga (2020): Gender-Sternchen, Binnen-I oder generisches Maskulinum, … (Akademische) Textstile der Personenreferenz als Registrierungen? Linguistik Online, 103(3), 105–127. Stahlberg, Dagmar/Sczesny, Sabine (2001): Effekte des generischen Maskulinums und alternativer Sprachformen auf den gedanklichen Einbezug von Frauen. In: Psychologische Rundschau 52/3, 131-140.
Attitudes towards Ruhrdeutsch: between stigma and prestige or from stigma to prestige?
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
Ruhrdeutsch is a regional variety spoken in the Ruhr Area, a polycentric and densely populated metropolitan region in the northwest of Germany with 5.1 mio inhabitants. Set in a culturally highly diverse area, it is one of the lesser researched regional varieties in Germany and not much is known about its evaluation and prestige. While some researchers point out that Ruhrdeutsch has been stigmatized for a long time (Mihm 1985), others like Bellamy (2016) note a tendency to revaluate Ruhrdeutsch. As these studies are based on rather small sets of data, this paper aims at a corpus-based investigation of the valorization of Ruhrdeutsch. Taking recent conversation-oriented developments in attitude studies into account (Tophinke/Ziegler 2006, 2014; Liebscher/Dailey-O'Cain 2009; König 2014), we adopt an interactional approach to explore how Ruhrdeutsch is perceived and to what extent it is associated with prestige. For the purpose of investigating the local and dynamic construction of attitude expressions, narrative interviews were conducted (N=130) with informants without and with a migration background (mostly Turkish and Arabic) to also give voice to those migrant groups who have shaped and are still shaping the social makeup of the Ruhr Area. Following the turn from attitude to stance, from the subjective to the intersubjective dimension, stance-analysis is employed (cf. Du Bois 2007; Couper-Kuhlen/Selting 2018; Imo/Ziegler 2022). The stance heuristic provides a fine-grained analytical tool for describing the dialogic character of attitude expressions and for investigating the different ways in which attitudes are encoded as epistemic, affective, deontic and/or style stances. The general aim is to identify patterns of stance-taking towards Ruhrdeutsch and how they relate to socio-demographic characteristics of the informants in order to answer the question whether Ruhrdeutsch is becoming socially accepted.
References
Bellamy, John (2016). Discussing Ruhrdeutsch: Attitudes towards Spoken German in the Ruhr Region. In Gisbert Rutten & Kristine Horner (eds), Metalinguistic Perspectives on Germanic Languages: European Case Studies from Past to Present. Oxford, 185-212.
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam, 139-182.
Imo, Wolfgang/Ziegler, Evelyn (2022). Migration in the Ruhr Area: Stance-taking and attitude expression in talk-in-interaction. In Anita Auer & Jennifer Thorburn (eds), Approaches to Migration, Language and Identity. Oxford, 71-111.
König, Katharina (2014). Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Liebscher, Grit/Dailey-O'Cain, Jennifer (2009). Language attitudes in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (2), 195-222.
Mihm, Arend (1985). Prestige und Stigma des Substandards. Zur Bewertung des Ruhrdeutschen im Ruhrgebiet. In Arend Mihm (ed.), Sprache an Rhein und Ruhr. Stuttgart, 163–193.
Tophinke, Doris/Ziegler, Evelyn (2014). Spontane Dialektthematisierung in der Weblogkommunikation: Interaktiv-kontextuelle Einbettung, semantische Topoi und sprachliche Konstruktionen. In Christina Cuonz & Rebekka Studler (eds), Sprechen über Sprache. Tübingen, 205-242.
Tophinke, Doris/Ziegler, Evelyn (2006). 'Aber bitte im Kontext': Neue Perspektiven in der dialektologischen Einstellungsforschung. In Anja Voeste & Joachim Gessinger (eds), Dialekt im Wandel. Perspektiven einer neuen Dialektologie. Duisburg, 203-222.
„Jetzt darf man ja gar nichts mehr sagen!“ Gesellschaftliche Sprachideologien und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Sprachgebrauch von Polizeibeamt:innen
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
Public media reports attracted notice to racism and discrimination in the police force, especially in recent years. Headlines such as „Hinweise aus den eigenen Reihen: Polizisten melden Rassismusverdacht" (27.07.2021) or „Bund und Ländern liegen laut ‚Spiegel' etwa 400 Fälle von möglichem rechtsextremen, rassistischen oder antisemitischen Verhalten vor" (07.08.2020) shaped the media landscape and led to the question of how widespread right-wing extremism in the German Police Authority is. In the public debate there are certain ideas about how language should be used in the police force. At the same time, it is recognized that professional groups are also developing their own language habits. Members of the police become insecure by the increased public awareness of discriminatory language and the accumulating accusations of extremism against the police, especially those who do not have right-wing extremist tendencies. The highly suspicious dictum "What can one say anyway?" thus becomes a real question, where the project of the 'Arbeitsstelle für linguistische Gesellschaftsforschung' (University of Magdeburg) on racist and discriminatory language, financed by the 'Ministerium für Inneres und Sport des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt' is attached to and which we would like to present as part of the symposium 'Sprachideologien im Wandel' [SYMP68].
Rassismus und Diskriminierung im Polizeiwesen sind vor allem in den letzten Jahren durch öffentlich-mediale Berichterstattungen in den Fokus gerückt worden. Schlagzeilen wie „Hinweise aus den eigenen Reihen: Polizisten melden Rassismusverdacht" (SZ, 27.07.2021) oder „Bund und Ländern liegen laut ‚Spiegel' etwa 400 Fälle von möglichem rechtsextremen, rassistischen oder antisemitischen Verhalten vor" (ZEIT, 07.08.2020) prägten die Medienlandschaft und führten zu der Frage, wie weit Rechtsextremismus in der deutschen Polizeibehörde verbreitet sei. In der öffentlichen Debatte herrschen bestimmte Vorstellungen, wie Sprachgebrauch in der Polizei zu sein hat, gleichwohl wird wahrgenommen, dass Berufsgruppen auch eigene Sprachgepflogenheiten entwickeln. Diese sind, da es sich um eine exekutive Staatsgewalt handelt, nicht mehr allein Angelegenheit der Berufsgruppe, sondern von öffentlichem Interesse. Aus dem wachsenden, öffentlichen Bewusstsein für diskriminierende Sprache, der damit einhergehenden Sensibilisierung und Häufung von Extremismusvorwürfen gegen die Polizei entsteht für die betroffenen Gruppenmitglieder – insbesondere für die Personen ohne rechtsradikale Tendenzen – Unsicherheit. Das geflügelte Wort „Was darf man denn überhaupt noch sagen" avanciert somit zu einer echten Frage. Einerseits verändern sich die gesellschaftlichen Sprachideologien, gleichzeitig müssen auch die Gruppenmitglieder auf diesen Diskurs reagieren und sich positionieren. An dieser Stelle setzt das vom ‚Ministerium für Inneres und Sport des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt' finanzierte Projekt der ‚Arbeitsstelle für linguistische Gesellschaftsforschung' an der Universität Magdeburg zu Rassistischer und diskriminierender Sprache an, welches wir im Rahmen des Symposiums ‚Sprachideologien im Wandel' vorstellen möchten. In diesem wissenschaftlichen Projekt mit anwendungsbezogenem Ansatz wird ein Workshop-Programm mit dem Ziel der Aufklärung über rassistische Sprache speziell für Polizeibeamte entwickelt. Das Projekt fußt auf der Untersuchung problemzentrierter Interviews mit Angehörigen der Polizeibehörde. Sie dienen „zur Sammlung und Rekonstruktion von Wissen über gesellschaftliche Problemlagen in der Perspektive der Interviewpartner*innen" (Witzel/Reiter 2021: 2). Die Auswertung dieser Daten steht im Mittelpunkt unseres Vortrags. Besonders relevant ist die Rollenzuschreibung der Interviewbeteiligten als Expert:innen: „Sie [die Interviewpartner:innen] liefern nicht nur ‚das Material' für Interpretationen, sondern können ‚ihre Problemsicht auch gegen die Forscherinterpretation und in den Fragen implizit enthaltenen Unterstellungen zur Geltung bringen' (Witzel 1982: 69)'" (Witzel/Reiter 2021: 2). Der aus der qualitativen Sozialforschung entlehnte Ansatz zur Beschaffung der Materialgrundlage wird durch die linguistische Analyse abgelöst. So werden Erfahrungsberichte und Situationsbeschreibungen deskriptiv nach der kognitiven Dimension, der affektiven Einstellung und der Intention (vgl. Hermanns 1995) untersucht. Die zuletzt genannte Ebene ist unerlässlich, wenn es um die Annäherung an eine Einordnung in intendierter vs. nicht-intendierter Rassismus geht. Die in den Erzählungen gewählten Begriffe und Äußerungen sind bedeutsam für das Denken und die Welterfassung der Sprachbenutzer:innen (vgl. Bachem 1979). Die qualitativen Befunde, die sich sowohl aus den Expert:innen-Interviews speisen als auch aus den Diskussionsergebnissen während der Workshops, bieten einen linguistisch beschreibbaren Einblick in eine Sprachgruppe und deren Sprachideologie.
Graumann, Carl-Friedrich/Wintermantel, Margret (2007): Diskriminierende Sprechakte. Ein funktionaler Ansatz. In Hannes Kuch, Sybille Krämer, Steffen K. Herrmann (Hrsg.): Verletzende Worte: Die Grammatik Sprachlicher Missachtung, S. 147-177.
Hermanns, Fritz (1995): Kognition, Emotion, Intention. Dimensionen lexikalischer Semantik. In: Gisela Harras (Hrsg.): Die Ordnung der Wörter. Kognitive und lexikalische Strukturen. S. 138-178.
Witzel, Andreas/Reiter, Herwig (2021): Das problemzentrierte Interview. SocArXiv. doi:10.31235/osf.io/uetq8 .
How to study language ideologies in recent history – retrospective interviews on French in post-war Saarland
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
In the post-war period from 1947 to 1956, the German-French border region of Saarland was an autonomous political entity with a strong orientation towards France. The government implemented measures to promote learning French from an early age onwards and to encourage adults to acquire or enhance their knowledge of the language. Since 2014, the regional government of Saarland has been intensifying efforts to promote multilingualism with a privileged position for French as part of its 'France strategy'. In current public debate, critics often refer back to the 1950s, drawing parallels to what they describe as 'forced Frenchification' (Krämer 2019, 59-65). This paper investigates the population's language ideologies and views of language policy and multilingualism during this period of time, not merely from written historical sources but from first-hand experience (see Milroy 2012 for foundations of historical research on language ideologies): How did students perceive the teaching and learning of French at the time? How do they recall the development of their own multilingual repertoire in their youth and the political framework of educational policy? Did the political background influence their attitudes towards French? In order to retrace language ideologies in retrospect, qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten informants who went to school in Saarland in the early 1950s (today aged 80 years and over). Along with findings and selected examples from the interview data, the paper addresses methodological issues related to an interview-based approach in this project: To what extent do language ideologies in the present reshape the interviewee's recollection of their metalinguistic experience several decades ago? (A question relevant to any historical work with contemporary witnesses, see Thießen 2011, and which deserves more discussion in sociolinguistics.) Are there any ethical limitations to this approach, for instance when the interview situation takes informants back to memories from their youth in a period of political or social conflicts and uncertainty? Most of the interviews were conducted via video call during the pandemic, the project therefore also lends itself to reflections about this type of fieldwork with informants at an advanced age. As a conclusion, the paper highlights potentials and limitations of interview data and fieldwork with contemporary witnesses for perspectives from recent history as an emerging aspect within the well-established framework of historical sociolinguistics ('zeithistorische Soziolinguistik', see e.g. Säily et al. 2017 for recent developments in the field).
References
Krämer, Philipp (2019): Französisch im Saarland – Einstellungen zu Mehrsprachigkeit und Sprachpolitik im Rahmen der Frankreichstrategie. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 129, 31-71. Milroy, James (2012): Sociolinguistics and Ideologies in Language History. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, 571–584. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell. Säily, Tanja, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin & Anita Auer (2017): The future of histor-ical sociolinguistics? In Säily, Tanja et al. (eds.), Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics, 1–19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thießen, Malte (2011): Zeitgeschichte als Zumutung und Zugabe: Praxis, Probleme und Po-tenziale einer besonderen Epoche (Oldenburger Universitätsreden 199), Oldenburg: BIS. Online: http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/1320/1/ur199.pdf.
Presenters Philipp Krämer Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
What does linguistic structure tell us about language ideologies? The case of majority language anxiety in Germany
Oral Presentation[SYMP68] Sprachideologien im Wandel08:30 AM - 04:15 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 06:30:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 14:15:00 UTC
Over the last decades, a number of sociolinguistic methods have been considered to be particularly suitable for uncovering patterns of language ideologies. These methods cover interviews, language biographies, questionnaires, or corpus-assisted discourse studies. However, linguistic structure is hardly ever recognized as a source that can provide insights into ideological patterns.
In this paper, I present a corpus study on the German of multilingual and monolingual speakers in formal communicative contexts and show that productions of these speaker groups indeed reflect underlying linguistic ideologies. To this end, I discuss differences in the language use of these speaker groups, focussing on morphological, phonological, and discourse pragmatic features. The empirical basis of the investigation is the German sub-corpus of the RUEG corpus (Wiese et al. 2020). The corpus comprises data from adult and adolescent monolingual and multilingual speakers with different heritage languages (Greek, Russian, and Turkish). The data were elicited using the language situation method (Wiese 2020) and thus led to linguistic productions in four communicative situations for each speaker: formal-spoken, formal-written, informal-spoken, and informal-written.
The data imply that multilingual speakers use more formal language markers and fewer informal language markers in formal registers than monolingual speakers. I argue that this is due to linguistic pressure caused by monolingual habitus (Gogolin 2002) and standard language ideology (Mattheier 1991) in Germany, which has a particularly strong impact on multilingual speakers. These ideological patterns might lead to majority language anxiety in multilingual speakers, a phenomenon similar to heritage language anxiety (Sevinç & Dewaele 2016). As additional evidence, I provide first results from four semi-structured pilot interviews that indicate a constant need for multilingual speakers to prove themselves as legitimate members of the German society through the use of standard German. Furthermore, the interviews bring to light that societal practices such as othering and racism contribute to the emergence of majority language anxiety.
References Davies, Winifred V. 2012. "Myths we live and speak by". In Matthias Hüning, Ulrike Vogl & Oliver Moliner (eds.), Standard languages and multilingualism in European history, 45 – 69. Gogolin, Ingrid. 2002. "Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: a challenge for educational research and practice". European Education and Research Journal 1(1): 123–138. Sevinç, Yeşim & Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2018. "Heritage language anxiety and majority language anxiety among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands". International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(2), 159-179. Wiese, Heike. 2020. "Language Situations: A method for capturing variation within speakers' repertoires". In Yoshiyuki Asahi (ed.), Methods in Dialectology XVI. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang [Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics], 105-117. Wiese, Heike, Alexiadou, Artemis, Allen, Shanley, Bunk, Oliver, Gagarina, Natalia, Iefremenko, Kateryna, Jahns, Esther, Klotz, Martin, Krause, Thomas, Labrenz, Annika, Lüdeling, Anke, Martynova, Maria, Neuhaus, Katrin, Pashkova, Tatiana, Rizou, Vicky, Tracy, Rosemarie, Schroeder, Christoph, Szucsich, Luka, Tsehaye, Wintai, Zerbian, Sabine, Zuban, Yulia. (2020): "RUEG Corpus (0.3.0) [Data set]". Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3765218.
Martin Stegu
Kathrin Hamann
Philipp Krämer
