Pluricentric Languages

Among the diverse national varieties of Postcolonial English (Schneider 2007), Australian English is an interesting example of the potential a non-dominant variety of English can have nationally and inter¬nationally. After only having achieved general acceptance and linguistic attention as a national standard in the 1970s, Australian English is now codified and well researched. On the one hand, its development has been (and continues to be) influenced by two different dominant varieties of English, British English as well as United States English, on the other hand, Australian English has become a semi-dominant standard regionally, influencing other South West Pacific Englishes, in particular the Papua New Guinean and New Zealand standards. It is argued that in many cases of pluricentric languages, dominance or non-dominance is not a binary opposition but must be determined for each standard variety within its individual framework of dominance.

The character of this interesting monograph is best captured (or should we say “alluded to”?) by its somewhat catchy subtitle: this is not yet another history of the emergence and character of Canadian English (CanE); there are plenty, high- quality and useful ones, both in article and in book length, for example Avis (1973), Chambers (1975), Bailey (1982), Boberg (2010), and many more. Instead, it showcases the story of the growth of awareness of the variety, its discovery, codi- fication, and acceptance, by pioneers of Canadian linguistics. It is said to offer an “intellectual history [...] [of ] the ‘founders’ of Canadian English” (p. xiii), focus- ing mostly upon the twentieth century. The book is more than that, in fact. It not only adds historiography to history but is based upon thorough, comprehensive and original archival research, and has a distinctive focus on the development of the lexicography of CanE, thus also contributing more generally to the history, methodology and impact of dictionary making in general.

German dialectology has had a central role in the conceptualization of political borders in language continua at least since Kremer's pioneering work (1979). In the early 1980s, Michael Clyne (1984, 1992, 1995) developed the concept of pluricentricity, which operates on the base of "linguistic centres" that, more often than not, can be equated with nations and their norm-providing and codification institutions. A decade or so later, Hermann Scheuringer (1996) proposed what he considered to be the counter concept of "pluriareality". While unheard and unknown in English linguistics, pluriareality is quite popular in German dialectology to this day, often at the expense of pluricentric approaches.

I maintain, as laid out in a recent talk, that pluricentricity is a theoretical concept, as it makes falsifiable predictions, while pluriareality is not (in Popper's sense). The latter is, in fact, a red-herring term that has set back considerably the discussion of regional (areal) variation in German dialectology.

Response to Nils Langer’s review of Dollinger (2019), The Pluricentricity Debate: On Austrian German and Other Germanic Standard Varieties. Abingdon: Routledge.

Published ahead of Print in
Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur Germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft (2021)

The book review is published in open access here: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zrs-2020-2060/html (18March 2021)

This article presents the result of a 10-year project revising the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles, First Edition (DCHP-1). DCHP-1 was the product of a period of nationalist zeal in Canada. Rushed to publication in 1967 to coincide with the 100th anniversary celebrations of the Canadian state, DCHP-1 was very warmly received – and relatively quickly forgotten. By the 1980s only specialist circles were aware of it. The Second Edition (DCHP-2) project set out in 2006 to place the lexicography of Canadian English on a new footing. The plan was to offer clear evidence for all Canadianisms, which are defined as words, expressions or meanings that are native to Canada or distinctively characteristic of Canadian usage. While DCHP-1 did conceptually do many things rights, it is only now, with the backing of computational methods, that the inherently comparative approach that this type of dictionary requires can be executed. All Canadianisms are classified by at least one of six categories and an explicit rationale is offered for their classification. It is a principle of DCHP-2 to offer the evidence and empirical data with each entry as much as possible while keeping the account readable and succinct. In addition to the six types, a rubric of "not Canadian" is added to dispel and correct some erroneous classifications. DCHP-2 is expected to go live in open access during the course of 2016 and is comprised of a digitized DCHP-1 (10,000 words) with an update of about 1,000 new Canadianisms in a contrastive framework.

Dieser Aufsatz handelt von Werbetexten, deren Kennzeichen, Funktionen und Ausformungen (Anglizismen als manchmal sogar unverständliche, aber moderne, sprich Mode-Wörter, Sprachspiele) im Deutschen sowie im Polnischen. Bei jeder Einzelsprache spielen auch kulturelle Gegebenheiten ein Rolle, sowie auch die Sprache selbst, die aufgrund ihrer Struktur (z.B. Reimmöglichkeiten: im Deutschen Alliteration und Endreim) nur gewisse Sprachspiele erlaubt. Dazu werden etliche Beispiele aus diesen zwei Sprachen gegeben.

Es ist Ende Jänner 2020, also schon ein Zeiterl her. Der ORF-Korrespondent in China berichtet gerade über einen neuartigen Virus, der in Wuhan die Runde macht. Er sagt dabei: “das Virus”. Dieser Gebrauch, Artikel das, war für mich merkwürdig, hatte sich damals aber schon im Medienvokabular in Österreich festgesetzt. Nicht der Virus. Sondern das Virus.  Das Virus klingt, wenn nicht fremd, dann zumindest ungewohnt, ungewohnt formell vielleicht, für die allermeisten österreichischen Ohren. Ziel dieses Buches ist, auf den Punkt gebracht aber theoretisch fundiert und wissenschafstheoretisch abgesichert und zugänglich zugleich zu zeigen, dass, z.B., der Virus in Österreich ganz und gar nicht falsch ist – so wie auch viele andere in Deutschland als falsche oder bestenfalls belächelte Formen und Verwendungen.

The lexicography of Canadian English is a niche field today. Once looming large, the field was abandoned by academic linguistics in the early 1980s. Since around 2000, Canadian dictionary publishing has proven to no longer be economically viable, which successively forced the retreat of dictionary publishers Funk & Wagnalls, then Nelson, then Gage, and at last Oxford University Press, which had been carrying on the tradition to a degree.

Consequently, the lexicography of Canadian English is currently not adequately institutionalized. There is, however, a strong history with many impressive dictionaries and some landmark works, including three regional scholarly historical dictionaries (Story, Kirwin and Widdowson 1999, Pratt 1988 and Davey and MacKinnon 2016), a recently updated open access historical dictionary of Canadianisms (www.dchp.ca/dchp2) and at least three carefully crafted desk dictionaries from around 2000.  It needs to be added that a good number of dictionaries geared towards the Canadian market have been of questionable quality. With one exception, the latter ones will not be mentioned in this essay. Popular wordbooks (e.g. Casselman 1995), while useful, are also beyond the scope of this brief account.

Niniejsza publikacja zawiera:
• 100 dokumentów wydanych przez różne instytucje i firmy w Austrii, w tym m.in. dokumenty metrykalne, szkolne, notarialne, policyjne, sądowe, bankowe, ubezpieczeniowe, księgowo-podatkowe, medyczne,
• lingwistyczny opis austriackiej odmiany języka niemieckiego na przykładzie języka prawa,
• spis skrótów używanych w sądownictwie austriackim,
• wykaz literatury przydatnej przy tłumaczeniu dokumentów austriackich.


Książka adresowana jest przede wszystkim do osób zainteresowanych przekładem tekstów specjalistycznych: studentów translatoryki, kandydatów do egzaminu na tłumacza przysięgłego języka niemieckiego, a także czynnych tłumaczy przysięgłych i specjalistycznych, którzy w ramach swojej działalności przekładowej otrzymują zlecenia na wykonanie tłumaczeń dokumentów pochodzących z Austrii.

Lexical variation counts to-date as one of the largely neglected system levels of modern variationist linguistic research on German. In particular, vertical-social variation on the dialect/standard axis have only sparingly been investigated in previous lexical studies and projects, something that is rather surprising given that investigations on lexical phenomena ('special words') have been a prominent focus in traditional dialectology and also count as one of the most interesting system levels from the speakers' perspective. In this paper we present an investigation on lexical phenomena conducted by means of a nationwide questionnaire, taking into account intra-individual variation. The main aim of the questionnaire survey was to collect data on the lexical variation of the German language in Austria, which firstly enables statements to be made about the areal-horizontal and vertical-social dimension of lexical variation.

Praise by Peter Trudgill: "For this brilliantly researched book, Stefan Dollinger bravely ventured to parts of the archives other scholars had never reached. He emerged with the fascinating story of how the "Lennon & McCartney of Canadian English", Walter S. Avis and Charles J. Lovell, persuaded Canada - and then the world - to recognize Canadian English as the distinctive language variety that it truly is."

Advance praise by Jack Chambers (University of Toronto): "Stefan Dollinger has undertaken heroic archival sleuthing to resuscitate the coalition of amateur logophiles and English professors that succeeded in bringing Canadian English into print and, more important, into our consciousness. Through him, this small, almost forgotten band of scholars come to life with their foibles, their labours and above all their dedication."

Synopsis:
"Two fatal heart attacks are among the many reasons why the names of Walter S. Avis and Charles J. Lovell, the Lennon-McCartney of Canadian English, have not become the Canadian household names they should perhaps be. This book tells their stories and those of the other Big Sixers from the 1940s to the 1990s, with a good helping of present-day hindsight. This book also writes into disciplinary history the few women researchers in early 20th-century Canada. The main goal of the book is more generally to enrich and correct the social and linguistic histories concerning some long-forgotten individuals. This exercise is thrilling and enlightening at the same time, presenting the relatively small field of Canadian English linguistics in a new, fully contextualized light, telling the stories of how Canadian English was "discovered" and eventually lifted from ridicule and disdain to — cautious, because Canadian — appreciation."

The study of Canadian English (CanE) has undergone phases of considerable activity in the 20th century and must today be considered a field in its own right. The purpose of this overview is to present the research on CanE from a diachronic, and, wherever possible, real-time perspective. Given the lack of a consistent historical research tradition in CanE linguistics, the present chapter aims to link real-time studies of CanE with the most relevant apparent-time approaches. The following pages are intended as a spring board to CanE for those approaching it from a historical and sociohistorical linguistic perspective.

Chapter 1, Table of Content, frontmatter and index of the upcoming monograph in Routledge's FOCUS series (May 2019)

The present book argues that linguistic concepts need to be applicable across various languages and philologies in order to be meaningful and to stand the test of time. 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 of a given language's concepts with another one. It is here argued that linguists should accept such differences only when there are compelling reasons for them to be moulded into terms and therefore into our conceptualizations of language.
Recent years have seen the use of a concept called "pluri-areality" in German dialectology. "Pluri-areality" and "pluri-areal" are my renderings from the original German "pluriareale Sprache" (Wolf 1994: 74, Scheuringer 1996). "Pluri-areality" directly contradicts the established concept of pluricentricity in its fundamental assumptions of how national varieties are to be modelled. The two approaches will be discussed at length and contrasted before the backdrop of the Germanic languages that are at the centre of this book, with a focus on English and German as the two languages that mark the difference in approach most clearly.

Pluricentric approaches to international varieties have been a mainstay in English dialectology since the 1980s, often implied rather than expressed. What is standard lore in many philologies is today seriously questioned in one philology. This paper assesses the pros and cons of the so-called "pluri-areal" perspective, which has in the past few years become increasingly prominent in German dialectology.

The paper examines European language policy shaped by its two differing inclinations, that is, standardizing national regimes and language emancipation. The case of the Bunyev language, the most recent offspring of the former Serbo-Croatian, as we argue, may serve as a textbook example of exactly how the current European ideologies and debates develop concerning languages. Initially, the paper discusses the legal framework for minority language protection in Europe and highlights the criticism that European standard language cultures have already received. Then, the quest for the Bunyev language recognition, its emancipation vis-à-vis the previously established kin standards – Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian – and finally its standardization in present-day Serbia are considered. By using the case of the Bunyev language in Serbia, we argue that the path to language emancipation (and recognition) in today’s Europe is still paved and limited by the language’s (national) standardization. At the same time, standardization is often used to justify the power games which take place in the realms of language emancipation and linguistic rights.

Keywords: Bunyev, Serbo-Croatian, standard language ideology, language emancipation.

Die Arbeit stellt einen Beitrag zu den Forschungen zur Plurizentrik des Spanischen dar, die untersuchen, ob innerhalb der spanischen Sprache unterschiedliche Standardvarietäten koexistieren und in welchem Verhältnis diese zueinander stehen. Anhand eigens erhobener Sprachproduktions- und Sprachperzeptionsdaten wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob im argentinischen Spanisch eine Standardisierung der Aussprache zu beobachten ist und ob dieser Aussprachestandard einheitlich im gesamten Land gilt oder Phänomene regionaler Variation aufweist.

Der Beitrag will einen Forschungsüberblick zur Sprachvariation und zum Sprachwandel in Österreich liefern. Der Fokus wird dabei auf aktuellen Forschungsansätzen und ihren Ergebnissen im Umfeld des Spezialforschungsbereichs (SFB) „Deutsch in Österreich (DiÖ). Variation – Kontakt – Perzeption“ (FWF F060) liegen, und hier insbesondere auf der Erforschung der vertikal-sozialen Variationsdimension innerhalb der deutschen Sprache in Österreich.

Der Beitrag gliedert sich wie folgt: In einem ersten Überblickskapitel (Kap. 2) wird der Forschungsstand bis zum Jahr 2015 (vor Beginn des SFB DiÖ) im Hinblick auf verschiedene „vertikale“ Registerausschnitte auf der Dialekt-Standard-Achse zusammengefasst, bevor in Kap. 3 die aktuelle SFB-Forschung seit 2016 vorgestellt wird. Neben methodischen Aspekten, die die Datenerhebungen im SFB betreffen, werden Ergebnisse auf Basis ausgewählter Variationsphänomene präsentiert, die als besonders aussagekräftig bzgl. genereller Dynamikprozesse der deutschen Sprache in Österreich angesehen werden können.

Patrick Dockar Drysdale, Paddy to those who knew him, passed away on 9 December, 2020 in hospital in Oxford, England, after a brief illness. Canadian linguistics owes a lot to Paddy. A longtime member of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Paddy held central roles in the field over nearly 30 years, roles mostly out of the limelight yet essential. Paddy was the last of the founding generation of linguists who were centrally concerned with the original description and codification of Canadian English.

This article presents a proposal for Arabic varieties hierachization within the frame of linguistic pluricentrism. In order to do so, it provides a definition of this concept–linguistic pluricentrism– and differentiates it from the concept of diglossia. After that, it
draws three levels of pluricentricism in the Arab World. The first level concerns Modern
Standard Arabic (AMS), the official language of the Arabic countries. The second level focuses
in the national Arabic dialects (Egyptian Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Syrian Arabic,
etc.) and it tries to explore whether the label of linguistic pluricentricism is suitable for
these varieties, since they lack standardization (as defined by Haugen 1983). The last level of pluricentricism is considered to be in development and it focuses in Morocco: it tries
to observe if it is possible to talk about an existing national variety for Morocco according to the characteristics of this kind of varieties in the pluricentric frame.

Designed for Portuguese learners in US Higher Education, Plural: Português Pluricêntrico introduces the language by exploring contemporary issues in Portuguese-speaking communities based on social justice pedagogy, pluricentric perspective, and project-based learning. Download the full book at: https://plural.pressbooks.com/

Dutch, a West-Germanic language, is spoken by approximately 23 million people worldwide. In Europe, it is the language of all of the Netherlands and the northern part of Belgium, called Flanders. It is often said that since the Dutch and the Flemish speak Dutch differently, they in fact speak two different languages – Netherlandic Dutch and Belgian Dutch (Flemish). Linguists, however, argue they are not necessarily two separate languages but rather two varieties – a Netherlandic and a Belgian variety – of the same language, Dutch. Since there are a substantial number of grammatical, lexical, phonetic and even spelling differences between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch, the question is whether Dutch is a pluricentric language with two centres of standardization or not. By explaining the socio-historical background of the Dutch language and giving a comprehensive overview of the differences between Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch, this article attempts to answer the aforementioned (research) question.

German is a pluricentric language. It has three varieties: German Standard German, Austrian Standard German and Swiss Standard German. The most popular variety for German language learners is German used in Germany but sometimes the students learn also few words in Austrian German, while the Swiss German is still neglected.
The differences between those three varieties concern orthography, phonetics, grammas, lexis and pragmatics and they refer not only to everyday language usage but also to specialised one. All those three variations are equally essential for translators and interpreters because they have to know the differences between them and be able to apply appropriate terms in the translation process in order to make a correct translation.
The legal translation is a very difficult area because the usage of appropriate equivalents is highly important and the incorrect translation may have severe consequences. There is a wide range of errors which can appear in translations but they should be at all costs avoided this is why a legal translator needs to have specific and expert knowledge about the source and target language. Furthermore, they need to know the similarities and differences in both legal systems. Legal translation requires on the one hand familiarity with the relevant terminology according to the variety and the field of law and on the other hand competence in legal writing style.

Despite a history of rigorous linguistic research on the regional variation of German as well as professional initiatives to promote German, Austrian, and Swiss Standard German as equal varieties, there is still a lack of awareness and systematic incorporation of regional varieties in L2 German teaching. This essay follows two goals: First, it reviews the development of the pluricentric approach in the discourse on L2 German teaching as well as the political and ideological preconditions that form the backdrop of this discussion. Particular emphasis will be given to institutional tri-national collaborations and the standard language ideology. Second, by drawing on sociolinguistic insights on the use and speaker attitudes of (non-)standard varieties, this contribution argues that the pluricentric focus on national standard varieties in L2 German teaching falls short in capturing the complex socioculturally situated practices of language use in both (often dialectally-oriented) everyday and (often standard-oriented) formal and official domains of language use. I argue that the pluricentric approach forms an important step in overcoming the monocentric bias of one correct Standard German; however, for an approach to L2 German teaching that aims at representing linguistic and cultural diversity, it is necessary to incorporate both standard and non-standard varieties into L2 German teaching.

Esta obra invita al lector a conocer la importancia del lenguaje y de las lenguas como señas de identidad de una comunidad, vehículos de comunicación y socialización que proporcionan mucha información sobre quiénes somos y cómo somos. Es necesario tomar conciencia de la importancia que tiene para el ser humano el mantenimiento de la riqueza y la diversidad etnolingüísticas, un aspecto que debe tener muy en cuenta el lingüista cuando interviene en la forma o la función de las variedades lingüísticas con medidas como la oficialización de una lengua, la elección de un determinado sistema de escritura, la creación de una variedad estándar, etc. Todas estas cuestiones de política y planificación lingüísticas se tratan con especial dedicación en este libro. Asimismo, se aborda cómo los hablantes le otorgan al lenguaje un carácter normativo y las consecuencias que de ello se derivan para la ciencia lingüística.

Gegenstand des Bandes sind die sogenannten „kleineren“ romanischen Sprachen, die die Romania „minor“ ausmachen. Obwohl diese für die romanistische Forschung eine hohe Relevanz besitzen, ist ihre Erforschung in vielerlei Hinsicht noch lückenhaft. Die Sprachen der Romania „minor“ stellen fundamentale Bestandteile der gesamten Romania dar und können zur Untersuchung der größeren romanischen Sprachen einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten. Im Mittelpunkt des Bandes stehen Standardisierungsprozesse und Variationsphänomene in der Romania „minor“. Im thematischen Gesamtrahmen wird auch die Bedeutung des Translationswesens einer näheren Betrachtung unterzogen. Im Hinblick auf die Standardisierung weisen die untersuchten Sprachen stark plurizentristische Tendenzen auf. Illustriert wird die Thematik anhand konkreter Fallbeispiele aus der Romania.

Based on the history of the Serbian language, with particular attention being given to the Serbian migration to Austria since the end of the 17th century, this paper will consider the development process of the Serbian language variety as a minority language in the Habsburg Monarchy with specific regard to Austria. Therein, the process of interaction of the language in Serbia with that of the migrants is of vital importance. This paper will reflect the further development of Serbian standard within pluricentric Serbo-Croatian (since the end of the 19th century) as well as in the framework of newly in Austria established Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (since the end of the 20th century). Preeminent attention is being dedicated to the role of Austro-Hungarian and Austrian language and school policy, which governed the different naming and codification of this language. Considering the Serbian language varieties, it will, for instance, indicate interdependencies of dominant and non-dominant variations and the position of one standard within a pluricentric language. Furthermore, it exemplifies circumstances under which a language’s variety developing in migration can recursively influence the language in the country of origin.

Verleger kennen das Wort "Abfluss" mit einer branchespezifischen Bedeutung: aufpassen, damit man den Nachdrucktermin bei "abfließendem" Lagerbestand nicht verpasst, um Lieferengpässe zu vermeiden. Der noch am 1. April scherzend formulierende Dr. Knill von new academic press-"richtig 'abfließen' [tut] das Buch nicht"-, druckte keine drei Wochen später bereits nach. Dank Ihnen, liebe*r Leser*in! Ich bedanke mich hiermit für das überwältigende Interesse an diesem, meinem mittlerweile siebenten, "Biachl", aber meinem ersten "kleinen Bestseller", der nun in komplett durchgesehener, dritter Auflage vorliegt und einige Präzisierungen neben den 71, meist klitzekleinen, getilgten Fehlern aus der zweiten Auflage vorweist. Der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft wünsche ich nur jeden Mut zu den richtigen Schritten, weniger bis keine "Rezensionen" wie diese zu meinem englischen Buch zum Thema (https:// www.academia.edu/45577124/), sowie die völlig durchgreifende und kompromisslose Entkolonialisierung und Dehegemonialisierung, die sich das Fach verdient. Don't forget: I am just the messenger.

The present paper explores “Canadianisms” in Canadian desk dictionaries. The Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (Avis et al. 1967) defines Canadianisms not only as words, expressions and meanings native to Canada, but also as those that “are distinctively characteristic of Canadian usage though not necessarily exclusive to Canada” (xiii). This definition calls for a descriptive approach that is at the base of most Canadian desk dictionaries.

The paper focuses on three Canadian desk dictionaries that comprise the apex of the lexicography of contemporary Canadian English to this day. These are the Gage Canadian Dictionary and the ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary from 1997 and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary from 1998. All three dictionaries appeared at a time of intense competition on the small Canadian market and were direct competitors in what can be called the “Canadian dictionary war”. At the time, Gage Ltd. published what is de facto the fifth edition of the Senior Dictionary, while ITP Nelson and Oxford University Press issued newly adapted and Canadianized dictionaries.

Based on an examination of all terms, meanings and expressions labelled “Cdn.” in these three dictionaries, we deduct the working principles of what comprises a Canadianism in each case. It will be shown – with the benefit of hindsight – that not all terms labelled “Canadian” are actually Canadianisms in any meaningful way. It will also be shown to what degree these dictionaries include highly specialized uses – ranging from Canadian military abbreviations to highly localized place names – while lacking some bona fide Canadianisms. Regionalisms, which are characterized by their limited geographical use in a given national context and/or by their cross-border use, are particularly interesting cases. More than just associated with a given region, regionalisms can help define national varieties in some contexts. For instance, the term runners/running shoes serves as a Canadianism west of Quebec, yet in Atlantic Canada sneakers is the dominant form, just as in much of the USA (Berger 2005). It will be argued that existing “errors” in the Canadian desk dictionaries are the result of the standard methods of quotation file and corpus linguistics, which only suboptimally produce evidence on the lexis of a non-dominant variety of a language (Clyne 1992), such as Canadian English.

Presented on 5 June 2015.

Es ist Ende Jänner 2020. Der ORF-Korrespondent in China berichtet gerade über einen neuartigen Virus, der in Wuhan die Runde macht. Er sagt dabei: “das Virus”. Dieser Gebrauch, Artikel das, war für mich merkwürdig, hatte sich damals aber schon im Medienvokabular in Österreich festgesetzt. Nicht der Virus. Sondern das Virus.  Das Virus klingt, wenn nicht fremd, dann zumindest ungewohnt, ungewohnt formell vielleicht, für die allermeisten österreichischen Ohren. Ziel dieses Buches ist, auf den Punkt gebracht aber theoretisch fundiert und wissenschafstheoretisch abgesichert und zugänglich zugliech zu zeigen, dass, z.B., der Virus in Österreich ganz und gar nicht falsch ist – so wie auch viele andere in Deutschland als falsche oder bestenfalls belächelte Formen und Verwendungen.

The present paper aims to chart the historical entanglements of “nation” and “language” as it relates to the prescriptive standardization of non-dominant varieties, which are characteristically “created” via applications of standard language ideologies (e.g. Dollinger 2019a for Canada). In a second part, I aim to explore some incompatibilities of linguistic thought – be they from the descriptive or prescriptive camp - with the concepts of prescriptivism, language and nation.