362 Variation in German

Variation in German
S Barbour, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

An examination of German immediately reveals unusual geographical and social variation in the language. Varieties labeled as deutsch/German are often
not mutually intelligible, as witnessed by the use
of subtitles in Swiss-German films shown to audiences in Germany. German-speakers regularly report
comprehension difficulties when visiting Germanspeaking areas distant from their homes. There is a
good case for seeing German as the most variable
language in Europe.

German in Geopolitical Context

German includes most of the Continental West Germanic dialect continuum that, before the Germans
lost territory in the 20th century, stretched from
Dunkirk in France to beyond Vienna and beyond
Ko nigsberg/Kaliningrad in East Prussia (now in the
enclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania).
Beyond that continuum are, or were, enclaves of
German speech in most Central and Eastern European countries and in the former Soviet Union, as far
away as Kazakhstan and Siberia. By dialect continuum, I mean a language area where basilectal dialect
speech changes slightly from place to place over a
wide area, with perhaps noticeable differences even
from one village to the next, with poor comprehensibility between the speech of places fifty to a hundred
kilometers apart, and with possibly no comprehensibility between the varieties at the ends of the continuum. Such continua may include several languages, for
example, Western Romance (including French,
Catalan [Catalan-Valencian-Balear], Castilian Spanish
[Spanish], Italian, Portuguese, Occitan [Auvergnat,
Gascon, Languedocien, Limousin], and others) or
South Slavonic (including Slovene [Slovenian], Croatian [Serbo-Croatian], Serbian [Serbo-Croatian],
Macedonian, and Bulgarian).
Although comparable in size and in variability to
the Western Romance and South Slavonic continua,
the Continental West Germanic continuum is unusual
because in the minds of most speakers of the relevant
dialects, it includes only two languages, German and
Dutch. One of these, German, occupies the overwhelmingly greater part of the territory in question
and exhibits virtually the full range of variability
found in the continuum. Other large continua in
modern times have been divided into a greater number of distinct languages as the people in question
have become divided into religious, regional, cultural,

and ethnic groups, in other words, nations. Occupying different parts of the continuums territory, such
groups then developed the concept of distinct languages, linked to distinct processes of standardization. One only need think of Western Romance
divided into the clearly distinct French, Spanish,
Italian, and Portuguese (and others).
Some speakers of different languages within continua may be quite unaware of their continuums
existence, but speakers of German often see the Continental West Germanic continuum clearly, even seeing its division into Dutch and German as anomalous.
It is not uncommon to find speakers of German
who regard Dutch as a German dialect. An outside
observer well versed in the Continental West Germanic linguistic situation will not see the separation
of Dutch as a distinct language as anomalous. For this
observer, the contentious questions lie elsewhere:
(1) in the development and persistence of the idea of
a single language within the greater part of the large
and linguistically diverse Continental West Germanic
continuum; (2) in the development of the idea of
a single nation, Germany, in such a large, diverse
geographical area and in such a diverse population;
(3) in the slow, incomplete, and fraught separation
between Germany and Austria, with its parallel linguistic separation falling far short of a division into
different languages; (4) in the development of a kind
of linguistic independence in German-speaking
Switzerland that is mainly found in spoken language;
(5) in the development of a distinct but closely related
language in Luxembourg that plays a role (along with
French) in national identity; with German, fulfills
important utilitarian functions in Luxembourg; (6) in
the strong persistence of regional and local dialect in
the entire German-speaking area, particularly in the
Centre and South; (7) in the strong significance, despite its diversity, of the language for German national identity, but also for Austrian national identity;
and (8) in the occurrence of a small number of West
Germanic Frisian dialects in the northwest, spoken by
bilinguals who also use either Dutch or German the
Frisian dialects not being part of the continuum.
The main points of interest in the part of the
Continental West Germanic continuum known as
German are (1) the scope of dialectal diversity;
(2) the relationship between the standard language
and other varieties; and (3) the variation within the
standard language. Fuller discussion of the tension
between the diversity of German and its role in national and ethnic identity and the complex relationships between German and other languages can be
found elsewhere, for example in Clyne (1995),

Variation in German 363

Barbour and Stevenson (1990: 2354), Barbour and

Stevenson (1998: 2559), and Barbour (2000a).

Dialekt, Colloquial, and Standard Varieties

When discussing dialectal diversity in German, it is
important to understand that dialect/Dialekt in
works on German sociolinguistics usually means
basilectal dialect, in other words, the regional dialect
that is maximally distinct from the standard language. This contrasts with the usage of dialect in
English to indicate any form of a language that differs
appreciably in grammar or lexicon from other forms
of the language. Dialect in this sense in English may
or may not include the standard language. For the
sake of clarity, in this article dialect/Dialekt in the
German sense will be referred to as traditional dialect. Where such traditional dialects as recorded in
the early 20th century, or before, have now been
radically modified or replaced, German works may
describe the area in question as free of dialect. This
could suggest to a non-German reader a place where
everyone speaks the standard language, which is virtually never the case. In such areas, and elsewhere,
a great deal of speech lies between the standard language and the traditional dialect; in German it is
labeled Umgangssprache, which I term colloquial
speech. Such colloquial speech includes varieties
that, in English would be termed dialect, at one
end of the scale, or informal or colloquial standard
language, at the other. For the sake of clarity, I divide
colloquial speech into colloquial standard language
and colloquial nonstandard language; the latter
generally corresponds to dialect in works written
in English. [This terminology is outlined in full
in Barbour and Stevenson 1990: 133146; also see
Barbour 1999).] In German sociolinguistics there has
been relative neglect of colloquial language, exceptions being the work of Ju rgen Eichhoff (1977, 1978)
and of some East German scholars such as Helmut
Scho nfeld (see Barbour 2000b); this neglect extends
to registers that I am labeling colloquial standard
language. Work on German standard language
(Standardsprache or Hochsprache) tends to refer
chiefly to the rather more formal registers, which
I discuss here as formal standard language.
This article will compare traditional German dialects with the formal standard language, following
the common assumption that other forms of the
language represent compromises between these two
ends of the spectrum of variation. Since this assumption is very crude and incorrect in many matters
of detail, more detail on other varieties (and hence,
corrections), will be provided as necessary.
Our discussion will start with phonetics and phonology (sounds), moving on to the morphology of

the noun phrase and of the verb phrase. Except

where otherwise stated, further detail about all of
the phenomena discussed can be found in Barbour
and Stevenson (1990: 5599, 133180); Barbour and
Stevenson (1998: 60107, 145198); and Russ (1989).

German Dialect Continuum

Descriptions of German dialects almost always
divide the dialects into three geographical groups:
Low German/Niederdeutsch, Central German/Mitteldeutsch, and Upper German/Oberdeutsch. Central
German and Upper German may be grouped together
as High German/Hochdeutsch, these last two terms
being ambiguous since they are also used to refer to
the standard language.
The Low German dialect area lies north of a line
crossing the Rhine at Benrath just south of Du sseldorf
(the Benrath line) and running in a roughly east-west
direction across the entire German-speaking territory,
passing to the south of Berlin, and crossing the river
Oder south of Frankfurt an der Oder on the Polish
border. Insofar as dialect, in the German sense, can
be found there at all, Berlin can be seen as an island (or
perhaps peninsula) of Central German speech in Low
German territory. Some German accounts include
Dutch in the Low German dialect area but, although
Dutch and Low German are linguistically close, sociolinguistically it is untenable that Dutch is a Low German dialect. The Low German dialects are arguably
the group of German dialects that differ most markedly from the standard language. This is not surprising
since the standard language historically derives chiefly
from central and southern dialects. The Low German/
Niederdeutsch dialect area is characterized by the
relative weakness of the traditional dialects, popularly
labeled Plattdeutsch; indeed, it is perhaps fair to say
that the region is seen by other German speakers as a
bastion of the standard language.
Serious scholarship presents a much modified view;
according to Stellmacher (1997), the rural parts of the
region may have levels of usage of traditional dialect
as high as some parts of the Centre and South. What
is true is that most urban speech in North Germany is
very clearly not traditional dialect, whereas in southern areas even quite large towns may contain many
speakers whose usage is close to the traditional dialect; to northerners, southern urban speakers sound
like dialect speakers, whereas to southerners, northern urban speakers sound like standard speakers.
However, northern urban speech is very frequently
not standard in the sense that this is understood in
Germany; in other words, it is generally not formal
standard language.
South of Low German, Central German dialects
are divided from Upper German dialects by a line

364 Variation in German

that crosses the Rhine south of Mainz, then runs

northeastwards, to the south of Frankfurt am Main
and to the north of Wu rzburg and Bamberg, running
then roughly eastwards to the border with the Czech
Republic. The Germanic speech of Luxembourg,
formerly described as a Central German dialect/Mitteldeutscher Dialekt in texts produced in Germany,
is considered by its speakers to represent a distinct
language, Le tzebuergesch/Luxembourgish (Luxembourgeois). This is sociolinguistically well justified,
as Luxembourgish is used by all sections of indigenous society and has a standardized written form (for
the linguistic situation in Luxembourg, see Newton
1989: 145149).
The Germanic speech of Alsace-Lorraine in France
is almost universally regarded in Germany as German
dialects the northern ones Central German, with
Upper German to the south but a common view in
France (both official and popular) is that these represent a distinct Germanic language called Alsatian/
alsacien. Sociolinguistically the situation is complex;
in support of dialect status, there is no accepted single
standard form of Alsatian, but then again, in support
of independent status, speakers of Alsatian often do
not know standard German.
In the Central German and Upper German dialect
areas, the social status of dialects and other nonstandard speech becomes generally higher the farther
south we travel, although throughout the territory,
traditional dialects are stronger in rural than in
urban areas. The strength of traditional dialects is particularly notable in German-speaking Switzerland,
where these are used by all sections of society. The
link between language varieties and social status is
much less clear in German-speaking than in Englishspeaking countries. Nevertheless, the link between
grammatically nonstandard forms and low socioeconomic status is fairly clear in North and Central
Germany.

Phonetic and Phonological Variation

In our discussion of German pronunciation (phonetics and phonology), orthography will be used, rather
than phonemic transcription, since German orthography is a reasonably good guide to pronunciation. In
phonetics and phonology, the most striking difference
within German is between Low German, on the one
hand, and the standard language and Central and
Upper German dialects, on the other. Across the
entirety of the basic lexicon of the language we find
plosives in Low German corresponding to fricatives
or affricates (or sequences of plosive plus fricative) in
the other varieties. For example, corresponding to
standard German Pfund (pound), Apfel (apple), hoffen (hope [verb]), zwei (two), Katze (cat), das (the/

that), Buch (book), (orthographic z and tz correspond

to the sequence /ts/; orthographic ch corresponds to
the velar fricative /x/ or the palatal fricative /c /), we
find Low German forms such as Pund, Appel, hopen,
twee, Kat, dat, Book. (There is no standard orthography for Low German; forms given here are merely a
guide to typical pronunciations.) The distinct Low
German forms seem to be conceptualized not just as
differing in pronunciation from the standard forms,
but as different lexical items, in other words, as dialect vocabulary; these are not found regularly in the
colloquial speech of North Germany.
This difference between Low German and standard
German arises from the operation of the second or
High German sound shift in the Old High German
dialects (from which standard German is mainly
derived) towards the end of the first millennium A.D.
The difference, which can be a severe impediment to
comprehension, is of the kind frequently found between distinct but related languages; one might think
of the contrast between words such as cent and chateau in French, with initial /s/ and /S/ respectively,
and cento and castello in Italian, with /tS/ and /k/
respectively. Partly because of the low comprehensibility between standard German and Low German, it
is often thought of as a distinct language and, up until
the 17th century [before modern standard (High) German came to be accepted as the prestige variety in the
territory], a distinct process of standardization was
under way for Low German. Low German is today
recognized as a regional minority language, not
simply as dialects of German (see Stellmacher, 1997).
The most common difference in consonants between Central and Upper German dialects, on the
one hand, and the standard language, on the other,
can be discussed under the heading of lenition. In the
dialects in question, voiceless plosives can be seen as
having been softened to make them approach voiced
plosives in sound (though it is not at all clear, historically, that anything quite like this happened), with the
two series even becoming identical. The resultant
sounds are generally lenis, i.e., soft, like the voiced
plosives of standard German (and of standard
English) but without vocal chord vibration, in this
resembling the voiceless plosives of standard German
(and of standard English). These resultant sounds are
spelled, in popularly impressionistic dialect orthography, with the symbols normally used for voiced
plosives, i.e., b, d, and g. In some dialects, for example
in much of East Central German, the distinction
between voiced and voiceless plosives is largely absent,
so that a word pair Karten/Garten may be homophones. In other dialects the distinction may be
present, but the voiced and voiceless sounds may
have a distribution different from that in the standard
language; in some dialects the voiceless sounds are

Variation in German 365

found more commonly in words of relatively recent

foreign origin, with the voiced (or lenis voiceless)
sounds elsewhere for example, in Alemannic dialects
for standard German dir (you, familiar, singular), Tier
(animal), and Theater (with an initial t sound) (theatre), we may find dir, and Dier, but Theater (again
with an initial t sound). Lenition is found in most of
Central German apart from some western and central northern areas and in the northern part of Upper
German. As well as being a feature of traditional dialect, lenition phenomena are usually also found (at
least to some degree) in colloquial speech in the regions
in question.
Except where lenition phenomena occur, Central
and Upper German dialects are generally somewhat
closer to the standard language in consonant phonology than are Low German dialects. However, in particular phonetic environments or in certain individual
words, forms resembling the Low German forms are
found in Central German dialects. For example, in
much of western Central German, dat (that, the) and
wat (what) correspond to the standard German (and
Upper German) das and was. Throughout Central
German, p corresponds to standard German pf both
medially and finally in words, so Appel is found
where standard German (and Upper German) have
forms like Apfel. West Central German, also has p,
which corresponds to the initial pf in standard
German words, for example, having Pund for the
standard German Pfund. Interestingly enough,
forms like dat, wat, Appel, and Pund are found in
Central German colloquial nonstandard speech as
well as in traditional dialect.
We noted above the many instances where Low
German dialects have plosives, whereas Central and
Upper German dialects and the standard language
have fricatives or affricates. However, in the case of
the velar obstruents in a words initial position, most
forms of German have only plosives, with Low
German Kat and standard German Katze agreeing
in initial consonant. In contrast, southern Upper
German dialects have affricates or fricatives in
the initial position of such words: for example, a
common Swiss equivalent of Katze is Chatz, where
orthographic Ch- represents a velar affricate /kx/.
It is difficult to say if this Upper German feature
is found in colloquial speech, since this regions
everyday language already uses overwhelmingly traditional dialect anyway, or varieties very close to this.
A further feature widespread in Central and Upper
German dialects is an absence of the front rounded
vowels, corresponding to orthographic <u > and <o >,
found in standard German and in Low German; front
unrounded vowels are found instead. The following
pairs of distinct words in standard German could in
the relevant varieties be homophones: (1) vier (four)

and fu r (for) and Sehne (tendon) and So hne (sons).

(In reality, the situation is usually more complex
than this; the examples are intended only as a guide
to what can happen.) The absence of front rounded
vowels is a feature of both traditional dialect and
colloquial nonstandard language.
Varieties of German have many other differences in
vowel sounds. One important one clearly separates
dialect, on the one hand, from standard and colloquial speech, on the other. Most Low German dialects,
but also many others, particularly in the Southwest
(including Switzerland) have monophthongs /i:/ and
/u:/ where the standard language, and other varieties,
have diphthongs. Examples are southwestern Ziet
and Hus for standard Zeit and Haus.
In some West Central German dialects, and in Luxembourgish, contrasts between words are effected
not only by differences between vowels and consonants, but also by tonal differences, a phenomenon
common in the languages of the world, but rare in
Europe, where the best-known examples are found in
Norwegian and Swedish. Though neither widespread
nor well known to German-speakers as a whole, this
feature underlines the extraordinary diversity of
German dialects. (For discussion of tonal contrasts
see Newton, 1989: 153156, where he terms the
phenomenon correption.)

Syntactic and Semantic Variation

Traditional German dialects also clearly differ from
standard German in grammatical structure, most notably in the noun phrase and the verb phrase. For
example, where standard German has four morphologically distinct cases in the noun phrase, Low
German has only two, which we may term nominative and oblique. In all continental West Germanic
speech, apart from formal standard German, morphologically distinct genitive cases are now rare;
however, Losses of other case distinctions are quite
highly stigmatized and uncommon in colloquial
language.
Differences between varieties of German in
the noun phrase represent quite striking typological
differences between more and less highly inflected
types of language, differences that elsewhere might
be associated with the distinction between one
language and another.
In the verb phrase, distinctions found in the formal
standard language may be absent in other varieties or
may be conveyed in different ways. Most notably, a
semantic distinction between the two past tenses,
perfect and preterite, the latter also known as simple
past or imperfect, is probably now in doubt in almost
all varieties of German in most contexts; for example,
ich sah ihn (preterite) and ich habe ihn gesehen

366 Variation in German

(perfect) (both translating as either I saw him or I

have seen him) are generally entirely synonymous,
but with the former being stylistically marked as
more formal. In North and Central German speech,
in both Low German and Central German dialects,
and in colloquial language, preterite forms are found,
but the only common ones are those of modal and
other auxiliary verbs and a few others, for example:
war, hatte, musste, mochte, sollte, wollte, konnte,
durfte, wurde, sagte, meinte. In the regions in question, and for these particular verbs, those may actually be the most common past tense forms; for almost
all other verbs, perfect forms are much more common, with preterite forms generally being formal or
highly formal in register. Given that the preterite and
perfect forms are generally synonymous, these labels
are misleading; it would make more sense to talk, for
example, about simple and periphrastic past forms.
I continue, however, to use the terms preterite and
perfect, since they are so well established.
In the South German speech of Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, particularly in Upper German dialects, preterite forms of any verbs are entirely absent,
being replaced by perfect forms. As preterites are not
found in everyday speech in these regions, they are
regarded as highly formal, and children have to be
taught these in school.
The presence in some varieties of German of a
tense/aspect distinction, which is absent in others,
again represents the kind of radical differences that
elsewhere could correlate with the distinction between one language and another.
Dialects and colloquial speech also differ from formal standard language in the occurrence of subjunctive forms. The formal standard language has two sets
of subjunctive forms, first and second subjunctive.
Each of these has two tenses, which I will term as
nonpast and past. For example, from the verbs
kaufen (buy) and fahren (travel) first subjunctive nonpast forms are er kaufe and er fahre (contrasting with
indicative or normal forms of these verbs, er kauft,
er fa hrt), and past forms are er habe gekauft and er
sei gefahren (contrasting with indicative forms of
these verbs, er hat gekauft, er ist gefahren). These
first subjunctive forms are usually termed present
subjunctive and perfect subjunctive, respectively.
Second subjunctive forms of these verbs are (1) er
kaufte and er fu hre (nonpast) and (2) er ha tte gekauft
and er wa re gefahren (past). These second subjunctive
forms are usually termed imperfect subjunctive and
pluperfect subjunctive, respectively, but such terms
are highly misleading because they are not imperfect
or pluperfect in tense/aspect reference.
In the formal standard language, first subjunctives
are used in reported speech, particularly when speak-

ers or, much more frequently, writers wish to distance

themselves from the information in other words,
to indicate that the information may not necessarily
be true (without calling the user of the original words
a liar); the first subjunctive is hence very popular
with journalists. The first subjunctive is clearly formal, and it is not used in colloquial speech or in
dialect, being replaced by the indicative, or by the
second subjunctive where the distancing effect is
clearly desired.
Many second subjunctive forms are also formal,
indeed, highly formal or rare or archaic. In the case
of nonpast forms like kaufte, they are avoided because they are identical to indicatives of the same
verbs. In fact, the only common subjunctive forms
in German are past tenses like er ha tte gekauft and
er wa re gefahren and the nonpast forms of modal and
other auxiliary verbs: wa re, ha tte, mu sste, mo chte,
sollte, wollte, ko nnte, du rfte, wu rde with dialect
and colloquial nonstandard so llte and wo llte often
replacing sollte and wollte. Nonpast subjunctives of
other verbs are formed on the following pattern:
wu rde kaufen, wu rde fahren. These common subjunctive forms are indeed very common, being used
to express hypotheses and, along with modal particles
and particular lexical items, are the main way to
express all types of modality such as supposition,
doubt, and volition; the other major function is in
conveying politeness. The use of subjunctives is a
characteristic of all types of German, but the range
of forms is a major indicator of the dividing line
between the formal standard and other varieties.
This difference in the range of forms is again
of quite a radical kind, which elsewhere would be
associated with differences between languages.

Causes of Variation
In discussing the variation in German, it is tempting
to assume that colloquial language represents simply
a kind of compromise between the standard language
and traditional dialects and, hence, that description of
the dialects can form the basis of a full account of
variation. However, it is clear from the above account
that such an assumption would lead to considerable
oversimplification (see Barbour and Stevenson 1998:
156157, 1990: 146147). There is strong evidence of
cases where developments in the colloquial language
are independent of phenomena in traditional dialect;
for example the uvular r sound [R], originally not
considered part of formal standard, is now gaining
ground everywhere in Germany and Austria, even
in regions where it is not found in traditional dialect.
A loss of the distinction between /c / and /S/, as found
at the ends of the standard German words ich

Variation in German 367

and Fisch, is spreading in Central German colloquial speech, even in areas where the distinction is
maintained in traditional dialect.
The idea of straightforward contact or interference
phenomena used to be popular in discussions of varieties that arise from language contact. Such a variety,
guest worker German (Gastarbeiterdeutsch), the
German of immigrant workers and their families, was
found in fact not to result in any simple way from
contact between German and the immigrant workers
first language (see Barbour and Stevenson 1998:
211223, 1990: 192203). Gastarbeiterdeutsch is
characterized (1) by lack of verbal inflections, with
forms like infinitives being used throughout, while
the languages in contact generally have verbal inflections; (2) by verbal-final word order, found only in
Turkish (and to a limited extent in German itself)
among the contact languages; and (3) by absence of
gender distinctions, this being only a characteristic
of Turkish. It must be stressed that these phenomena
are found in the German of speakers of all of the
contact languages, including those who have no contact with Turkish speakers. Among second and third
generation immigrants, guest worker German is now
of very limited importance. Their speech is characterized by code switching between German and another
language, a phenomenon that goes beyond our topic
of variation in German.

Lexical Variation
The differences within German discussed so far tend
to separate the formal standard language from other
varieties, while also having important regional
dimensions. When considering lexical differences,
the regional dimension is all-important. In lexical
differences, however, the pattern is extremely complex, and a full discussion would far exceed the limits
of this article; I shall therefore make only a few salient
points. (For further information see Eichhoff (1987,
1988); and Ko nig 1978). As in other facets of the
language, German is surprisingly diverse; there are
differences between lexical items of related meaning
that in other language groups may be cognate across a
number of different languages. For example, different
varieties of German have different names for days
of the week, which, in contrast, are clearly cognate
across the entire Western Romance group of languages. Erchtag (Bavarian-Austrian dialects), Ziestag
(some other southern dialects, including Swiss dialects), and Dienstag (other regions and the standard
language) all refer to Tuesday; Sonnabend (standard language and other varieties North), Samstag
(standard language and other varieties South), and
Saterdag (some northwestern dialects), all refer to

Saturday. Southwestern dialects even have a regional

word for father, Atti, contrasting with the general
Vater/Vader, the latter having cognates across the
entire, vast Indo-European language family.
There are even regional varieties of pronouns,
a phenomenon that causes serious comprehension
difficulties, for example, forms like he, him (English
he, him, it) in Low German and some Central
German dialects where the standard language and
southern dialects have forms such as er, ihn, ihm.
Many Bavarian dialects have forms like o s/es, enk
while the standard language and other dialects have
forms such as ihr, euch (you plural familiar forms).
These pronouns variants are restricted to traditional
dialect (although there are traces of the Bavarian o s/es
forms in colloquial language), but a further regional
variant, mir, where the standard has wir (we), is
extremely widespread in both colloquial language
and dialect in the South.
In looking at the variation in German, it is important to remember that the language is a major factor
in defining German national identity. This was
particularly so before the political unification of
Germany in 1871 and during the years of the division
in Germany between 1949 and 1990. In the Germanspeaking area before 1871, the immensely diverse
dialects were unable to function as symbols of national unity, so this role fell to the standard language.
Perhaps this is why many German speakers are anxious about diversity in the standard language there
is a feeling it should be the same everywhere. In
paradoxical contrast, dialect diversity, which is prized
as the symbol of local or regional identity, is also
extremely important to German speakers, probably
because of the late achievement of national political
unity. Given its number of users, standard German
is inevitably diverse, particularly in the lexicon, but
there is often a kind of grassroots feeling that this
should not be so. The major lexical divide is a NorthSouth one, but with precise boundaries between
northern and southern forms lying in different places
for different items; common examples would be
southern Ross and Bursche compared with northern
Pferd and Junge (horse and boy) and the variants
for Saturday already given. A particularly salient
difference is that between northern Guten Tag and
southern Gru ss Gott (good day, hello). The so-called
diminutive suffix, which actually has a wide variety of
pragmatic as well as semantic functions, also divides
North from South, with northern and central -chen,
southeastern -erl or -el, and southwestern -le or -li. The
formal standard language has -chen and -lein, so the
southern forms given here may be seen as colloquial.
Diminutives are very much more common in the South
than the North.

368 Variation in German

Austrian German
One of the most widely discussed lexical divides
in standard German is that between Austrian and
German varieties. Items concerned are, of course,
words referring to the different political and administrative systems in the two states, such as Austrian
Matura, contrasting with German Abitur (schoolleaving examination), but also a number of words
for foodstuffs, such as Austrian Schlagobers, Marille
contrasting with German Schlagsahne, Aprikose
(whipped cream, apricot). It must be stressed that
here we are concerned with variants that occur in all
Austrian varieties of German including the formal
standard language not just in traditional dialect.
Not surprisingly, Austrians tend to regard the differences between Austrian German and the German
of Germany as particularly significant, failing to realize that they are a special case of the more general
North-South divide in German.
Austrian attitudes towards Austrian varieties are
complex; on the one hand, there is an identification
and pride in Austrian German, demonstrated by
Austrias insistence that Austrian food terminology be
used in the EUs dealings with Austria. On the other
hand, there is a strange kind of reluctant acceptance
that varieties of German from Germany may be more
correct Austrians may even be heard referring to their
standard language as a dialect. This stems partly from
1871 when the greater part of the German-speaking
area was divided between two states; one retained its
traditional title of Austria, while the other, the large
new state dominated by Prussia (with its capital
in Berlin) adopted the title of the German Empire,
popularly known as Germany/Deutschland. A view
arose, partly unspoken, that the German Empire
was the repository of authentic Germanness and the
authentic German language, particularly because it
was the larger state and largely German-speaking, in
contrast to the multilingual Austro-Hungarian state.
This view was bolstered by the northern varieties of
standard German that already were popularly seen as
more correct. For a comprehensive account of the
differences between the major national and regional
varieties of German and of their social and political
correlates, see Ammon (1995).

Swiss German
The ownership of standard German by the German
state has produced the reaction in contemporary
Switzerland that all standard German is in some
sense foreign to Switzerland. There is a Swiss
standard German particularly characterized like

Austrian standard German (and the standard German

of Germany) by distinctive lexicon and recognized
as Swiss by Germans and Austrians, but the Germanspeaking Swiss are increasingly using it only to communicate with non-Swiss German-speakers or in
the most formal contexts. They are using Swiss
dialects, known as Swiss German/Schweizerdeutsch/
Schwyzertu u tsch, in almost all other spoken communication. This state of affairs could suggest that the
Swiss dialects now represent a separate language from
German, but this is not quite the case; Swiss German
does not have any generally accepted standard variety
and it is relatively rarely used in writing. Some of the
most salient distinctive lexicon of Swiss German consists of items of French origin, such as Chauffeur
(driver), or items referring to specifically Swiss social
and political institutions, like Bundesrat (Swiss Federal
government not to be confused with the Bundesrat in
Germany, the upper house of parliament).

East and West German

During the 40-year division of Germany, particularly
because contact between the citizens of the two states
was restricted, all varieties of the language, including
standard varieties, diverged in the Federal Republic
(west) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR)
(east). Given the important role of language in the
German national identity, this divergence became a
highly charged political issue, with attitudes ranging
from outrage on the part of some conservative West
Germans at perceived Communist efforts to destroy
national unity, to the vision in some GDR circles of
language renewal paralleling social renewal in the
East. A balanced view would perhaps see changes in
both East and West reflecting change and divergence
on both sides. The most obvious differences did indeed reflect different experiences of life in the two
republics with, for example, an entire political and
social vocabulary for East German institutions, such
as Volkskammer (GDR Parliament), Polytechnische
Oberschule (comprehensive School), and Objekt
(building) but also some perhaps unexpected everyday items, such as Kaffee komplett (coffee with milk
and sugar).
As the unification of 1990 was in effect an absorption of the population and territory of the GDR into
the Federal Republic, it might have been expected
that differences in language would steadily be eliminated. Many GDR-specific terms, particularly political and economic terms, have indeed disappeared or
are obsolescent, but there have been some surprising
survivals. Many of these represent salient GDR terms,
which are used to stress continuing East German

Variation in German 369

identity on the part of the many for whom unification

has been more or less a disappointment; an example
here would be Broiler, for Western Bratha hnchen
(roast chicken). On occasion, East Germans seem
simply unaware that they are using GDR-specific
language; I have heard Objekt (public building) and
Kaffee komplett (coffee with milk and sugar) used
unselfconsciously in this way. For a comprehensive
account of the linguistic differences between East and
West past and present set against the political
background, see Stevenson (2003).

Conclusion
As discussed, there is public concern about variability in the standard language, and this is currently
perceived as an increasing problem. Of particular
current concern is the perceived divide between traditional or authentic German and the new variety
corrupted by English influence. As I have argued
elsewhere, though perhaps partly justified in certain
respects, this concern is plagued by misconceptions
about language change and comprehensibility (see
Barbour, 2001).
The new concern about variability in the standard
language may be arising not from any change in the
substance of the language, but from increasing use,
in formal contexts, of words and constructions previously thought of as informal. In linguistic terms,
a new standard language may be arising, creating
from the formal standard (Standardsprache) and the
colloquial standard (varieties of Umgangssprache) a
new type of multi-register standard variety such as
that found in English. Concern about variability in
the standard language is attested to in the papers in
Eichinger (2005).
It is often said that German dialects are being
used less, thus making the language more uniform,
but increasing variability in the standard language
may be compensating for this, ensuring that German
continues to show high salient patterns of variation.
See also: Austria: Language Situation; Dialect Atlases;

Dialect Chains; Dialect Representations in Texts;

German; Germany: Language Situation; Language and
Dialect: Linguistic Varieties; Language Education
Policy in Europe; Language Families and Linguistic
Diversity; Language/Dialect Contact; Luxembourg:
Language Situation; Mother Tongue Education:
Nonstandard Language; Mother Tongue Education:
Standard Language; Prestige, Overt and Covert;
Sociophonetics; Speech Community; Standard and
Dialect Vocabulary; Standardization; Switzerland:
Language Situation; Vernacular.

Bibliography
Ammon U (1995). Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland,
sterreich und der Schweiz. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
O
Barbour S (1999). Dialects and languages revisited.
The relevance of translation studies to sociolinguistics.
In Kelly-Holmes H & Go rner R (eds.) Vermittlungen.
German studies at the turn of the century. Festschrift
for Nigel B. R. Reeves. Munich: Iudicium. 131150.
Barbour S (2000a). Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg: the total coincidence of nations and speech
communities? In Barbour S & Carmichael C (eds.)
Language and nationalism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 1843.
Barbour S (2000b). Sociolinguistics in the GDR: the study
of language and society in East Germany. In Jackman G
& Roe I (eds.) Finding a voice: problems of language in
East German society and culture (German Monitor, 4).
Amsterdam: Rodopi. 115127.
Barbour S (2001). Defending languages and defending
nations: some perspectives on the use of foreign
words in German. In Davies M C, Flood J L &
Yeandle D N (eds.) Proper words in proper places.
Studies in lexicology and lexicography in honour of
William Jervis Jones. Stuttgart: Heinz. 361374.
Barbour S & Stevenson P (1990). Variation in German.
A critical approach to German sociolinguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barbour S & Stevenson P (1998). Variation im Deutschen.
Soziolinguistische Perspektiven. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Clyne M (1995). The German language in a changing
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eichhoff J (1977). Wortatlas der deutschen Umgangssprachen (vol. 1). Berne/Munich: Francke.
Eichhoff J (1978). Wortatlas der deutschen Umgangssprachen, (vol. 2). Berne/Munich: Francke.
Eichinger L & Kallmeyer W (2005). Standardvariation:
Wie viel Variation vertragt die Deutsche Sprache? Institut
fu r Deutsche Sprache Jahrbuch 2005. Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter.
Ko nig W (1978). dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. Munich:
Deuscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Newton G (1989). Central Franconian. In Russ C V J (ed.)
The dialects of modern German. A linguistic survey.
London/Stanford: Routledge/Stanford University Press.
136209.
Russ C V J (ed.) (1989). The dialects of modern German.
A linguistic survey. London/Stanford: Routledge/Stanford
University Press.
Schlobinski P (1987). Stadtsprache Berlin. Eine soziolinguistische Untersuchung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Stellmacher D (1997). Sprachsituatuion in Norddeutschland. In Stickel G (ed.) Varieta ten des Deutschen.
Insititut fu r Deutsche Sprache Jahrbuch 1996. Berlin/
New York: de Gruyter. 88108.
Stevenson P (2003). Language and German disunity.
A sociolinguistic history of East and West in Germany,
19452000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.