Sprache der Nähe — Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte

Koch, Peter; Oesterreicher, Wulf

doi:10.1515/9783110244922.15

Cited by 773 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…in sections 3, 4 and 5, we discuss a number of theoretical approaches to first-person writing in order to further unpack the problem that we focus on in this paper. these approaches, such as Koch & oesterreicher (1985) and Biber & conrad (2009), go a long way towards understanding the empirically found differences between letters and diaries, yet we argue that they are not sufficient for a full understanding of these differences. In the final part of the paper, we argue that we need to incorporate insights developed in social and cultural history in order to explain these differences (section 6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…this focus on ego-documents is rooted in the communication theory developed by the Romanists Koch & oesterreicher (1985), who famously distinguished between the medium of communication and the way in which it is conceptualised. the medium is either spoken (phonic) or written (graphic), but communication can also be conceptualised in terms of leaning towards speech or more akin to writing.…”

Section: Ego-documents and Language Of Immediacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then discuss a number of theoretical models (e.g. Biber & Conrad 2009; Yañez-Bouza 2015;Koch & Oesterreicher 1985), arguing that these can partially explain the differences, without however offering a full explanation of the surprising formality of diaries/journals. In the final part of the paper, we argue that it is crucial to consider recent work by social historians concerning diaries/journals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Baggerman 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note, however, that we argue in section 6 that private diaries often also imply an addressee or even a readership, and may thus be both more accessible and less private than intuitively assumed. Koch & oesterreicher (1985) is widely used in historical sociolinguistics. theorising the communicative parameters leads to noteworthy changes to the original model in the works of Ágel & hennig (2006a, 2006b) and landert gijsbert Rutten & Andreas Krogull • the observee's paradox.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The observee’s paradox

Rutten

Krogull

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ego-documents are at the heart of historical sociolinguistics. Contrary to what a label such as ego-document may suggest, Early and Late Modern ego-documents constitute a heterogenous group of genres comprising, among others, private letters, diaries and travel journals. Empirical studies have shown that there are important linguistic differences between private letters on the one hand, and diaries/journals on the other. The latter often seem surprisingly standard-like or formal. Theoretical models of register variation and conceptual orality can partially explain the differences, without however offering a full explanation of the surprising formality of diaries/journals. We argue that it is crucial to take into account recent work by social historians concerning diaries/journals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Diary-writing was an inherently reflexive practice allowing authors to reflect on their lives, and to create a textually fixed point of reference. Authors of diaries had a variable and multilayered audience in mind of known and unknown readers. We introduce the observee’s paradox: while creating private texts for themselves in which they were their own observers and observees, authors of diaries also reckoned with unknown readers in a possibly distant future, which prompted them to shift into a more formal or standard-like register.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Ego-documents and Language Of Immediacymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The observee’s paradox

Rutten

Krogull

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sin embargo, como se ha podido anticipar ya en § 3, lo habitual es que en el ámbito de la LVC en general, y en el del abordaje de la cuestión de las TD en particular, esta última diferenciaciónentre saber hablar en tipos de circunstancias y saber estructurar ciertos tipos de discursos-haya Como pone de manifiesto la figura 6, las nociones de inmediatez y distancia comunicativa 28 , acuñadas por Koch y Oesterreicher (1985) y dadas a conocer internacionalmente sobre todo a partir de Koch y Oesterreicher (1990Oesterreicher ( [2007), buscan aprehender la idea de que diferentes constelaciones situacionales propician estrategias de verbalización también distintas: Fig. 6.…”

Section: La Interrelación Entre Variación Situacional Y Variación Discursiva En El Concepto De Tdunclassified

La tradicionalidad discursiva como materia y las tradiciones discursivas como objeto de estudio

Serena

2021

Verba

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabajo plantea la diferencia que supone, en el modo en que se concibe la noción de tradición discursiva (td), aproximarse a ella, bien con una perspectiva en la que las td formen parte de la materia de estudio de una determinada investigación, bien con un enfoque que las erija en objeto de estudio. El artículo enmarca el surgimiento del concepto de td en el interés actual por el estudio de la variación lingüística, atiende a su definición, en sentido amplio, desde el punto de vista de su consideración como materia de estudio, y se pregunta hasta qué punto es posible y/o necesario —y, en tal caso, desde qué punto de vista— diferenciar las td en sentido estrecho, concebidas como objetos de estudio, de categorías como género, registro, estilo y perfil concepcional. A tenor de estas consideraciones, el uso “inflacionario” del término td en los estudios de historia de la lengua española de la última década se explica en relación con su consideración preferente, en ellos, como materia y no como objeto de estudio.

show abstract

The Use of Private Letters and Diaries in Sociolinguistic Investigation

Elspaß

2012

The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sprache der Nähe — Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte

Cited by 773 publications

References 0 publications

The observee’s paradox

The observee’s paradox

La tradicionalidad discursiva como materia y las tradiciones discursivas como objeto de estudio

The Use of Private Letters and Diaries in Sociolinguistic Investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About