about the extent to which 'comparative standardology', to use Joseph's (1987: 13) term, is possible.Models, frameworks and theories of standardization have been developed and exploited in a number of different disciplines and subdisciplines of linguistics, including (historical) sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, language policy and planning and the description of the histories of particular languages. In some cases, these different (sub-) disciplines have adopted and adapted the same basic models of standardization, whilst in others, independent work has emerged which may or may not be known outside that sub-discipline. It is striking, moreover, that different traditions have, to some extent, emerged according to the language, language family or language type being discussed (e.g. Germanic, Romance, minoritized). In addition, scholars publishing in different languages (English, German, Spanish, etc.) are to some extent working independently of each other, not least in part because of the absence of translations of certain key theoretical texts. As a result, it has proved difficult to provide useful syntheses of the different models (see Section 1.2.4.2 below).Key questions, which run through much of the literature on standardization, include: 3 W e n d y A y R e s -B e n n e t t 6 For later developments of the work on diasystems, see, for example, Koch & oesterreicher (1990Koch & oesterreicher ( , 2001. For an application of the variational model to external linguistic history and questions of standardization, see Koch (2014). 7 It was only in 1979 that the journal Language published an article in this area on the decline and survival of prestige languages (Kahane & Kahane 1979). on Haugen, see Joseph et al. (2020).8 these are said to derive, respectively, from Vilém Mathesius and Bohuslav Havránek, both members of the Prague school. the same ideas are developed in Garvin (1993), where intellectualization is defined as 'the capacity of a language to develop increasingly more accurate and detailed means of expression, especially in the domains of modern life, that is to say in the spheres of science and technology, of government and politics, of higher education, of contemporary culture, etc. ' (1993: 43).W e n d y A y R e s -B e n n e t t 10 According to Rutten et al. (2020: 260), elaboration for Haugen relates primarily to language, whereas Kloss (1967: 30) states that '[t]he concept of ausbau language is primarily a sociological one'. Moreover, Kloss thought of Ausbau in terms of genres and domains.11 this distinction is further elaborated by Muljac ˇic´ in a series of papers in the 1980s (see Muljacˇic´ 1993: 89) considering not just dying languages, but also (re)emerging ones. He postulates two maximal evolutionary series of linguistic 'descent' and 'ascent' (1993: 88-92). As Millar notes (2005: 56), Muljacˇic´ could be accused of adding too many terms to too few contexts, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish patterns shared by different situations.12 Ethnologue now lists fifteen language rec...
