Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Pluricentric language
View on WikipediaA pluricentric language or polycentric language is a language with several codified standard forms, often corresponding to different countries.[1][2][3][4] Many examples of such languages can be found worldwide among the most-spoken languages, including but not limited to Chinese in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore; English in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, India, Singapore, and elsewhere; and French in France, Canada, many African countries, and elsewhere.[5]
The converse case is a monocentric language, which has only one formally standardized version. Examples include Japanese and Russian.[6] In some cases, the different standards of a pluricentric language may be elaborated to appear as separate languages, e.g. Malaysian and Indonesian, Hindi and Urdu, while Serbo-Croatian is in an earlier stage of that process.[6]
Examples of varying degrees of pluricentrism
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2016) |
Arabic
[edit]Pre-Islamic Arabic can be considered a polycentric language.[7] In Arabic-speaking countries different levels of polycentricity can be detected.[8] Modern Arabic is a pluricentric language with varying branches correlating with different regions where Arabic is spoken and the type of communities speaking it. The vernacular varieties of Arabic include:
- Peninsular Arabic
- Hejazi Arabic (urban cities of western Saudi Arabia)
- Najdi Arabic (much of central Saudi Arabia)
- Omani Arabic
- Gulf Arabic (spoken around the coasts of the Persian Gulf in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, as well as parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Oman)
- Yemeni Arabic
- Levantine Arabic (spoken in the Levant region)
- Maghrebi Arabic (spoken in the Maghreb region)
- Mesopotamian Arabic
- Egyptian Arabic
- Sudanese Arabic, and many others.
In addition, many speakers use Modern Standard Arabic in education and formal settings. Therefore, in Arabic-speaking communities, diglossia is frequent.
Armenian
[edit]The Armenian language is a pluricentric language with two standard varieties, Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian, which have developed as separate literary languages since the eighteenth century.[9] Prior to this, almost all Armenian literature was written in Classical Armenian, which is now solely used as a liturgical language.[citation needed]
Eastern and Western Armenian can also refer to the two major dialectal blocks into which the various non-standard dialects of Armenian are categorized. Eastern Armenian is the official language of the Republic of Armenia. It is also spoken, with dialectal variations, by Iranian Armenians, Armenians in Karabakh (see Karabakh dialect), and in the Armenian diaspora, especially in the former Soviet Union (Russia, Georgia, Ukraine). Western Armenian is spoken mainly in the Armenian diaspora, especially in the Middle East, France, the US, and Canada.[citation needed]
Additionally, Armenian is written in two standard orthographies: classical and reformed Armenian orthography. The former is used by practically all speakers of Western Armenian and by Armenians in Iran, while the latter, which was developed in Soviet Armenia in the 20th century, is used in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.[citation needed]
Catalan
[edit]In the modern era, Catalan is a pluricentric language with differences primarily in pronunciation and vocabulary. This language is internationally known as Catalan, as in Ethnologue. This is also the most commonly used name in Catalonia, but also in Andorra and the Balearic Islands, probably due to the prestige of the Central Catalan dialect spoken in and around Barcelona.[citation needed] However, in the Valencian Community, the official name of this language is Valencian. One reason for this is political (see Serbo-Croatian for a similar situation), but this variant does have its own literary tradition that dates back to the Reconquista.[citation needed]
Although mutually intelligible with other varieties of Catalan, Valencian has lexical peculiarities and minor differences in its spelling rules, which are set out by the Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua since 1998.[10][need quotation to verify] However, this institution recognizes that Catalan and Valencian are varieties of the same language. For their part, there are specific varieties in the two major Balearic islands, Mallorcan (Catalan: mallorquí) in Mallorca, Menorcan (menorquí) in Menorca, Ibizan (eivissenc) in Ibiza.[citation needed]
Chinese
[edit]Until the mid-20th century, most Chinese people spoke only their local varieties of Chinese. These varieties had diverged widely from the written form used by scholars, Literary Chinese, which was modelled on the language of the Chinese classics. As a practical measure, officials of the Ming and Qing dynasties carried out the administration of the empire using a common language based on northern varieties, known as Guānhuà (官話, literally "speech of officials"), known as Mandarin in English after the officials. Knowledge of this language was thus essential for an official career, but it was never formally defined.[11]
In the early years of the 20th century, Literary Chinese was replaced as the written standard by written vernacular Chinese, which was based on northern dialects. In the 1930s, a standard national language Guóyǔ (國語, literally "national language") was adopted, with its pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect, but with vocabulary also drawn from other northern varieties.[12] After the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the standard was known as Pǔtōnghuà (普通话/普通話, literally "common speech"), but was defined in the same way as Guóyǔ in the Republic of China now governing Taiwan.[11] It also became one of the official languages of Singapore, under the name Huáyǔ (华语/華語, literally "Chinese language").
Although the three standards remain close, they have diverged to some extent. Most Mandarin speakers in Taiwan and Singapore came from the southeast coast of China, where the local dialects lack the retroflex initials /tʂ tʂʰ ʂ/ found in northern dialects, so that many speakers in those places do not distinguish them from the apical sibilants /ts tsʰ s/. Similarly, retroflex codas (erhua) are typically avoided in Taiwan and Singapore. There are also differences in vocabulary, with Taiwanese Mandarin absorbing loanwords from Min Chinese, Hakka Chinese, and Japanese, and Singaporean Mandarin borrowing words from English, Malay, and southern varieties of Chinese.[13][14]
Eastern South Slavic (Bulgarian–Macedonian–Torlakian (Gorani)–Paulician (Banat))
[edit]Some linguists and scholars, mostly from Bulgaria and Greece, but some also from other countries,[15][16] consider Eastern South Slavic to be a pluricentric language with four standards: Bulgarian (based on the Rup, Balkan and Moesian ("Eastern Bulgarian") dialects), Macedonian (based on the Western and Central Macedonian dialects), Gorani (based on the Torlakian dialects), and Paulician (including Banat Bulgarian).[17] Politicians and nationalists from Bulgaria are likely to refer to this entire grouping as 'Bulgarian', and to be particularly hostile to the notion that Macedonian is an autonomous language separate from Bulgarian, which Macedonian politicians and citizens tend to claim.[17] As of 2021, the hypothesis that Eastern South Slavic, 'Greater Bulgarian', 'Bulgaro-Macedonian', or simply 'Bulgarian', is a pluricentric language with several mutually intelligible official standards in the same way that Serbo-Croatian is, and Czechoslovak used to be,[clarification needed] has not yet been fully developed in linguistics; it is a popular idea in Bulgarian politics, but an unpopular one in North Macedonia.[17]
English
[edit]English is a pluricentric language,[18][19] with differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling, etc., between each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, North America, the Caribbean, Ireland, English-speaking African countries, Singapore, India, and Oceania. Educated native English speakers using their version of one of the standard forms of English are almost completely mutually intelligible, but non-standard forms present significant dialectal variations, and are marked by reduced intelligibility.[citation needed]
British and American English are the two most commonly taught varieties in the education systems where English is taught as a second language. British English tends to predominate in Europe and the former British colonies of the West Indies, Africa, and Asia, where English is not the first language of the majority of the population. (The Falkland Islands, a British territory off the southeast coast of South America with English as its native language, have their own dialect, while British English is the standard.) In contrast, American English tends to dominate instruction in Latin America and East Asia.[20][21]
Due to globalisation and the resulting spread of the language in recent decades, English is becoming increasingly decentralised, with daily use and statewide study of the language in schools growing in most regions of the world. However, in the global context, the number of native speakers of English is much smaller than the number of non-native speakers of English of reasonable competence. In 2018, it was estimated that for every native speaker of English, there are six non-native speakers of reasonable competence,[22] raising the questions of English as a lingua franca as the most widely spoken form of the language. Philippine English (which is predominantly spoken as a second language) has been primarily influenced by American English. The rise of the call center industry in the Philippines has encouraged some Filipinos to "polish" or neutralize their accents to make them more closely resemble the accents of their client countries.[citation needed]
Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have their own well-established varieties of English which are the standard within those countries but are far more rarely taught overseas to second language learners.[23] (Standard English in Australia and New Zealand is related to British English in its common pronunciation and vocabulary; a similar relationship exists between Canadian English and American English.) English was historically pluricentric when it was used across the independent kingdoms of England and Scotland prior to the Acts of Union in 1707. English English and Scottish English are now subsections of British English.[citation needed]
French
[edit]In the modern era, there are several major loci of the French language, including Standard French (also known as Parisian French), Canadian French (including Quebec French and Acadian French), Belgian French, American French (for instance, Louisiana French), Haitian French, and African French. Until the early 20th century, the French language was highly variable in pronunciation and vocabulary within France, with varying dialects and degrees of intelligibility, the langues d'oïl. However, government policy made it so that the dialect of Paris would be the method of instruction in schools, and other dialects, like Norman, which has influence from Scandinavian languages, were neglected. Controversy still remains in France over the fact that the government recognizes them as languages of France, but provides no monetary support for them nor has the Constitutional Council of France ratified the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[citation needed]
North American French is the result of French colonization of the New World between the 17th and 18th centuries. In many cases, it contains vocabulary and dialectal quirks not found in Standard Parisian French owing to history: most of the original settlers of Quebec, Acadia, and later what would become Louisiana and northern New England came from Northern and Northwest France, and would have spoken dialects like Norman, Poitevin, and Angevin with far fewer speaking the dialect of Paris. This, plus isolation from developments in France, most notably the drive for standardization by L'Académie française, make North American dialects of the language quite distinct. Acadian French, spoken in New Brunswick, Canada, has many words no longer used in modern France, much of it having roots in the 17th century, and a distinct intonation. Québécois, the largest of the dialects, has a distinct pronunciation that is not found in Europe in any measure and a greater difference in vowel pronunciation, and syntax tends to vary greatly.[citation needed]
Cajun French has some distinctions not found in Canada in that there is more vocabulary derived from both local Native American and African dialects and a pronunciation of the letter r that has disappeared in France entirely. It is rolled, and with heavier contact with the English language than any of the above the pronunciation has shifted to harder sounding consonants in the 20th century. Cajun French equally has been an oral language for generations and it is only recently that its syntax and features been adapted to French orthography.[citation needed]
Minor standards can also be found in Belgium and Switzerland, with particular influence of Germanic languages on grammar and vocabulary, sometimes through the influence of local dialects. In Belgium, for example, various Germanic influences in spoken French are evident in Wallonia (for example, to blink in English, and blinken in German and Dutch, blinquer in Walloon and local French, cligner in standard French). Ring (rocade or périphérique in standard French) is a common word in the three national languages for beltway or ring road.[citation needed]
Also, in Belgium and Switzerland, there are noted differences in the number system when compared to standard Parisian or Canadian French, notably in the use of septante, octante/huitante and nonante for the numbers 70, 80 and 90. In other standards of French, these numbers are usually denoted soixante-dix (sixty-ten), quatre-vingts (fourscore) and quatre-vingt-dix (fourscore-and-ten). French varieties spoken in Oceania are also influenced by local languages. New Caledonian French is influenced by Kanak languages in its vocabulary and grammatical structure. African French is another variety.[citation needed]
German
[edit]Standard German is often considered an asymmetric pluricentric language;[24] the standard used in Germany is often considered dominant, mostly because of the sheer number of its speakers, compared to the Austrian Standard German and Swiss Standard German varieties. Although there is a uniform stage pronunciation based on a manual by Theodor Siebs that is used in theatres, and, nowadays to a lesser extent, in radio and television news all across German-speaking countries, this is not true for the standards applied at public occasions in Austria, South Tyrol and Switzerland, which differ in pronunciation, vocabulary, and sometimes even grammar. (In Switzerland, the letter ß has been removed from the alphabet, with ss as its replacement.) The varieties of Standard German used in those regions are to some degree influenced by the respective dialects (but by no means identical to them), by specific cultural traditions (e.g. in culinary vocabulary, which differs markedly across the German-speaking area of Europe), and by different terminology employed in law and administration. A list of Austrian terms for certain food items has even been incorporated into EU law, even though it is clearly incomplete.[25] Scholarly scepticism in German dialectology about the pluricentric status of German has led some linguists to detect a One Standard German Axiom (OSGA) as active in the field.
Hindustani
[edit]The Hindi languages are a large dialect continuum defined as a unit culturally. Medieval Hindustani (then known as Hindavi[26]) was based on a register of the Delhi dialect and has two modern literary forms, Standard Hindi and Standard Urdu. Additionally, there are historical literary standards, such as the closely related Braj Bhasha and the more distant Awadhi, as well as recently established standard languages based on what were once considered Hindi dialects: Maithili and Dogri. Other varieties, such as Rajasthani, are often considered distinct languages but have no standard form. Caribbean Hindi and Fijian Hindi also differ significantly from the Sanskritized standard Hindi spoken in India.[citation needed]
Malay
[edit]The Malay language has many local dialects and creolized versions, but it has two main normative varieties which are Malaysian and Indonesian: Indonesian is codified by Indonesia as its own lingua franca based on the dialect spoken in Riau Islands, whereas Malaysia codifies Malaysian based on the vernacular dialect of Johor.[27] Thus, both lects have the same dialectal basis, and linguistic sources still tend to treat the standards as different forms of a single language.[28] In popular parlance, however, the two varieties are often thought of[by whom?] as distinct tongues in their own rights due to the growing divergence between them and for political reasons. Nevertheless, they retain a high degree of mutual intelligibility despite a number of differences in vocabulary (including many false friends) and grammar.[citation needed]
Malayalam
[edit]Malayalam is a pluricentric language with historically more than one written form. Malayalam script is officially recognized, but there are other standardized varieties such as Arabi Malayalam of Mappila Muslims, Karshoni of Saint Thomas Christians and Judeo-Malayalam of Cochin Jews.[citation needed]
Persian
[edit]The Persian language has three standard varieties with official status in Iran (locally known as Farsi), Afghanistan (officially known as Dari), and Tajikistan (officially known as Tajik). The standard forms of the three are based on the Tehrani, Kabuli, and Dushanbe varieties, respectively.[citation needed]
The Persian alphabet is used for both Farsi (Iranian) and Dari (Afghan). Traditionally, Tajiki is also written with Perso-Arabic script. In order to increase literacy, a Latin alphabet (based on the Common Turkic Alphabet) was introduced in 1917. Later in the late 1930s, the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic promoted the use of Cyrillic alphabet, which remains the most widely used system today. Attempts to reintroduce the Perso-Arabic script were made.[29]
The language spoken by Bukharan Jews is called Bukhori (or Bukharian), and is written in Hebrew alphabet.
Portuguese
[edit]Apart from the Galician question, Portuguese varies mainly between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese (also known as "Lusitanian Portuguese", "Standard Portuguese" or even "Portuguese Portuguese"). Both varieties have undergone significant and divergent developments in phonology and the grammar of their pronominal systems. The result is that communication between the two varieties of the language without previous exposure can be occasionally difficult, although speakers of European Portuguese tend to understand Brazilian Portuguese better than vice versa, due to the heavy exposure to music, soap operas etc. from Brazil. Word ordering can be dramatically different between European and Brazilian Portuguese, without significantly hampering mutual intelligibility.[30]
A unified orthography for all the varieties (including a limited number of words with dual spelling) has been approved by the national legislatures of the Portuguese-speaking countries and is now official; see Spelling reforms of Portuguese for additional details. Formal written standards remain grammatically close to each other, despite some minor syntactic differences.
African Portuguese and Asian Portuguese are based on the standard European dialect, but have undergone their own phonetic and grammatical developments, sometimes reminiscent of the spoken Brazilian variant. A number of creoles of Portuguese have developed in African countries, for example in Guinea-Bissau and on the island of São Tomé.[30]
Serbo-Croatian
[edit]Serbo-Croatian is a pluricentric language[31] with four standards (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian) promoted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia.[32][33][34][35][36][37] These standards do differ slightly, but do not hinder mutual intelligibility.[38][39][40][41][42][43] Rather, as all four standardised varieties are based on the prestige Shtokavian dialect, major differences in intelligibility are identified not on the basis of standardised varieties, but rather dialects, like Kajkavian and Chakavian.[35] "Lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible."[37]
Spanish
[edit]Spanish has both national and regional linguistic norms, which vary in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, but all varieties are mutually intelligible and the same orthographic rules are shared throughout.[44]
In Spain, Standard Spanish is based upon the speech of educated speakers from Madrid.[45] All varieties spoken in the Iberian Peninsula are grouped as Peninsular Spanish. Canarian Spanish (spoken in the Canary Islands), along with Spanish spoken in the Americas (including Spanish spoken in the United States, Central American Spanish, Mexican Spanish, Andean Spanish, and Caribbean Spanish), are particularly related to Andalusian Spanish.
The United States is now the world's second-largest Spanish-speaking country after Mexico in total number of speakers (L1 and L2 speakers). A report said there are 41 million L1 Spanish speakers and another 11.6 million L2 speakers in the U.S. This puts the US ahead of Colombia (48 million) and Spain (46 million) and second only to Mexico (121 million).[46]
The Spanish of Latin Americans has a growing influence on the language across the globe through music, culture and television produced using the language of the largely bilingual speech community of US Latinos.[47][48][49]
In Argentina and Uruguay the Spanish standard is based on the local dialects of Buenos Aires and Montevideo. This is known as Rioplatense Spanish, (from Rio de la Plata (River Plate)) and is distinguishable from other standard Spanish dialects by voseo. In Colombia, Rolo (a name for the dialect of Bogotá) is valued for its clear pronunciation.[50] The Judeo-Spanish (also known as Ladino; not to be confused with Latino) spoken by Sephardi Jews can be found in Israel and elsewhere; it is usually considered a separate language.[citation needed]
Swedish
[edit]Two varieties exist,[citation needed] though only one written standard remains (regulated by the Swedish Academy of Sweden): Rikssvenska (literally "Realm Swedish", also less commonly known as "Högsvenska", 'High Swedish' in Finland), the official language of Sweden, and Finlandssvenska which, alongside Finnish, is the other official language of Finland. There are differences in vocabulary and grammar, with the variety used in Finland remaining a little more conservative. The most marked differences are in pronunciation and intonation: Whereas Swedish speakers usually pronounce the so-called "tj-sound" as [ɕ], this phoneme is usually pronounced by a Swedo-Finn as [t͡ʃ]; in addition, the two tones that are characteristic of Swedish (and Norwegian) are absent from most Finnish dialects of Swedish, which have an intonation reminiscent of Finnish and thus sound more monotonous when compared to Rikssvenska.
There are dialects that could be considered different languages due to long periods of isolation and geographical separation from the central dialects of Svealand and Götaland that came to constitute the base for the standard Rikssvenska. Dialects such as Elfdalian, Jamtlandic, and Gutnish all differ as much, or more, from standard Swedish than the standard varieties of Danish. Some of them have a standardized orthography, but the Swedish government has not granted any of them official recognition as regional languages and continues to look upon them as dialects of Swedish. Most of them are severely endangered and spoken by elderly people in the countryside.
Tamil
[edit]The vast majority of Tamil speakers reside in southern India, where it is the official language of Tamil Nadu and of Puducherry, and one of 22 languages listed in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is also one of two official languages in Sri Lanka, one of four official languages in Singapore, and is used as the medium of instruction in government-aided Tamil primary schools in Malaysia. Other parts of the world have Tamil-speaking populations, but are not loci of planned development.[51]
Tamil is diglossic, with the literary variant used in books, poetry, speeches and news broadcasts while the spoken variant is used in everyday speech, online messaging and movies. While there are significant differences in the standard spoken forms of the different countries, the literary register is mostly uniform, with some differences in semantics that are not perceived by native speakers. There has been no attempt to compile a dictionary of Sri Lankan Tamil.[52]
As a result of the Pure Tamil Movement, Indian Tamil tends to avoid loanwords to a greater extent than Sri Lankan Tamil. Coinages of new technical terms also differ between the two.[53] Tamil policy in Singapore and Malaysia tends to follow that of Tamil Nadu regarding linguistic purism and technical coinages.[54]
There are some spelling differences, particularly in the greater use of Grantha letters to write loanwords and foreign names in Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia. The Tamil Nadu script reform of 1978 has been accepted in Singapore and Malaysia, but not Sri Lanka.[55]
Others
[edit]- Standard Irish (Gaeilge), Scottish Gaelic and possibly Manx can be viewed as three standards arisen through divergence from the Classical Gaelic norm via orthographic reforms.
- Komi, a Uralic language spoken in northeastern European Russia, has official standards for its Komi-Zyrian and Komi-Permyak dialects.
- Kurdish language has two main literary norms: Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) and Sorani (Central Kurdish). The Zaza–Gorani languages, spoken by some Kurds, are occasionally considered to be Kurdish as well, despite not being mutually intelligible.[citation needed]
- For most of its history, Hebrew did not have a center. The grammar and lexicon were dominated by the canonical texts, but when the pronunciation was standardised for the first time, its users were already scattered. Therefore, three main forms of pronunciations developed, particularly for the purpose of prayer: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Temani. When Hebrew was revived as a spoken language, there was a discussion about which pronunciation should be used. Ultimately, the Sephardi pronunciation was chosen even though most of the speakers at the time were of Ashkenazi background, because it was considered more authentic. The standard Israeli pronunciation of today is not Identical to the Sephardi, but is somewhat of a merger with Ashkenazi influences and interpretation. The Ashkenazi pronunciation is still used in Israel by Haredim in prayer and by Jewish communities outside of Israel.
- Lao and Isan, the situation in Thailand is in stark contrast to Laos where the Lao language is actively promoted as a language of national unity. Laotian Lao people are very conscious of their distinct, non-Thai language and although influenced by Thai-language media and culture, strive to maintain 'good Lao'. Although spelling has changed, the Lao speakers in Laos continue to use a modified form of the Tai Noi script, the modern Lao alphabet.[56]
- Norwegian consists of a multitude of spoken dialects displaying a great deal of variation in pronunciation and (to a somewhat lesser extent) vocabulary, with no officially recognized "standard spoken Norwegian" (but see Urban East Norwegian). All Norwegian dialects are mutually intelligible to a certain extent. There are two written standards: Bokmål, "book language", based on Danish (Danish and Norwegian Bokmål are mutually intelligible languages with significant differences primarily in pronunciation rather than vocabulary or grammar), and Nynorsk, "Modern [lit. New] Norwegian", based primarily on rural Norwegian dialects.
- Pashto has three official standard varieties: Central Pashto, which is the most prestigious[citation needed] standard dialect (also used in Kabul), Northern Pashto, and Southern Pashto.
- Romance languages
- Gallo-Italian languages include a great variety of dialects, some mutually unintelligible, and various written standards unrecognised both by Italy and Switzerland. Lombard, Piedmontese, Friulian and Istriot orthographies exist, with varying degrees of territorial specificity.
- Romanian in Romania and that in Moldova during the Soviet era, but nowadays, Romania and Moldova use the same standard of Romanian.
- Sardinian consists of a conglomerate of spoken dialects, displaying a significant degree of variation in phonetics and sometimes vocabulary. The Spanish subdivision of Sardinia into two administrative areas led to the emergence of two separate orthographies, Logudorese and Campidanese, as standardized varieties of the same language.
- Ukrainian and Rusyn (Priashiv (Prešov), Lemko, Pannonian) are either considered to be standardized varieties of the same language or separate languages.
- Dutch is considered pluricentric with recognised varieties in Suriname, ABC Islands, Belgium and the Netherlands.
- Papiamento is pluricentric with two standardised orthographies, one used on the island of Aruba and the other on the islands of Curaçao and Bonaire. The Aruban orthography is more etymological in nature, while the other is more phonemic. Among the differences between the two standards, one obvious difference is the way the name of the language is written. In Aruba it is written Papiamento, while in Curaçao and Bonaire it is written Papiamentu. The governments of Curaçao and Aruba formally standardised orthographic rules in 1976 and 1977, respectively.[57][58]
- The Albanian language has two main varieties Gheg and Tosk. Gheg is spoken to the north and Tosk spoken to the south of the Shkumbin river. Standard Albanian is a standardised form of spoken Albanian based on Tosk.
- The Belarusian language features two orthographic standards: official Belarusian, sometimes referred to as Narkamaŭka, and Taraškievica, also known as "classical orthography". The division stems from 1933 reform believed by some to be an attempt to artificially similarize Belarusian and Russian languages. Originally, these standards differed only in written form, but due to Taraškievica being widely used among Belarusian diaspora, it grew some distinct orthoepic features, as well as differences in vocabulary.
- Afrikaans varieties of South Africa and Namibia.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Stewart 1968, p. 534.
- ^ Kloss 1967, p. 31.
- ^ Clyne 1992, p. 1.
- ^ Kordić 2024, p. 169.
- ^ Clyne 1992, pp. 1–3.
- ^ a b Clyne 1992, p. 3.
- ^ Abd-el-Jawad 1992, p. 262.
- ^ Abd-el-Jawad 1992, p. 271.
- ^ Dum-Tragut, Jasmine (2009). Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. xiii, 1. ISBN 978-9027238146. OCLC 932596142.
- ^ Esteve Valls Alecha; Martijn Wieling (2024). "Towards a social dialectometry: the analysis of internal border effects". Estudos de Lingüística Galega. 16: 1–27. doi:10.15304/elg.16.9725.
- ^ a b Norman, Jerry (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–137. ISBN 978-0-521-29653-3.
- ^ Ramsey, S. Robert (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. pp. 3–15. ISBN 978-0-691-01468-5.
- ^ Bradley, David (1992). "Chinese as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G. (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 305–324. ISBN 978-3-11-012855-0.
- ^ Chen, Ping (1999). Modern Chinese: History and sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 46–49. ISBN 978-0-521-64572-0.
- ^ Language profile Macedonian Archived 11 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine, UCLA International Institute
- ^ Poulton, Hugh (2000). Who are the Macedonians?. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-85065-534-3.
- ^ a b c Kamusella, Tomasz (17 June 2021). Politics and the Slavic Languages. Routledge. p. 125. ISBN 9781000395990. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
- ^ Crystal, David (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell.
- ^ Matthews, P.H. (2007). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Yuko Goto Butler. "How Are Nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers Perceived by Young Learners?" TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 41, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 731–755.
- ^ Timothy J. Riney, Naoyuki Takagi & Kumiko Inutsuka. "Phonetic Parameters and Perceptual Judgments of Accent in English by American and Japanese Listeners." TESOL Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 441–466
- ^ Dollinger, Stefan (2019). "Creating Canadian English". Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK: 18.
- ^ Leitner, Gerhard (1992). Clyne, Michael (ed.). English as a pluricentric language. Berlin: Mouton. p. 208.
- ^ Ammon 1995, pp. 484–499.
- ^ "Protokoll Nr. 10 über die Verwendung spezifisch österreichischer Ausdrücke der deutschen Sprache im Rahmen der Europäischen Union" [Protocol number 10 on the usage of specific Austrian terms of the German language within the European Union] (PDF) (in German). European Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 13 November 2015.
- ^ Shaban, Abdul. "Urdu and Urdu Medium Schools in Maharashtra." Economic & Political Weekly 50.29 (2015): 47.
- ^ Asmah Haji Omar (1992). Malay as a pluricentric language. pp. 413–417, in Clyne 1992.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - ^ An example of equal treatment of Malaysian and Indonesian: the Pusat Rujukan Persuratan Melayu database from the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka has a "Istilah MABBIM" section dedicated to documenting Malaysian, Indonesian and Bruneian official terminologies: see example
- ^ 'Tajikistan to use Persian alphabet,' Iranian website says. Tajikistan News ASIA-Plus. Published 3 May 2008, retrieved 9 April 2019.
- ^ a b Wetzels, W. Leo; Menuzzi, Sergio; Costa, João (7 April 2016). The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons.
- ^ Kordić 2024, p. 168–169.
- ^ Mørk, Henning (2002). Serbokroatisk grammatik: substantivets morfologi [Serbo-Croatian Grammar: Noun Morphology]. Arbejdspapirer ; vol. 1 (in Danish). Århus: Slavisk Institut, Århus Universitet. p. unpaginated (Preface). OCLC 471591123.
- ^ Brozović, Dalibor (1992). "Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 347–380. ISBN 3-11-012855-1. OCLC 24668375. Retrieved 2 August 2012.
- ^ Bunčić, Daniel (2008). "Die (Re-)Nationalisierung der serbokroatischen Standards" [The (Re-)Nationalisation of Serbo-Croatian Standards]. In Kempgen, Sebastian (ed.). Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Ohrid, 2008. Welt der Slaven (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 93. ISBN 978-3-86688-007-8. OCLC 238795822. (ÖNB).
- ^ a b Kordić, Snježana (2018) [1st pub. 2010]. Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 69–168. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. S2CID 220918333. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 3 March 2022.
- ^ Zanelli, Aldo (2018). Eine Analyse der Metaphern in der kroatischen Linguistikfachzeitschrift Jezik von 1991 bis 1997 [An analysis of the metaphors in the Croatian linguistic journal Jezik from 1991 to 1997]. Studien zur Slavistik ; 41 (in German). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-3-8300-9773-0. OCLC 1023608613. CROSBI 935754. (NSK). (FFZG).
- ^ a b Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. S2CID 150383965.
- ^ Pohl, Hans-Dieter (1996). "Serbokroatisch – Rückblick und Ausblick" [Serbo-Croatian – Looking backward and forward]. In Ohnheiser, Ingeborg (ed.). Wechselbeziehungen zwischen slawischen Sprachen, Literaturen und Kulturen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : Akten der Tagung aus Anlaß des 25jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Slawistik an der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 25. – 27. Mai 1995. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Slavica aenipontana ; vol. 4 (in German). Innsbruck: Non Lieu. p. 219. ISBN 3-85124-180-0. OCLC 243829127. (ÖNB).
- ^ Kordić, Snježana (2008). "Nationale Varietäten der serbokroatischen Sprache" [National Varieties of Serbo-Croatian] (PDF). In Golubović, Biljana; Raecke, Jochen (eds.). Bosnisch – Kroatisch – Serbisch als Fremdsprachen an den Universitäten der Welt. Die Welt der Slaven, Sammelbände – Sborniki, Band 31 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 93–102. ISBN 978-3-86688-032-0. OCLC 244788988. SSRN 3434432. CROSBI 426566. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 5 October 2013. (ÖNB).
- ^ Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. p. 451. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W.
- ^ Thomas, Paul-Louis (2003). "Le serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe): de l'étude d'une langue à l'identité des langues" [Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian): from the study of a language to the identity of languages]. Revue des études slaves (in French). 74 (2–3): 325. ISSN 0080-2557. OCLC 754204160. ZDB-ID 208723-6. Retrieved 5 March 2013. (ÖNB).
- ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Le serbo-croate aujourd'hui: entre aspirations politiques et faits linguistiques" [Serbo-Croatian nowadays: between political aspirations and linguistic facts]. Revue des études slaves (in French). 75 (1): 31–43. doi:10.3406/slave.2004.6860. ISSN 0080-2557. OCLC 754207802. S2CID 228222009. SSRN 3433041. CROSBI 430127. ZDB-ID 208723-6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2012. Retrieved 16 April 2020. (ÖNB).
- ^ Kafadar, Enisa (2009). "Bosnisch, Kroatisch, Serbisch – Wie spricht man eigentlich in Bosnien-Herzegowina?" [Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian – How do people really speak in Bosnia-Herzegovina?]. In Henn-Memmesheimer, Beate; Franz, Joachim (eds.). Die Ordnung des Standard und die Differenzierung der Diskurse; Teil 1 (in German). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. p. 103. ISBN 9783631599174. OCLC 699514676. Retrieved 9 August 2012.
- ^ Thompson, R.W. (1992). "Spanish as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 45–70. ISBN 978-3-11-012855-0. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
- ^ Penny, Ralph (2000). Variation and Change in Spanish. Cambridge University Press. p. 199. ISBN 0-521-78045-4.
whatever might be claimed by other centres, such as Valladolid, it was educated varieties of Madrid Spanish that were mostly regularly reflected in the written standard.
- ^ "US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico has more". TheGuardian.com. 29 June 2015.
- ^ Mar‐Molinero, C., & Paffey, D. (2011). Linguistic imperialism: who owns global Spanish?. The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics, 747–764.
- ^ Mar-Molinero, Clare. "The European linguistic legacy in a global era: Linguistic imperialism, Spanish and the Instituto Cervantes." In Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices, pp. 76–88. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2006.
- ^ Mar-Molinero, C. (2008). Subverting Cervantes: language authority in global Spanish. International Multilingual Research Journal, 2(1–2), 27–47.
- ^ "The clearest Spanish". 14 August 2013.
- ^ Annamalai (1992), p. 94.
- ^ Annamalai (1992), p. 95.
- ^ Annamalai (1992), p. 96.
- ^ Annamalai (1992), p. 98.
- ^ Annamalai (1992), pp. 96, 98.
- ^ Session VI of the People's Supreme Assembly, II Legislature. The Constitution of the Lao People's Democratic Republic Archived 2011-08-06 at the Wayback Machine. (15, Aug 1991).
- ^ Fundashon pa Planifikashon di Idioma (2009). Ortografia i Lista di palabra Papiamentu (PDF) (in Papiamento). Kòrsou: Fundashon pa Planifikashon di Idioma. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-99904-2-200-9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-03-08. Retrieved 2019-07-11.
- ^ "Status Actual". Papiamento.aw (in Papiamento). Retrieved 18 March 2022.[permanent dead link]
Bibliography
[edit]- Annamalai, E. (1992). "Chinese as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G. (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 305–324. ISBN 978-3-11-012855-0.
- Abd-el-Jawad, Hassan R.S. (1992). "Is Arabic a pluricentric language?". In Clyne, Michael G. (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 261–303. ISBN 3-11-012855-1.
- Ammon, Ulrich (1995). Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: das Problem der nationalen Varietäten [German Language in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: The Problem of National Varieties] (in German). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 575. ISBN 3-11-014753-X. OCLC 33981055.
- Blum, Daniel (2002). Sprache und Politik : Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945-1991) [Language and Policy: Language Policy and Linguistic Nationalism in the Republic of India and the Socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991)]. Beiträge zur Südasienforschung ; vol. 192 (in German). Würzburg: Ergon. p. 200. ISBN 3-89913-253-X. OCLC 51961066.
- Clyne, Michael G., ed. (1992). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-012855-1.
- Clyne, Michael G.; & Kipp, Sandra. (1999). Pluricentric languages in an immigrant context: Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-016577-5.
- Daneš, František (1988). "Herausbildung und Reform von Standardsprachen" [Development and Reform of Standard Languages]. In Ammon, Ulrich; Dittmar, Norbert; Mattheier, Klaus J (eds.). Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society II. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 3.2. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 1506–1516. ISBN 3-11-011645-6. OCLC 639109991.
- Dua, Hans Raj (1992). "Hindi-Urdu as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G (ed.). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 381–400. ISBN 3-11-012855-1. OCLC 24668375.
- Kloss, Heinz (1967). "'Abstand languages' and 'ausbau languages'". Anthropological Linguistics. 9 (7): 29–41. JSTOR 30029461.
- Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Policentrični standardni jezik" [Polycentric Standard Language] (PDF). In Badurina, Lada; Pranjković, Ivo; Silić, Josip (eds.). Jezični varijeteti i nacionalni identiteti (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Disput. pp. 83–108. ISBN 978-953-260-054-4. OCLC 437306433. SSRN 3438216. CROSBI 426269. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 May 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2018. (ÖNB).
- Kordić, Snježana (2024). "Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries" (PDF). In Nomachi, Motoki; Kamusella, Tomasz (eds.). Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. pp. 167–179. doi:10.4324/9781003034025-11. ISBN 978-0-367-47191-0. OCLC 1390118985. S2CID 259576119. SSRN 4680766. COBISS.SR 125229577. COBISS 171014403. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-22.
- Stewart, William A (1968) [1962]. "A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism". In Fishman, Joshua A (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. pp. 531–545. doi:10.1515/9783110805376.531. ISBN 978-3-11-080537-6.
Further reading
[edit]- Dollinger, Stefan (2019). The Pluricentricity Debate: On Austrian German and other Germanic Standard Varieties. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-63179-5.
- Kircher, Ruth (2012). "How pluricentric is the French language? An investigation of attitudes towards Quebec French compared to European French". Journal of French Language Studies. 22 (3): 345–370. doi:10.1017/S0959269512000014. S2CID 143695569.
- Louw, Robertus de (2016). "Is Dutch a pluricentric language with two centres of standardization? An overview of the differences between Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch from a Flemish perspective". Werkwinkel. 11 (1): 113–135. doi:10.1515/werk-2016-0006.
External links
[edit]Pluricentric language
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Core Concepts
Formal Definition
A pluricentric language is characterized by the presence of multiple interacting centers, typically corresponding to independent nation-states, each fostering a distinct national variety with its own codified standard norms in lexicon, grammar, orthography, pronunciation, and usage conventions, while the varieties remain mutually intelligible and recognized as legitimate forms of the same language.[5][1] This structure arises through Ausbau processes of deliberate linguistic elaboration and standardization, distinguishing it from mere dialect continua or regional variants lacking national institutional backing.[6] Essential criteria include the language's official or quasi-official status in at least two nations, institutional support for divergent norms (e.g., via dictionaries, grammars, and media produced locally), and reciprocal acceptance among speakers of the other varieties as standard equals rather than deviations.[1][7] The term was coined by Heinz Kloss in 1952, building on his framework of Abstand (distance-based) and Ausbau (elaboration-based) language differentiation to highlight how political boundaries can sustain parallel standards within a shared linguistic system.[6][5]Key Distinctions from Related Phenomena
Pluricentric languages differ from monocentric languages in that the former feature multiple independent centers of linguistic norm-setting, each linked to a distinct nation-state where the language holds official status and develops its own codified standard variety. Monocentric languages, conversely, revolve around a singular dominant standard that serves as the prescriptive reference across all users, often with institutional efforts to enforce uniformity and marginalize deviations as non-standard. This pluricentric structure arises from historical, political, and cultural divergences post-standardization, allowing for institutionalized variation rather than assimilation to one norm.[8][9] Unlike dialect continua, which consist of a chain of regionally adjacent varieties exhibiting gradual phonetic, lexical, and grammatical shifts with high mutual intelligibility but no formalized national boundaries or separate codifications, pluricentric languages impose discrete standards shaped by state policies and national identities. In dialect continua, such as those spanning parts of the Romance or Germanic dialect areas, variations lack official recognition as autonomous norms and are typically subsumed under broader language categories without equivalent institutional support for divergence. Pluricentricity, by contrast, institutionalizes these national forms through dictionaries, grammars, and media regulated within each polity, even as underlying continua may persist informally.[2][7] Pluricentric languages also contrast with diglossic situations, where two or more varieties of the same language coexist within a single speech community but are stratified by function—typically a "high" prestige form for formal domains and a "low" vernacular for everyday use—without national differentiation driving the split. Diglossia emphasizes functional complementarity and often hierarchical subordination, as seen in Arabic's Modern Standard versus colloquial forms, whereas pluricentric varieties function equivalently across domains within their nations, with asymmetries stemming from power imbalances between centers rather than inherent functional roles. This national basis enables pluricentric languages to recognize variations as parallel standards, not mere registers.[10][11] A further distinction lies from multilingualism in polities, where multiple distinct languages hold official roles without forming interconnected national varieties of a single language; pluricentricity requires shared genetic and structural unity under one language label, with divergences codified nationally rather than treated as separate languages requiring translation. For instance, while multilingual states like Switzerland manage German, French, and Italian as discrete entities, pluricentric German across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland treats variations as sub-varieties of one language with partial norm convergence. This avoids the equivalence of separate languages, prioritizing evidence of common descent and intelligibility over political separation.[1]Historical Development of the Concept
Origins with Heinz Kloss
Heinz Kloss (1904–1987), a German linguist who emigrated to the United States in 1937, developed foundational ideas on language standardization and variation while working on projects such as the Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest. His analyses focused on the sociolinguistic processes distinguishing autonomous languages from dialects, particularly in Germanic contexts. In his 1952 monograph Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800, Kloss introduced the framework of Abstandsprachen (languages defined by inherent linguistic distance, exhibiting mutual unintelligibility) and Aausbausprachen (languages shaped by deliberate elaboration, codification, and functional expansion from dialects).[13] This distinction emphasized that many standard languages emerge not solely from genetic divergence but through socio-political planning, including the establishment of normative centers. Kloss applied this to cases like the Norwegian standards Bokmål and Nynorsk, where multiple codification efforts created coexisting varieties within a single language system.[6] Kloss coined the term plurizentrische Hochsprache (pluricentric high language) to characterize languages featuring several interacting standardization centers, each producing a nationally distinct variety while maintaining overall unity.[14] This concept, evident in his examination of post-1800 Germanic developments, highlighted asymmetry among centers—such as dominant versus peripheral ones—and the role of state policies in sustaining variation, as seen in the divergent paths of East and West German standards during political division.[15] By 1967, Kloss formalized Abstand and Ausbau in English scholarship, linking them to pluricentrism by noting how Ausbau processes could yield polycentric structures in languages like English, with British and American norms diverging through independent elaboration.[13] His work underscored that pluricentrism arises causally from historical contingencies like migration, colonization, and national boundaries, rather than intrinsic linguistic divergence alone.[5]Post-1978 Theoretical Expansion
Following Heinz Kloss's incidental introduction of the term "pluricentric" in 1978 to denote languages with multiple interacting centers each fostering a national variety, Michael Clyne systematized and expanded the concept in the early 1990s.[16] In his 1992 edited volume Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations, Clyne applied the framework to empirical case studies of languages such as English, French, German, Portuguese, and Serbo-Croatian, emphasizing how national borders generate codified standard varieties with mutual comprehensibility but distinct norms in lexicon, syntax, and usage.[17] [18] This work shifted pluricentricity from a descriptive label to a sociolinguistic theory predicting linguistic divergence driven by political separation, institutional codification, and community attitudes toward variety-specific features.[19] Clyne further refined identification criteria, requiring a language to function as an official or national variety in at least two independent states, exhibit measurable linguistic distance between centers (e.g., vocabulary differences exceeding 5-10% in core terms), gain acceptance as distinct by speakers, link to national identity, and feature partial codification through dictionaries, grammars, or media norms.[19] These elements, building on Kloss, incorporated quantitative metrics from corpus analyses and surveys, such as lexical variation rates in German (e.g., 3-5% divergence between Austrian and German standards) and attitudinal data showing preference for national variants in formal contexts.[20] The theory highlighted asymmetries, where dominant centers (e.g., Paris for French) exert influence over non-dominant ones (e.g., Quebec), yet the latter develop autonomous features resistant to convergence, as evidenced by persistent regionalisms in pronunciation and idiom despite cross-border contact.[21] Subsequent advancements from the late 1990s onward integrated pluricentricity with language policy and power dynamics, expanding scrutiny to non-European languages like Arabic and Hindi, where colonial legacies and diglossia complicate center identification.[22] Researchers such as Heinz-Dieter Pohl and Leo Kretzenbacher advanced models of non-dominant varieties, documenting how peripheral centers (e.g., Swiss German) innovate independently, with variation patterns showing 15-20% lexical uniqueness tied to local institutions rather than mere dialectal drift.[20] By 2019, the framework encompassed 41 candidate languages, incorporating stages of pluricentric development—from incipient divergence in post-colonial settings to mature asymmetry—and addressing misconceptions, such as equating it with loose dialect continua rather than institutionalized standards.[23] [24] This evolution emphasized causal factors like state-sponsored normation and speaker agency, predicting sustained diversification absent unifying policies, as observed in English varieties post-1990s globalization where American dominance coexists with British and Australian codifications.[19]Criteria and Linguistic Characteristics
Essential Criteria for Identification
A pluricentric language is characterized by the presence of multiple codified standard varieties, each tied to a distinct national center that independently develops and enforces its own norms for pronunciation, grammar, orthography, and lexicon. These centers function as autonomous loci of standardization, often supported by national institutions such as language academies or educational systems, ensuring that the varieties diverge systematically while remaining mutually intelligible as forms of the same language.[5] Essential identification requires verifying codification and institutionalization: each variety must possess dedicated reference works, including dictionaries, grammars, and style guides produced within its national context, which prescribe norms distinct from those of other centers. For instance, Heinz Kloss, who coined the term in 1978, emphasized that pluricentrism emerges when independent nations elaborate (ausbauen) their shared linguistic base into co-equal standards, as opposed to mere dialects lacking such formal elaboration.[5] Without this, variations remain peripheral rather than central standards. Another core criterion is official or quasi-official status within sovereign entities: the varieties must serve as vehicles for public administration, education, and media in their respective nations, fostering national identity linkage. Michael Clyne's framework (1992) specifies six interrelated tests—occurrence in multiple nations, official recognition, measurable linguistic distance between varieties, acceptance by speech communities, relevance to national identity, and degree of codification—to confirm pluricentrism, arguing that failure in any undermines the classification.[19] Linguistic distance here refers to systematic differences (e.g., vocabulary divergence exceeding 10-15% in core terms, per empirical studies on German or Portuguese varieties) that exceed regional dialectal variation but do not impede comprehension. Pluricentrism further demands absence of a hegemonic center imposing uniformity; instead, varieties coexist with mutual tolerance or competition, often reflected in cross-national lexicographical efforts acknowledging divergences. Empirical identification thus involves corpus analysis of national media or legal texts to quantify norm adherence, as demonstrated in studies showing Portuguese varieties' 20-30% lexical variance tied to Brazilian vs. European centers.[6] Claims of pluricentrism absent these verifiable institutional and sociolinguistic markers, such as in loosely federated dialect continua, are invalid, prioritizing structural autonomy over mere geographic spread.Degrees of Pluricentrism and Variation Patterns
Pluricentric languages vary in the degree of symmetry among their national standards, with most exhibiting asymmetry where one variety holds greater prestige, speaker numbers, or institutional influence over others. Ulrich Ammon delineates degrees of symmetry based on the independence of national norms, ranging from full alignment with a dominant center to partial or full autonomy, as assessed by factors like codification strength and cultural acceptance.[9] In asymmetrical pluricentrism, the dominant variety—often tied to the largest population or historical origin—exerts pull on peripheral ones, leading to partial convergence or supranational compromises, as seen in German where the German standard (spoken by 86% of users) overshadows Austrian (8%) and Swiss (6%) variants in formal contexts.[26] Symmetrical pluricentrism, less common, involves comparable status among centers, fostering balanced divergence without hierarchical dominance, exemplified by Portuguese where Brazilian and European varieties maintain mutual recognition despite size disparities.[26] Variation patterns in pluricentric languages manifest across phonological, lexical, morphological, and syntactic domains, with the extent and directionality influenced by symmetry levels. Lexical differences predominate in asymmetrical cases, such as Austrian German's "Jänner" for January versus the dominant "Januar," reflecting localized retention amid pressure for standardization.[26] Phonological and morphosyntactic variations emerge more prominently in symmetrical setups, where independent evolution allows sustained divergence, as in English's transatlantic shifts in vowel quality (e.g., rhoticity in American versus non-rhotic British standards) without one overriding the other.[2] In non-dominant varieties of asymmetrical languages like French, peripheral innovations (e.g., Quebec's "rondelle" for hockey puck versus European "palet") persist but face assimilation incentives through media and education dominated by the French center (64 million native speakers).[26] Overall, variation intensity correlates with geographic separation and institutional autonomy, with symmetrical languages showing greater stability in distinct norms due to reciprocal legitimacy.[10]Structure of National Varieties
Codified Standards and Centers
In pluricentric languages, codified standards encompass the formalized orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and phonological norms developed and maintained by institutional authorities within each national or regional center. These standards arise from deliberate language planning efforts, often involving academies, lexicographical societies, or government bodies that produce reference works such as dictionaries and grammars tailored to local usage patterns. Codification reinforces the legitimacy of national varieties by providing explicit rules that diverge from those in other centers, fostering autonomy while preserving mutual intelligibility. For instance, in languages like German and Portuguese, these processes have historically emphasized vocabulary selection reflecting cultural and administrative differences, with updates occurring periodically to incorporate neologisms and usage shifts. A key feature of these centers is their role in asymmetric codification, where dominant varieties—typically those from larger populations or historical prestige—exert influence, yet peripheral centers assert independence through parallel institutions. In German, Germany's Duden dictionary, originating in 1880 and revised biennially (e.g., 28th edition in 2020), functions as the de facto standard, covering over 145,000 keywords and prioritizing High German norms prevalent in northern and central regions. Austria's corresponding center, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, publishes the Österreichisches Wörterbuch since 1951 (current 42nd edition, 2012), which documents approximately 100,000 entries with Austrian-specific terms like Paradeiser for tomato (versus Germany's Tomate) and phonological guidelines favoring southern dialects. Switzerland's standard, less centralized, draws from collaborative efforts including the 2009 Schweizer Rechtschreibung, which adapts Duden while codifying Swiss lexical preferences such as Zuge for train, though no singular authoritative body enforces uniformity across its German-speaking cantons. Similar patterns appear in Portuguese, where Portugal's Academia das Ciências de Lisboa regulates European Portuguese through works like the Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa (2nd edition, 2001), emphasizing conservative phonology and spelling. Brazil's Academia Brasileira de Letras maintains the Vocabulário Ortográfico da Língua Portuguesa (latest 6th edition, 2022), reflecting a more innovative standard with 381,000 entries and adaptations post-2009 Orthographic Agreement, such as simplified accents and inclusion of indigenous loanwords absent in Portuguese norms. This agreement, ratified by Portuguese-speaking nations in 1990 and implemented variably from 2009, aimed at partial unification but preserved national codifications, highlighting tensions between convergence and center-specific elaboration. In French, the Académie Française in Paris sets overarching norms via its dictionary (9th edition ongoing since 1932), but Canada's Office québécois de la langue française codifies Quebec French through the 1990 Multidictionnaire and provincial language laws, incorporating anglicisms like dépanneur (convenience store) and distinct syntax. These centers illustrate how codification not only standardizes but also politicizes varieties, with peripheral ones often resisting assimilation to maintain cultural distinctiveness.Asymmetry Between Dominant and Non-Dominant Varieties
In pluricentric languages, national varieties exhibit asymmetry, whereby dominant varieties—typically those associated with larger populations, greater economic or political influence, and stronger institutional codification—hold higher prestige and exert normative influence over non-dominant varieties. This imbalance arises from disparities in speaker numbers, historical development, and global media presence, with non-dominant varieties often originating from colonial contexts or partitioned nations lacking robust claims to independent standards.[27][22] Non-dominant varieties are characterized by limited codification of their linguistic norms, weaker regulatory bodies, and reduced representation in international forums such as the European Union or United Nations, positioning them as minor, rudimentary, or "half" centers relative to dominant ones. Speakers in these varieties frequently experience "linguistic schizophrenia," practicing local norms domestically while depreciating them in favor of dominant standards for perceived legitimacy in education, media, and elite discourse, leading to self-devaluation and reluctance to fully codify native features.[27] In contrast, dominant varieties maintain endonormative orientations, resisting convergence and serving as de facto references, which reinforces their internal and external status.[22] This asymmetry manifests in relational dynamics where non-dominant varieties orient toward dominant norms, resulting in lexical, phonological, and syntactic convergence without reciprocal influence, as dominant communities rarely adopt peripheral innovations. Exonormative attitudes historically exacerbate this, with non-dominant speakers prioritizing dominant models in formal standardization efforts, though resistance to full codification persists due to perceived inferiority or political marginalization.[27][22] Such patterns underscore power imbalances, where equivalence among varieties—envisioned in early conceptions like Heinz Kloss's 1978 framework—remains rare, with dominant norms prevailing in cross-varietal interactions and global usage.[22]Prominent Examples
European and Slavic Languages
German serves as a primary example of a pluricentric language among Germanic tongues in Europe, featuring distinct national standards centered in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, where it holds official status.[28] These varieties maintain codified norms through separate dictionaries, orthographic reforms—such as Austria and Switzerland's partial retention of traditional spellings like "Foto" versus Germany's "Foto" post-1996 reform—and pronunciation differences, including Austrian lenition of final /t/ to [d̥].[29] Lexical divergences persist, with Austria favoring terms like "Jänner" for January and "Topfen" for quark, reflecting historical and cultural influences despite shared grammar and core vocabulary.[28] French exhibits pluricentrism within Europe through standards in France, Belgium, and Switzerland, alongside extra-European variants like Quebec French, but European centers emphasize metropolitan norms adapted locally.[30] Belgian French and Swiss French display phonological distinctions, such as Belgian deletion of /ə/ in certain positions and Swiss uvular /ʁ/ variations, alongside lexical preferences like "septante" for 70 in Belgium and Switzerland versus France's "soixante-dix."[31] These varieties are codified via national institutions, including Belgium's Walloon language councils and Switzerland's federal recognition, fostering asymmetry where French norms dominate but local media and education promote endogenous features.[32] Dutch qualifies as pluricentric, with national varieties in the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders), officially acknowledged by the Dutch Language Union in 2003 as possessing distinct standards despite mutual intelligibility.[33] Netherlandic Dutch and Belgian Dutch diverge in pronunciation—Flemish retaining softer consonants and more /eː/ diphthongization—and vocabulary, such as Belgium's "poepen" for rain showers versus the Netherlands' "motregen," influenced by media and publishing autonomy in each nation.[34] Italian demonstrates emerging pluricentrism between Italy and Switzerland's Ticino canton, where Swiss Italian develops autonomous norms, including unique idioms and phonological traits like intervocalic /t/ affrication, supported by Swiss broadcasting and education policies.[35] Among Slavic languages, Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS) represents a pluricentric South Slavic continuum, with four codified standards promoted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian), Croatia (Croatian), Montenegro (Montenegrin), and Serbia (Serbian), each tied to national identities post-1990s Yugoslav dissolution.[36] These varieties share Shtokavian dialect base, Cyrillic/Latin scripts variably, and near-complete mutual intelligibility, but diverge in regulated lexicon—e.g., Croatian favoring "zrakoplov" for airplane versus Serbian "avion"—and orthographic rules, as standardized by respective academies since the 1990s.[36] Russian, while predominantly monocentric under Moscow's normative influence, shows pluricentric tendencies in post-Soviet states like Belarus and Kazakhstan, where local usages emerge in official contexts, though lacking fully independent codification outside Russia.[37][38]Arabic and Semitic Languages
Arabic, the most widely spoken Semitic language, exemplifies pluricentrism through its combination of a supra-national codified standard, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), and divergent national vernacular varieties shaped by historical conquests and regional substrates.[39] This structure emerged in the 7th century CE with the standardization of Classical Arabic via the Qur'an under Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656 CE), which established a dominant written norm during Islamic expansions across diverse linguistic territories, fostering diglossia where spoken forms diverged from the prestige variety.[39] By the Middle Arabic period (8th–18th centuries), substrate influences from conquered languages intensified regional variation, while modern revival efforts from the late 19th-century nahḍa produced MSA as a unified formal register, yet allowed colloquial standards to develop in national contexts.[39] National varieties of colloquial Arabic function as semi-codified norms tied to specific centers, such as Cairo for Egyptian Arabic, which dominates Arab media production—including over 80% of regional films and television since the mid-20th century—conferring it prestige and partial standardization in entertainment and urban speech.[39] Levantine Arabic, centered in Damascus and Beirut, similarly exhibits codified elements in local literature and broadcasting, while Gulf varieties (e.g., in Saudi Arabia and UAE) incorporate English loanwords from 20th-century oil economies.[40] Language academies reinforce pluricentrism by promoting MSA with national inflections: Egypt's academy, founded in 1932, and Syria's in 1919, issue decrees on terminology that subtly reflect local usage.[39] Non-dominant varieties, like Maghrebi Arabic (e.g., Moroccan), show greater autonomy and lower intelligibility with eastern forms due to Berber and Romance substrates, often relying on French in formal domains post-colonization.[39] Among other Semitic languages, pluricentrism is rare; Hebrew, revived as Modern Hebrew in the late 19th century and standardized post-1948 in Israel, maintains a monocentric norm under the Academy of the Hebrew Language (established 1953), suppressing diaspora variants. Amharic, the primary Semitic language of Ethiopia, similarly centers on a single standard codified in the 19th–20th centuries for administrative use, without competing national forms despite Ethiopia's ethnic diversity. Arabic's pluricentrism thus stems uniquely from its vast 22-country span and the tension between pan-Arab MSA and localized colloquia, debated in scholarship as qualifying under pluricentric criteria due to functional norms in multiple polities.Indo-European Languages Outside Europe
Persian serves as a prominent example of pluricentrism among Indo-European languages outside Europe, featuring three codified national standards centered in Iran (Farsi), Afghanistan (Dari), and Tajikistan (Tajik). These varieties, spoken by approximately 110 million people as a first language, maintain mutual intelligibility through shared grammar, syntax, and core lexicon derived from Middle Persian, yet diverge in orthography, phonetics, and peripheral vocabulary influenced by local substrates and superstrates. Farsi and Dari employ variants of the Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik adopted Cyrillic in 1939 under Soviet policy, reflecting geopolitical divergences post-1920s state formations.[41][42] Codification efforts underscore this pluricentrism: Iran's Academy of Persian Language and Literature, established in 1935, regulates Farsi through purist policies favoring pre-Islamic terms; Afghanistan's Dari standard, formalized in the 1964 constitution as an official language alongside Pashto, incorporates more Turkic and Pashtun elements; Tajik standardization, driven by the Tajik Academy of Sciences since 1950s Soviet reforms, integrates Russian loans and Cyrillic adaptations, with over 8 million speakers in Tajikistan. Empirical studies confirm lexical similarity exceeding 80% across varieties, but national media, education, and literature reinforce distinct norms, such as Dari's retention of classical poetic forms versus Tajik's alignment with Turkic prosody. Asymmetry persists, with Iranian Farsi exerting cultural dominance via media exports, though all centers assert linguistic independence amid shared heritage from the 9th-century Samanid revival.[41] Armenian, another Indo-European isolate branch language outside Europe, exhibits pluricentrism through Eastern and Western standards, diverging after the 19th-century split influenced by Russian and Ottoman imperial contexts. Eastern Armenian, centered in Armenia with about 4 million speakers, uses a reformed orthography since 1922 and serves as the official variety in state institutions, featuring phonetic shifts like aspirated stops. Western Armenian, preserved among diaspora communities from the 1915 Armenian Genocide survivors (primarily in Lebanon, France, and the US, totaling around 1.5 million speakers), retains classical orthography and distinct vowel systems, including more fricatives.[43][44] Mutual intelligibility between Eastern and Western varieties ranges from 70-90% in spoken form, per phonetic analyses, but written divergence and vocabulary differences—Western incorporating more French and Turkish loans, Eastern Russian and Persian—affect comprehension in formal registers. Armenia's 1992 language law prioritizes Eastern as the state standard, marginalizing Western despite its prestige in pre-genocide literature; diaspora efforts, such as Lebanon's Hamazkayin Association publications since 1920s, sustain Western codification. This setup reflects causal historical fractures rather than inherent dialectal evolution, with recent digital localization projects attempting bridges, though national asymmetries favor Eastern due to sovereign institutional backing.[43] Hindustani, the substrate of Hindi and Urdu within the Indo-Aryan branch, demonstrates pluricentrism across South Asia, with Hindi standardized in India (Devanagari script, Sanskritized lexicon) and Urdu in Pakistan (Nastaliq script, Perso-Arabic influences), spoken by over 500 million in colloquial registers. Core grammar and phonology align closely, enabling near-complete mutual intelligibility in spoken Bollywood-derived media, but national standards diverge: India's Central Hindi Directorate (since 1960) promotes tatsama Sanskrit terms, while Pakistan's National Language Promotion Department (established 1979) enforces Arabo-Persian vocabulary, reflecting post-1947 partition ideologies. This diglossic structure, rooted in 19th-century colonial scripts, sustains distinct literary canons—Hindi drawing from Vedic traditions, Urdu from Mughal poetry—despite shared Khari Boli dialect base.[45] Kurdish, an Iranian language cluster spoken by 30-40 million across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, shows emerging pluricentrism in its main dialects: Kurmanji (Latin script in Turkey/Diaspora, Arabic in Syria) and Sorani (Arabic-based in Iraq/Iran), with Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government standardizing Sorani since 2005 for education and media. Standardization lags due to political fragmentation, but cross-border variations in orthography and lexicon—e.g., Sorani's ergativity retention versus Kurmanji innovations—align with national centers, fostering partial codification amid suppression histories.[46]Other Global Examples
Mandarin Chinese serves as a prominent example of pluricentrism outside traditional Indo-European or Semitic contexts, with codified standards in the People's Republic of China (Putonghua), Taiwan (Guoyu or National Language), and Singapore (Huayu). These varieties emerged primarily due to political divergences, including the 1949 establishment of the PRC and Taiwan's separation, alongside Singapore's adoption of Mandarin as one of four official languages in 1965 to unify its Chinese population. Differences manifest in lexicon—for instance, "bicycle" is zìxíngchē in mainland China but zìxíngliàng in Taiwan—pronunciation (e.g., softer retroflex sounds in Taiwan and Singapore influenced by southern Chinese dialects), and orthography, with simplified characters mandatory in the PRC since 1956 while Taiwan and Singapore retain traditional forms.[47] Singapore's Huayu incorporates local English and Malay loanwords, reflecting its multilingual environment, though all varieties share a common grammar and core vocabulary derived from Beijing Mandarin.[48] Malay, standardized as Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia and Brunei (official since Malaysia's 1957 independence and Brunei's 1984) and Bahasa Indonesia in Indonesia (adopted in 1945), illustrates pluricentrism in Austronesian languages across Southeast Asia. Originating from the Malaccan dialect, the varieties diverged post-colonialism, with Indonesian drawing more Dutch, Portuguese, and Sanskrit loans due to historical trade and occupation, while Malaysian incorporates English terms from British rule—e.g., "television" as televisyen in Malaysia versus televisi in Indonesia. Orthographic reforms in 1972 harmonized spelling under the Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan, but ongoing lexical divergence persists, with mutual intelligibility exceeding 80% yet national academies (e.g., Indonesia's Pusat Bahasa since 1945) promoting distinct norms for media and education.[49][50] Brunei and Singapore further adapt Malaysian standards locally, though Singapore's version includes more English code-mixing since Malay's designation as a national language in 1965.[49] In Africa, Hausa demonstrates emerging pluricentrism as the Chadic language straddles Nigeria (where over 70 million speak it, official in northern states) and Niger (co-official since 2010), with national varieties codified through distinct broadcasting standards by the BBC Hausa Service and local media. Nigerian Hausa incorporates more Arabic and English loans via Islamic scholarship and colonial legacy, while Nigerien Hausa shows French influences and retains stronger Kanuri substrate effects; differences include vocabulary for modern terms (e.g., "computer" as kwamfuta in Nigeria versus adaptations in Niger) and phonetic variations in tone and vowel length. Spoken by approximately 80 million as a first or second language, Hausa's pluricentric status is debated but supported by separate standardization efforts post-independence in 1960 (Nigeria) and 1960 (Niger), lacking a unified academy.[51][52] Swahili, a Bantu lingua franca, exhibits similar traits across Tanzania (official since 1961), Kenya (co-official since 2010), and Uganda, with varieties diverging in loanwords—Arabic/Indian in Tanzania, English in Kenya—and local substrate influences, though a common standard persists via the East African Community's Baraza la Kiswahili since 1967.[53][14]Controversies and Debates
Political Influences on Pluricentrism Claims
Claims of pluricentrism in languages are frequently shaped by political agendas, including nationalism, state-building efforts, and resistance to perceived linguistic hegemony. National institutions, organized along political boundaries, codify and promote varieties that align with sovereign interests, often elevating regional differences to standard status despite limited empirical divergence. For example, the recognition of multiple centers in pluricentric languages arises from historical and political processes that fragment shared norms, as seen in the institutional separation of standards post-colonialism or federation dissolution.[54][14] In the Germanic context, the pluricentric approach to German—positing distinct Austrian, Swiss, and German standards—has been criticized as ideologically driven by nationalism, with detractors arguing it artificially divides a historically unified standard to serve modern political identities. Scheuringer (1996) explicitly attributes a nationalist bias to pluricentrism, while Elspass and Niehaus (2014) characterize it as a political construct that prioritizes state borders over linguistic reality. This debate highlights asymmetrical power dynamics, where non-dominant varieties must defend their norms against dismissal as "provincial" or dialectal, often framing codification as cultural assertion rather than mere variation.[55][27] Academic discussions of pluricentrism also reveal ideological tensions, with some scholars rejecting the framework as rooted in "methodological nationalism," an approach seen as outdated in globalized linguistics and potentially reinforcing state-centric ideologies. This critique, advanced in works like Oakes (2021), posits that emphasizing national varieties overlooks transnational continua, reflecting a broader preference in social sciences for cosmopolitan models over bounded identities. Conversely, advocates counter that denying pluricentrism perpetuates dominance by major centers, as in English or French, where peripheral varieties struggle for institutional legitimacy. Such positions may stem from institutional biases in linguistics, where anti-nationalist stances predominate, potentially undervaluing empirically observed norm divergences tied to political separation.[56][55] Political fragmentation exacerbates these claims, as newly independent entities codify standards to symbolize autonomy, even when mutual intelligibility remains high. This pattern, evident in post-imperial contexts, prioritizes identity over linguistic unity, with policies institutionalizing differences through separate academies or orthographies. While empirical data on variation supports some pluricentric features—such as lexicon or pronunciation norms tied to national media—decisions on "standard" status hinge on causal political factors, including elite consensus and resistance to external influence, rather than objective thresholds.[14][55]Specific Case: Serbo-Croatian Fragmentation
The fragmentation of Serbo-Croatian exemplifies how political dissolution can override linguistic continuity, transforming a single standardized language into officially distinct national varieties despite persistent high mutual intelligibility. Prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, Serbo-Croatian served as the unified literary and official language across federal republics, encompassing Shtokavian dialects with shared grammar, core vocabulary, and phonological features, codified through 19th-century agreements among Croatian and Serbian intellectuals.[57][58] This standardization accommodated regional variants, such as Ijekavian pronunciation in Croatia and Bosnia versus Ekavian in Serbia, and dual scripts (Latin and Cyrillic), but maintained a common orthographic and lexical base used in education, media, and administration.[59][60] Following Yugoslavia's dissolution amid ethnic conflicts from 1991 onward, successor states pursued linguistic differentiation to symbolize sovereignty and ethnic distinction, often exaggerating minor dialectal differences into purported language boundaries. Croatia's 1991 declaration of independence included assertions of Croatian as a separate entity, prompting purist reforms like vocabulary purges of Slavicized terms deemed "Serbian" and emphasis on Ijekavian-Latin exclusivity.[61][62] Serbia similarly rebranded Serbo-Croatian as Serbian, retaining Ekavian norms and Cyrillic prominence, while Bosnia and Herzegovina formalized Bosnian in the 1990s, incorporating Orientalisms (e.g., Turkish loanwords) to underscore Muslim Bosniak identity post-Dayton Accords in 1995.[63][64] Montenegro's 2007 constitution elevated Montenegrin as its official language, introducing diacritics for sounds like /ć/ and /đ/ to claim uniqueness, though these variants share over 95% lexical overlap with Serbian.[65][66] These changes, embedded in constitutions and language laws, rendered Serbo-Croatian a "legal nonentity," replaced by national symbols that prioritize political loyalty over empirical linguistics.[59][67] Linguistically, the variants retain near-complete mutual intelligibility, with standardized forms comprehensible at 95-100% in spoken and written modes, rooted in identical Shtokavian grammar and syntax; differences are primarily orthographic, prosodic, and lexical (e.g., Croatian favoring neologisms, Bosnian archaisms), insufficient to warrant classification as discrete languages under structural criteria.[60][68] Empirical studies confirm this continuum, where speakers navigate variants effortlessly without formal training, challenging politicized separations.[69][70] Yet, official policies enforce separation in education and media, fostering "abstand" perceptions through curated corpora and orthographic divergences, which some analyses attribute to deliberate engineering for ethnic mobilization during the 1990s wars.[62][57] Debates persist among linguists, with some viewing the split as a natural pluricentric evolution akin to English varieties, while others decry it as artificial fragmentation driven by nationalism, ignoring sociolinguistic unity evidenced by bilingualism and hybrid usage in border regions.[61][71] Proponents of unity, including petitions like the 2017 Declaration on the Common Language signed by over 200 intellectuals from the region, argue for recognizing shared norms to mitigate divisiveness, but face resistance from state apparatuses enforcing monolingual ideologies.[63] This case underscores causal links between state collapse and language policy, where ideological imperatives supplanted dialectal reality, yielding legal plurilingualism amid functional monocentrism.[65][67]Challenges in Arabic and Diglossic Contexts
Arabic presents a unique case of potential pluricentrism overlaid with diglossia, where Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) functions as a supranational high variety for formal, written, and official contexts, while regionally diverse colloquial dialects serve as low varieties for everyday spoken communication.[39] This diglossic structure, originating from the codification of Classical Arabic in the 7th century CE during the Islamic conquests, has historically suppressed the recognition of dialects as viable standards, fostering a monocentric ideal tied to religious and literary prestige.[39] However, modern national varieties—such as Egyptian, Levantine, and Maghrebi—influenced by 19th-century nahḍa reforms, colonization, and state formation, exhibit pluricentric traits through varying phonological, lexical, and pragmatic features, yet face resistance to formal codification due to cultural perceptions of dialects as "corruptions" of the classical norm.[39] A primary challenge arises in education, where the phonological and lexical divergence between MSA and spoken dialects impedes literacy acquisition and phonological awareness among learners.[72] Children, immersed in dialects from birth, struggle with MSA-specific sounds (e.g., emphatic consonants or /q/), leading to deficits in reading fluency and word decoding; studies indicate better performance on dialect-aligned tasks, with effects persisting into early schooling but diminishing later.[72] Regional dialect distances from MSA exacerbate this: Levantine varieties show closer alignment (higher mutual intelligibility), while North African dialects diverge more sharply, contributing to literacy rates below minimum proficiency in 59% of lower-income Arab states as of 2022, compared to 36.6% in Gulf countries.[73][72] Textbook content overlaps minimally with local dialects—e.g., only 40% of Egyptian kindergarten vocabulary aligns—reinforcing a cycle where formal instruction fails to bridge to vernacular proficiency.[73] In pluricentric terms, diglossia hinders the elevation of non-dominant varieties to codified standards, as opposition rooted in pan-Arab unity and Quranic reverence prioritizes MSA uniformity over national dialect norms.[39] Egyptian dialects gain informal prestige via media exports, yet this asymmetry does not translate to policy acceptance, limiting efforts in language planning, technology localization (e.g., dialect-specific natural language processing), and cross-regional communication.[39] Digital platforms increasingly mix varieties, blurring diglossic boundaries and amplifying vernacular influence, but without standardized regional centers, this fosters fragmentation rather than coordinated pluricentrism.[39] Vocabulary overlap between dialects and MSA averages as low as 21.2% in some Palestinian contexts, underscoring intelligibility barriers that challenge unified language policy across Arab states.[73]Implications and Recent Research
Language Policy and Education
Language policies in nations sharing pluricentric languages often prioritize the codification and promotion of national varieties through official institutions, such as language academies or regulatory bodies, to reinforce cultural identity and administrative uniformity. For instance, in the case of French, the Académie Française has pursued policies aimed at unifying the language across francophone countries by establishing prescriptive norms that influence educational materials and public usage, though these efforts frequently encounter resistance from peripheral varieties developing distinct features.[74] Similarly, for Portuguese, post-colonial states like Brazil adopted policies elevating national variants while nominally retaining European Portuguese influences, leading to separate orthographic reforms, such as Brazil's 1943 and 1971 agreements that diverged from Portugal's standards to accommodate local phonology and vocabulary in schooling.[14] In education, these policies manifest in curricula that emphasize domestic standards, with textbooks, orthography, and lexical norms tailored to national contexts, potentially limiting exposure to other centers' varieties. German education in Austria, for example, incorporates Austrian-specific vocabulary and idioms into school programs to align with local media and administration, contrasting with German or Swiss models that prioritize their own norms, as evidenced in comparative analyses of teaching materials across DACH regions (Germany, Austria, Switzerland).[55] Teacher training programs similarly reflect this, often preparing educators in monocentric frameworks that undervalue inter-varietal differences, which a 2023 study on English and German foreign language instruction identified as a barrier to fostering plurilingual competence in diverse classrooms.[75] Challenges arise from this national focus, including reduced mutual comprehension among speakers from different centers and difficulties for mobile populations or international students navigating variant-specific expectations in assessments and literacy. Recent research highlights pedagogical innovations, such as integrating pluricentric awareness into EFL/ESL curricula to expose learners to multiple Englishes, though implementation lags due to resource constraints and entrenched monocentric biases in policy frameworks.[76] For Spanish as a first language in non-Hispanic contexts, 2024 analyses note constraining factors like curriculum prioritization of Peninsular over Latin American norms, recommending hybrid approaches that balance exposure to variants for enhanced communicative versatility without diluting core standards.[77] Overall, evolving policies in the European Union context, particularly for German and Dutch, increasingly advocate recognizing pluricentricity in cross-border education initiatives to mitigate these issues, supported by empirical studies on lexical variation impacts.[78][79]Localization, Technology, and Non-Dominant Varieties
Localization of content for pluricentric languages necessitates adaptation to distinct national standards, including variations in vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and syntax, to achieve cultural relevance and naturalness. Strategies include identifying target variants via user demographics, employing locale codes such as pt-BR for Brazilian Portuguese or fr-CA for Canadian French, and collaborating with native-speaking experts to refine terminology— for instance, rendering "bus" as ônibus in Brazilian Portuguese versus autocarro in European Portuguese, or "suit" as fato in Portugal versus terno in Brazil. Neutral variants, like Microsoft's Neutral Spanish which avoids Spain-specific forms such as vosotros in favor of Latin American ustedes, may be selected for broad-market applications to minimize offense, though they risk diluting regional authenticity, particularly in marketing contexts.[80] In natural language processing (NLP) and speech technology, pluricentric languages pose challenges from diatopic variation affecting tasks like preprocessing, part-of-speech tagging, parsing, and speech recognition, with 43 such languages identified where official status in multiple nations fosters divergent norms. Automatic variety identification enables mitigation, achieving accuracies up to 99.8% for Brazilian versus European Portuguese using character 4-grams on journalistic texts, or 94.3% for Spanish varieties via bag-of-words models, facilitating integration into machine translation and dialect-specific tools. Adaptation methods leverage cross-lingual transfer learning, annotation projection, and multilingual models like BERT, as demonstrated in Portuguese studies transferring resources between variants and open-source machine translation for Spanish dialects; however, training data scarcity often biases systems toward dominant varieties, degrading performance on others by 5-15% in multi-class tasks.[6][81][2] Non-dominant varieties—those with fewer speakers, peripheral institutional support, or origins outside the language's historical core—exacerbate technological inequities, mirroring dialect under-resourcing by lacking annotated corpora and facing pronunciation divergences that hinder automatic speech recognition accuracy. For example, in pluricentric setups like German (with Austrian or Swiss variants) or Portuguese, non-dominant forms receive minimal representation in training data, compelling users to conform to dominant norms (e.g., U.S. English over other Englishes) in digital services, potentially eroding linguistic diversity. Recent efforts address this via semi-supervised adaptation and social media-sourced data augmentation, yet persistent gaps stem from economic incentives favoring high-resource dominant standards, as evidenced in surveys of 21+ languages where non-dominant varieties show 10-20% lower baseline performance in NLP benchmarks without targeted interventions.[2][81]References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/349288264_From_monocentric_to_pluricentric_language_-_variations_of_the_German_language
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/331276933_The_state_of_the_art_of_research_on_pluricentric_languages_Where_we_were_and_where_we_are_now
