The term "sprachlicher Zweifelsfall" ('linguistic case of doubt') is not yet well established in the terminology of linguistics. The first part of the paper therefore outlines a definition of "sprachlicher Zweifelsfall" and a classification of various types. Basically, the definition takes up the fact that even fully competent speakers sometimes do not know definitely which variant to choose from two (or more) alternatives. Doubts like this evolve on all levels of language (phonetics, morphology, lexic, syntax, semantics). Considering the emergence of "Zweifelsfälle", it is argued that they arise mainly from the existence of written language and more or less standardized varieties of language. At least some of their features refer to the specific conceptual conditions of writing and reading. In the second part of the paper, the "Zweifelsfälle" are reconceived in so far as they have been treated in the newer history of German discourse on language, including both popular and philological discussion. Starting in 19th century thought, they became symbolic means of social distinction. In contrast, linguists tended to neglect the existence of "Zweifelsfälle" because they did not fit in well with their theories on language. The paper ends with several theses dealing with possible future research on the topic.
It is one of the main aims of modern linguistics to describe rather than prescribe linguistic forms and their uses. Normally, descriptive and prescriptive ways of reflecting on language are seen as antagonistic; e.g. a grammarian is either a descriptivist or a prescriptivist. In contrast to this antagonistic conception, the paper argues that the designation of a grammar as descriptive or prescriptive is rather a matter of scale than of antagonism. To hold this thesis, four dimensions are investigated in detail. A grammar might be classified as descriptive or prescriptive by analyzing the intention of its author (Autordimension), its reception (Rezipientendimension), its formulation as a text (Textdimension) and the ways a grammar extracts and treats linguistic data (Datendimension). On the basis of this assumption prescriptive ways of thinking about language are seen as inevitable even for modern linguists. This might be less of a problem than modern linguists have always presumed.
_____________ 1Ich werde mich im Folgenden auf das Beispiel der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft konzentrieren, gehe allerdings davon aus, dass die Befunde im Großen und Ganzen in ähnlicher Art und Weise auch für andere Sprachwissenschaften gelten. 2Hier und im Folgenden wird der Begriff deskriptiv "im weiteren Sinne" (Bußmann 1983: s. v. "Deskriptive Linguistik") genommen, also n i c h t im Bezug auf den amerikanischen Strukturalismus und auch n i c h t im Bezug auf die Differenz zwischen "Beobachtungsadäquatheit" und "Erklärungsadäquatheit"; zu letzterem Sprachgebrauch vgl. etwa den Titel und die anfängliche sprachtheoretische Fundierung in Dürr / Schlobinski 1994.Brought to you by | University of Iowa Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 6/3/15 12:37 PM
SprachverfaU wird in der öffentlichen Sprachdiskussion nicht selten mit der Unkenntnis oder Missachtung von sprachlichen Regeln in Verbindung gebracht. Als Instanzen, wo sich (explizite) Sprachregeln gesellschaftlich relevant verkörpern, können Sprachkodizes gesehen werden. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird im Text der Begriff des Sprachkodex in verschiedenen Dimensionen präzisiert und eine Subklassifikation in Kern-und Parakodex vorgeschlagen. Dem folgt ein Plädoyer für eine Sprachkodexforschung, in der die traditionell eher marginalen Perspektiven auf Sprachkodizes zu erweitern und zu systematisieren sind.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.