Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 95–134

Variation and change of plural verbs in Salzburg’s base dialects

 | University of Salzburg
 | University of Salzburg
 | University of Salzburg
This chapter focuses on variation and change in the inflectional morphology of plural verbs in Salzburg’s dialects over the past hundred years. We conducted a real-time trend survey (combined with an apparent-time study) as well as a real-time panel survey. Our results indicate an ongoing change: Whereas the three-form plural (1pl vs. 2pl vs. 3pl) is becoming less important, the use of the two-form plural (1pl = 3pl vs. 2pl) that is structurally similar to regional Bavarian vernaculars is strongly on the increase. Furthermore, the real-time panel survey shows a considerable range of inter- and intra-individual variation. Drawing on Complex Dynamic System Theory, we will argue that dialectologists systematically have to take intra-individual variation into account over different periods of time.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1IAV from a theoretical perspective
    • 2.2IAV from an empirical perspective
  • 3.Plural verbs in Bavarian dialects of Salzburg
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Survey procedures
    • 4.2Material and stimuli
    • 4.3Informants and locations
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Plural verb variation and change from the 1970/80s to today
      • 5.1.1Inter- and intra-individual variation in the 1970/80s
      • 5.1.2Variation and change from the 1970/80s to today: A real-time trend survey
    • 5.2Intra-individual variation over time
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 27 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.207.04bul
References (67)
References
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2009. The Morphology of English Dialects. Verb-formation in Non-standard English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blyth, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick, Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Tom. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas. 1987. Präteritopräsentia. Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Boyd, Sally & Fraurud, Kari. 2010. Challenging the homogeneity assumption in language variation analysis: Findings from a study of multilingual urban spaces. In Language and Space. An International Handbook on Linguistic Variation, Vol. 1: Theories and Methods, Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds), 686–706. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Budin, Gerhard, Elspaß, Stephan, Lenz, Alexandra N., Newerkla, Stefan M. & Ziegler, Arne. To appear. The Research Project (SFB) ‘German in Austria’. Variation – Contact – Perception. In Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung, Lars Bülow, Kristina Herbert & Ann-Kathrin Fischer (eds.), 187–211. Wien: Peter Lang.
Bülow, Lars. 2017. Sprachdynamik im Lichte der Evolutionstheorie. Für ein integratives Sprachwandelmodell. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Bülow, Lars, de Bot, Kees & Hilton, Nanna. 2017. Zum Nutzen der Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) für die Erforschung von Sprachvariation und Sprachwandel. In Räume, Grenzen, Übergänge. Akten des 5. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD), Helen Christen, Peter Gilles & Christoph Purschke (eds), 45–69. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Bülow, Lars & Wallner, Dominik. To appear. Inter- and intra-individual variation in Bavarian base dialects. The case of the verb sein. In Variationist Linguistics Meets Contact Linguistics, Alexandra Lenz & Mateusz Maselko (eds). Göttingen: Vienna University Press.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study on the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Ryan, Svare, Ragnar & Salmons, Joseph. 2012. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2: 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory. Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. & Trudgill, Peter. 2009. Dialectology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 1984. Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and their implications. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46: 49–70.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia & Bailey, Guy. 2013. Real time and apparent time. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds), 237–262. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje. 2011. Konjugationsklassenwandel. Prinzipien des Ab-, Um- und Ausbaus verbalflexivischer Allomorphie in germanischen Sprachen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees. 2015. A History of Applied Linguistics. From 1980 to the Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Bot, Kees, Lowie, Wander & Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2007. A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiÖ 2018 = Deutsch in Österreich. <[URL]> (25 April 2018).Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2011. The emergence of language as a complex adaptive system. In The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, James Simpson (ed.), 654–667. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2017. Geschichte, Anlage und Durchführung der Fragebogen-Erhebungen von Georg Wenkers 40 Sätzen. Dokumentation, Entdeckungen und Neubewertungen [Deutsche Dialektgeographie 123]. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine I. 2000. Does the Queen speak the Queen's English? Nature 408: 927–928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Agnes. 2019. Multilingual Lower Austria. Historical sociolinguistic investigations on Wenker’s questionnaires. In Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung, Lars Bülow, Kristina Herbert & Ann-Kathrin Fischer (eds). Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Koch, Günter. 2007. Sprachatlas von Niederbayern, Band 5: Verbum . Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2017. Complexity Theory. The lessons continue. In Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman [Language Learning & Language Teaching 48], Lourdes Ortega & ZhaoHong Han (eds), 11–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lessiak, Primus. 1963. Die Mundarten von Pernegg in Kärnten. Marburg: N.G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina & Nowak, Martin A. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449: 713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lord, Frederic M. & Novick, Melvin R. 1968. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lowie, Wander. 2017. Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in Complex Dynamic Theory approaches to second language development research. In Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman [Language Learning & Language Teaching 48], Lourdes Ortega & ZhaoHong Han (eds), 123–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauser, Peter. 1998. Die Morphologie im Dialekt des Salzburger Lungaus. Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. Dialektale Wortformen und Formsysteme. In Drent und herent. Dialekte im salzburgisch-bayerischen Grenzgebiet, Hannes Scheutz (ed.), 57–78. Salzburg: EuRegio.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Molenaar, Peter C. M. 2004. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology. This time forever. Measurement. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 2: 201–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology 50: 60–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Can psychology be a quantitative science, or is Kant right after all? Normative issues in psychometrics. In Norms in Human Development, Leslie Smith & Jacques Vonèche (eds), 211–219. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Molenaar, Peter C. M. & Campbell, Cynthia G. 2009. The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Trends in Psychology 18: 112–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris & Dammel, Antje. 2004. Relevanzgesteuerter morphologischer Umbau im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 126(2): 177–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann et al. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Überarbeitet von Thomas Klein, Hans-Joachim Solms und Klaus-Peter Wegera. Mit einer Syntax von Ingeborg Schöbler. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Penris, Wouters & Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2017. Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In Applied Linguistics and the Future: A Medley of Perspectives. Simone Pfenninger & Judit Navracsics (eds), 215–242. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rabanus, Stefan. 2004. Morphological change in German dialects. Two cases of plural verbs in Alemannic. In Language Variation in Europe. Papers from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, ICLaVE 2, Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Lena Bergström & Gerd Eklund (eds), 339–352. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Dialektwandel im 20. Jahrhundert: Verbalplural in Südwestdeutschland. In Moderne Dialekte – Neue Dialektologie. Akten des 1. Kongresses der internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD), Eckhard Eggers, Jürgen Erich Schmidt & Dieter Stellmacher (eds), 267–290. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
. 2008. Morphologisches Minimum. Distinktionen und Synkretisman im Minimalsatz hochdeutscher Dialekte. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
. 2010. Areal variation in morphology. In Language and Space. An International Handbook on Linguistic Variation, Vol. 1: Theories and Methods, Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds), 804–821. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 1997. Second language research in late modernity: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81(3): 329–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish Sounds and Linguistic Evolution. A Darwinian Approach to Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SAND = A Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects. <[URL]> (25 April 2018).Google Scholar
SAO = Sprachatlas von Oberösterreich. <[URL]> (16 August 2018).Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver. 2013. Syntaktische Auswertung von Wenkersätzen: Eine Fallstudie anhand von Verbstellungsphänomenen in den bairischen (und alemannischen) Dialekten Österreichs. In Strömungen in der Entwicklung der Dialekte und ihrer Erforschung. Beiträge zur 11. Bayerisch-Österreichischen Dialektologentagung in Passau, September 2010, Rüdiger Harnisch (ed.), 208–233. Regensburg: Edition Vulpes.Google Scholar
Scheutz, Hannes. 2007. Drent und herent. Dialekte im salzburgisch-bayerischen Grenzgebiet. Salzburg: EuRegio.Google Scholar
. 2016. Insre Sprochh. Deutsche Dialekte in Südtirol. Bozen: Athesia.Google Scholar
. 2017. Sprachatlas von Salzburg. <[URL]> (25 April 2018).Google Scholar
Schirmunski, Viktor M. 1962 [2010]. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich & Herrgen, Joachim. 2011. Sprachdynamik. Eine Einführung in die moderne Regionalsprachenforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1972 [1885]. On sound laws: Against the neogrammarians. In Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change. Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur (eds), 39–72. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
SNiB = Sprachatlas von Niederbayern. <[URL]> (25 April 2018).Google Scholar
SyHD = Syntax of Hessian Dialects <[URL]> (25 April 2018).Google Scholar
Siegler, Robert S. & Crowley, Kevin. 1991. The microgenetic method. A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist 46(6): 606–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geert, Paul. 2011. The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives 5(4): 273–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vergeiner, Philip. 2019. Kookkurrenz – Kovariation – Kontrast. Formen und Funktionen individueller Dialekt-/Standardvariation in Beratungsgesprächen an der Universität Salzburg. Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2017. Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 pedagogy. In Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman [Language Learning & Language Teaching 48], Lourdes Ortega & ZhaoHong Han (eds), 143–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, Ottmar. 1987. Natürlichkeit und Nutzen morphologischer Irregularität. In Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren, Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds), 289–316. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1983. Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte. In Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Zweiter Halbband [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.2], Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke & Herbert E. Wiegand (eds), 807–900. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 2007. Sociolinguistic myths in the study of African American English. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(4): 292–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt & Thomas, Erik. 2002. The Development of Afro-American English. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

O’Neill, Prof. Dr. Paul
2024. Monoglossic ideologies and the two-way relationship between linguistics and language learning/teaching: idiosyncratic variation in Brazilian Portuguese and its challenges for usage-based teaching.. Ampersand ► pp. 100198 ff. DOI logo
Vergeiner, Philip C. & Lars Bülow
2024. Zum Schwund des Präteritumschwunds bei sein und wollen . Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte 15:1 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Bülow, Lars & Simone E. Pfenninger
2021. Introduction: Reconciling approaches to intra-individual variation in psycholinguistics and variationist sociolinguistics. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s2 DOI logo
Bülow, Lars & Philip C. Vergeiner
2021. Intra-individual variation across the lifespan: Results from an Austrian panel study. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.