Arbeitnehmerveranlagung abgewickelt wird, und eine Möglichkeit schafft, .. Summary for Policymakers: caite.info In Vienna hosted major international congresses. Further Information: after input of gross salary) caite.info arbeitnehmerveranlagung/. Mar 3, and the Gentleman's agreement for the transition period (Doc. SP//11/EN)). MEMBER STATE: Austria. REFERENCE YEAR:
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Country:||Papua New Guinea|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||22.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.87 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
(28); (28); (30); (30); (30); (30); (30); (30) Hinweis für PDF Formulare zum „Drucken, Ausfüllen und Speichern“ . authorities. caite.info (the political system) Arbeitnehmerveranlagung) if you have caite.info wp-content/uploads//01/caite.info (brochure “know your rights . 1. Jan. Volksanwaltschaft im Berichtsjahr , und er zeigt, wie die rufung über die Arbeitnehmerveranlagung an den UFS einen automa-.
Pluricentricity is so engrained into the fabric of English that entire disciplines are built on it. A which reasonable stance appears to be that some linguistic structures, the l'imparfait vs. You need to run a central user directory service e. Clyne foregrounds the factors of language use, perception and attitudinal features in varieties that have developed norms, whether they are codified — entered in dictionaries and grammars — or not yet. These seven Germanic languages are different and alike at the same time. Previous post Network approval paves way for solar and storage at some of Australia's biggest mines Next post Tesla grid battery to be tested in WA's top solar postcode.
You know… make policies and stuff. But as so many studies and experts have pointed out — including the Australian Energy Market Operator — centralised, slow-moving, baseload power stations are no longer fit for purpose in a carbon constrained world, with its increasingly decentralised grids.
Maths are a bastard coal https: Furthermore, we already have the technology — right now — to store renewable energy, and to manage it and shift it, so that its variability is not a problem. We solved this with water many centuries ago. Sophie has been writing about clean energy for more than a decade.
Network approval paves way for solar and storage at some of Australia's biggest mines. Sophie Vorrath. Previous post Network approval paves way for solar and storage at some of Australia's biggest mines Next post Tesla grid battery to be tested in WA's top solar postcode. Queensland solar rule will blow out costs, cause months-long delays by Sophie Vorrath on 12 April at 1: Low-back vowel merger s to s: Normalized use of "ein Anpatzen" Tormann in.
It stresses what seems to be missing from the debate about Austrian German and how this national variety is linguistically modelled.
By placing German in the context of other Germanic languages, it is my hope that the incompatibilities will become clearer. This book identifies the problems and proposes ways to redress them. It argues that sociolinguistic concepts that have proven themselves in an international context must be the basis for exploration and elaboration, not new coinages and concepts.
This book makes the case against a "special status" of German and hopes to bring a theoretical angle into a discussion that has stalled for more than 20 years. As a linguist, a speaker of Austrian German and a language teacher, I think that whatever we do as linguists must benefit the speakers and learners of the varieties we deal with. If some of our findings have the potential to go against perceived speaker needs, it is time to take stock and see if a major principle was violated.
I believe that in German dialectology we have reached that point in what has been called the "problem" of national varieties. This book contains little new data; its novelty lies in the weaving together of arguments that are usually buried in data-driven presentations; in the combination, juxtaposition and comparison of studies not usually read together.
This book's focus is on theoretical bases and interpretations, how we can know what we know. The new data that is now part of this book was included at the brilliant suggestion of one of two anonymous reviewers in the spring of Even if that were the case, the arguments herein have an intrinsic value. Nobody should be asked to separate their social and linguistic identities.
How would this be possible, respectively, what kind of sociolinguistics would we be getting? When I occasionally refer to the German provenance of colleagues, I do so as a last resort in order to understand why, by virtue of a different kind of socialization and training perhaps, a given view might be so different from the one presented in the present book. Not everyone will agree with every point raised, others will miss some; I felt unable to offer any more depth within the scope of a short monograph.
I particularly regret the deletion of the original quotes from the German in footnotes some words , as a hard word limit was enforced. I hope to have given just enough context for everyone to allow the arguments to be tested in their own linguistic contexts, so that they may attempt to falsify, in the sense introduced in section 6.
Their naming or highlighting here implies no endorsement of any part of my argument. Terminological Note While English terminology is used throughout this book, I aimed to translate all German terms and concepts as faithfully as possible into international English. The use of terms such as "German German" — for the German used in Germany — or "Dutch Dutch" — in opposition to "Belgian Dutch" — is in line with Trudgill's terminology e.
I see no problem with such 'double' names, though some find them objectionable on aesthetic grounds; they can easily be replaced by, e. Benedict Anderson In most cases, such universals are conceived as part of linguistic structure, the inner "mechanics" of the language system.
It is therefore somewhat rarer that linguists envisage social universals, despite sociolinguists having established a fair number of consistent behaviours. The present book takes a look at an area of sociolinguistic inquiry pertaining to the treatment of what is often called "non-dominant varieties" of a language. German German and Belgian Dutch vs.
Netherlandic Dutch. There are different ways to treat such varieties. In German, for instance, national varieties are often considered a "problem" e. Ammon A comparison of German and English in this regard is therefore at the core of this book, with six other Germanic languages, Danish, Dutch, Luxembourgish, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish thrown into the mix.
The present book argues that linguistic concepts need to be applicable across various languages and philologies in order to be meaningful.
If we are to make lasting progress, we need to have clarity with regards to basic terms, concepts and notions. Every bi- or multilingual student of more than one philology will have noticed a certain dissonance within the concepts of any given language when compared to similar concepts in another language.
I would argue that linguists should accept a competing concept only if there are very compelling reasons to treat any given language differently.
Recent years have seen the use of a competing concept called "pluri-areality" in German dialectology. Pluricentricity refers to the development of multiple standards, often national standards of a given language, while "pluri-areality" downplays if not negates any national level.
The two approaches will be discussed and contrasted in detail. There may, of course, be very good reasons for using different concepts in different philologies. An area where different cross-linguistic terms are fully justified, even desirable, concerns the various languages' tense systems. How the natural phenomenon of time is split, dissected and mapped onto different tenses varies from language to language.
The different terms make sense, as they mark different conceptualizations as mirrored in grammar.
This short monograph argues that the modelling of German varieties does not warrant the special term "pluri-areality", a term contradicting the standard international concept of pluricentricity.
My argument concerns the areas of dialectology and sociolinguistics, which have a trickling down effect on how we conceptualize what we call the German language in our teaching models. The simple question at the base of this book is whether we accept to model standard varieties of German differently from standard varieties in English, Danish- Swedish-Norwegian, Spanish or Portuguese, to name but a few.
Professional linguistics has not been immune to isolationist tendencies. Modern language studies — our philologies — have their roots in late 18th and early 19th century nationalist ideals of nation and state, of a discursively constructed Volk, a people, and its connection to the imagined but very powerful idea of nation.
One can argue that we only talk about languages such as German and French as a result of the political and social developments from that era, developments that are rooted in the idea of the nation. As we will see later, the latter have successfully adopted the term "German" Deutsch for what might have just as well have been called Prussian. At the centre of the argument are some fundamental questions of intellectual curiosity, such as why we use the terms and concepts we use, how we use them and how we know what we think we know about languages and their speakers.
In a recent paper, Martin Haspelmath writes that we do not appreciate and value the cross-checking and replication of results enough, as we generally prefer to study new phenomena instead.
Two such technical terms are at the centre of this book. The concept of "pluricentricity", as defined by Clyne and Ammon and the term "pluri-areality", as first used by Wolf and Scheuringer The concept of "pluri-areality" has been presented as an alternative concept to pluricentricity since the mids e.
Scheuringer , Pohl German as a Second Language books, however, have increasingly been adopting the pluricentric framework and with it, the study of national varieties and multiple standards see, e. As a result, today we may speak of a pluricentricity debate in German. It is hoped that the present account can contribute to its resolution.
The concept of pluricentricity has been explored and developed in German linguistics both in breadth and scope since the early s.
The Dictionary documents the major variants in the German-speaking countries in a pluricentric framework that, above all, rest on the distributions of forms in D Germany , A Austria and CH Switzerland , the three major national varieties of standard German, the "DACH" varieties.
An important predecessor of these is Heinz Kloss , , , , to be discussed in section 2. Pluricentric claims and predictions have in addition been empirically tested in Schmidlin and Pfrehm , and most recently in De Cillia and Ransmayr forthc. What is pluricentricity? Pluricentricity is an application of the concept of pluricentric languages. Ammon defines as a pluricentric language as a language that is used in more than one country as a national or regional official language and if this use has resulted in differences in the standard variety.
Ammon et al. In the present book we follow Clyne's definition, which is rooted in Kloss' cross-linguistic anthropological work. Clyne foregrounds the factors of language use, perception and attitudinal features in varieties that have developed norms, whether they are codified — entered in dictionaries and grammars — or not yet. In Clyne's words, a pluricentric language is defined as follows: Clyne Muhr a, b and has been tied to the development of codified standard languages as the major reference point for varieties that are considered as belonging to the same language.
If you don't favour pluricentricity, what concept might replace it?
Current anti- pluricentrists employ the term "pluri-areality". The s saw a heated debate between mostly Austrian linguists over the state of Austrian German. The two main proponents were Rudolf Muhr, who has been arguing for pluricentricity Muhr , , , and Hermann Scheuringer b, , who rejected the notion as of The term pluri- areal is defined negatively, in opposition to the pluricentric model, because, as Wolf states: All translations are by the present book's author and strive to render the meanings.
Due to strict space constraints, the originals can unfortunately not be provided here. Wolf The remainder of the book will be spent on untangling the assumptions behind such statements to show that they are rooted in a misunderstanding of the concept of pluricentricity.
Before a new generation of German scholars picked up and revived the dormant term, "pluri-areality" was a fringe term, which is virtually unknown outside of German linguistics but central to many if not most dialectological approaches of German today. There are social implications to a rejection of the pluricentric notion.
The denial of the legitimacy of non-dominant standard varieties, as lined out by Wolf above, for instance, might be considered as a "neo-colonial" take on German.
Charges of colonialism lie heavily, especially in this age when western cultures are beginning to realize the long-term effects of colonization that require reconciliatory action. I do not accuse my colleagues of such motivation, but some of their reconceptualizations are reminiscent of such ideas of dominance.
Going back to Wolf's book review that apparently coined "pluri- areality", we see contradictions from the start. Wolf concedes that Certainly, many speakers within Austria and abroad are aware of an "Austrian German". But Wolf goes on to "overrule" this conceded speaker awareness, referring to the absence of clear categories: It is not just the linguists, however, who have difficulties to specify what precisely constitutes this Austrian German.