Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics

Ed. by Rutten, Gijsbert / Auer, Anita / del Valle, José / Vosters, Rik / Pickl, Simon

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
2199-2908
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Bunčić Daniel:Biscriptality. A sociolinguistic typology

Agnes Kim
Published Online: 2017-09-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsl-2016-0022

Reviewed publication

Bunčić, Daniel. 2016. Biscriptality. A sociolinguistic typology. Edited by Daniel Bunčić, Sandra L. Lippert, and Achim Rabus (Akademiekonferenzen 24). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. ISBN: 9783825366254 (paperback), 425 pp. €52.00

References

  • Ammon, Ulrich. 1995. Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bakthin, Mikhail. 1981. Discourse in the novel. In Michael Holquist (ed.), The dialogic imagination by M. M. Bakhtin. Four essays, 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Original publication: Mikhail Bakthin. 1975. Slovo v romane. In Voprosy literatury i ėstetiky: Issledovanija raznyx let. Moskva: Xudožestvennaja literatura. 71‒232].Google Scholar

  • Blommaert, Jan. 2013. Writing as a sociolinguistic object. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(4). 440–459.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bunčić, Daniel. 2008. Die (Re-)nationalisierung der serbokroatischen Standards. In Sebastian Kempgen, Karl Gutschmidt, Ulrike Jekutsch & Ludger Udolph (eds.), Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Ohrid 2008, 89‒102. München: Sagner.Google Scholar

  • Bunčić, Daniel. 2011. Biscriptality in Slavic and non-Slavic languages: A sociolinguistic typology. Tübingen: University of Tübingen habilitation thesis.Google Scholar

  • Clyne, Michael (ed.). 1992. Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15. 325–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kabatek, Johannes. 2000. L’oral e l’écrit ‒ quelques apsects théoretiques d’un « nouveau » paradigm dans le canon de la linguistique romane. In Wolfgang Dahmen, Günter Holtus, Johannes Kramer, Michael Metzeltin, Wolfgang Schweickard & Otto Winkelmann (eds.), Kanonbildung in der Romanistik und in den Nachbardisziplinen: Romanistisches Kolloquium XIV, 305‒320. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Kloss, Heinz. 1978 [1952]. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800, 2nd edn. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar

  • Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe ‒ Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. 15‒43.Google Scholar

  • Lyons, Melinda et al. 2001. Glossary. http://scripts.sil.org/Glossary (accessed 16 May 2017).

  • Unseth, Peter. 2005. Sociolinguistic parallels between choosing scripts and languages. Written Language & Literacy 8(1). 19‒42.Google Scholar

  • Villa, Laura & Rik Vosters (eds.). 2015. The Historical Sociolinguistics of spelling. [Special Issue.] Written Language & Literacy 18(2). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-09-12

Published in Print: 2017-10-26


Citation Information: Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, ISSN (Online) 2199-2908, ISSN (Print) 2199-2894, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsl-2016-0022.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in