Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (249)
- Article (200)
- Conference Proceeding (150)
- Book (39)
- Working Paper (12)
- Other (11)
- Part of Periodical (10)
- Preprint (10)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Course Material (1)
Language
- English (687) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (687) (remove)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (203)
- Deutsch (185)
- Interaktion (74)
- Konversationsanalyse (69)
- Gesprochene Sprache (52)
- Computerlinguistik (43)
- Forschungsdaten (40)
- Annotation (38)
- Englisch (34)
- Wörterbuch (34)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (402)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (136)
- Postprint (88)
- Ahead of Print (5)
- Preprint (3)
- Erstveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (431)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (107)
- Peer-review (10)
- Peer-Revied (5)
- Verlags-Lektorat (5)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (2)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- (Verlags-)lektorat (1)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (1)
- Peer review (1)
Publisher
The annual microcensus provides Germany’s most important official statistics. Unlike a census it does not cover the whole population, but a representative 1%-sample of it. In 2017, the German microcensus asked a question on the language of the population, i.e. ‘Which language is mainly spoken in your household?’ Unfortunately, the question, its design and its position within the whole microcensus’ questionnaire feature several shortcomings. The main shortcoming is that multilingual repertoires cannot be captured by it. Recommendations for the improvement of the microcensus’ language question: first and foremost the question (i.e. its wording, design, and answer options) should make it possible to count multilingual repertoires.
This paper explores how attitudes affect the seemingly objective process of counting speakers of varieties using the example of Low German, Germany’s sole regional language. The initial focus is on the basic taxonomy of classifying a variety as a language or a dialect. Three representative surveys then provide data for the analysis: the Germany Survey 2008, the Northern Germany Survey 2016, and the Germany Survey 2017. The results of these surveys indicate that there is no consensus concerning the evaluation of Low German’s status and that attitudes towards Low German are related to, for example, proficiency in the language. These attitudes are shown to matter when counting speakers of Low German and investigating the status it has been accorded.
Language attitudes matter; they influence people’s behaviour and decisions. Therefore, it is crucial to learn more about patterns in the way that languages are evaluated. One means of doing so is using a quantitative approach with data representative of a whole population, so that results mirror dispositions at a societal level. This kind of approach is adopted here, with a focus on the situation in Germany. The article consists of two parts. First, I will present some results of a new representative survey on language attitudes in Germany (the Germany Survey 2017). Second, I will show how language attitudes penetrate even seemingly objective data collection processes by examining the German Microcensus. In 2017, for the first time in eighty years, the German Microcensus included a question on language use ‘at home’. Unfortunately, however, the question was clearly tainted by language attitudes instead of being objective. As a result, the Microcensus significantly misrepresents the linguistic reality of different migrant languages spoken in Germany.
Germany's (single) national official language is German. The dominance of German in schools, politics, the legal system, administration and the entire written public domain is so great that for a long time the lack of a coherent language policy was not seen as a problem. State restraint in this area is due, on the one hand, to historical reasons; on the other hand, it has been promoted by the federal system in Germany, which grants the federal states far-reaching responsibilities in the fields of education and culture. More recently, multilingualism among the population has increased and has resulted in a growing interest in understanding the language situation in Germany and (in particular) taking a closer look at the different minority languages. In 2017, for the first time in about 80 years, there is a question on the language of the population in the German micro census. The Institute for the German Language has also carried out various representative surveys; in the winter of 2017/201, a large representative survey with questions on the language repertoire and language attitudes is in the field.
Who understands Low German today and who can speak it? Who makes use of media and cultural events in Low German? What images do people in northern Germany associate with Low German and what is their view of their regional language?
These and further questions are answered in this brochure with the help of representative data collected in a telephone survey of a total of 1,632 people from eight federal states (Bremen, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein as well as Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saxony-Anhalt).
In this paper we examine the composition and interactional deployment of suspended assessments in ordinary German conversation. We define suspended assessments as lexicosyntactically incomplete assessing TCUs that share a distinct cluster of prosodic-phonetic features which auditorily makes them come off as 'left hanging' rather than cut-off (e.g., Schegloff/Jefferson/Sacks 1977; Jasperson 2002) or trailing-off (e.g., Local/Kelly 1986; Walker 2012). Using CA/IL methodology (Couper-Kuhlen/Selting 2018) and drawing on a large body of video-recorded face-to-face conversations, we highlight the verbal, vocal and bodily-visual resources participants use to render such unfinished assessing TCUs recognizably incomplete and identify six recurrent usage types. Overall, the suspension of assessing TCUs appears to either serve as a practice for circumventing the production of assessments that are interactionally inapposite, or as a practice for coping with local contingencies that render the very doing of an assessment problematic for the speaker. Data are in German with English translations.
This White Paper sets out commonly agreed definitions on activities of consortia within NFDI. It aims to provide a common basis for reporting and reference regarding selected questions of cross-consortial relevance in DFG’s template for the Interim Reports. The questions were prioritised by an NFDI Task Force on Evaluation and Reporting (formerly Task Force Monitoring) as a result of discussing possible answers to the DFG template. In this process the need to agree on a generalizable meaning of terms commonly used in the context of NFDI, and reporting in particular, were identified from cross-consortial perspectives. Questions that showed the highest requirement on clarification are discussed in this White Paper. As NFDI evolves, the Task Force will likely propose further joint approaches for reporting in information infrastructures.
While each of broad relevance, the questions addressed relate to substantially different aspects of consortia’s work. They are thus also structured slightly different.
Collaborative work in NFDI
(2023)
The non-profit association National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI) promotes science and research through a National Research Data Infrastructure. Its aim is to develop and establish an overarching research data management (RDM) for Germany and to increase the efficiency of the entire German science system. After a two-and-a-half year build up phase, the process of adding new consortia, each representing a different data domain, has ended in March 2023. NFDI now has 26 disciplinary consortia (and one additional basic service collaboration). Now the full extent of cross-consortial interaction is beginning to show.