Ammon, U. (2003). On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language and on conditions of successful implementation. Sociolinguistica, 17 (Special Issue), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ammon, U. (2017). On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language – with a look at the norms of non-standard language varieties. In Pandolfi, E. M., Miecznikowski, J., Christopher, S. & Kamber, A., eds., Studies on Language Norms in Context. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

Amorós-Negre, C. (2018). La estandarización lingu¨ı´stica de los relativos en el mundo hispa´nico: una aproximación empı´rica. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Aracil, L. V. (1982). Lo bilingu¨isme coma mite. Magalàs: IEO Edicions.Google Scholar

Armstrong, N. & Mackenzie, I. E. (2013). Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: a typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, N., van der Auwera, J. & Geeraerts, D., eds., Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–42.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. (1992). Introduction: Le Processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux. In Auroux, S., ed., Histoire des idées linguistiques, Vol. II. Liège: Mardaga, pp. 11–64.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. (2020). From Haugen’s codification to Thomas’s purism: assessing the role of description and prescription, prescriptivism and purism in linguistic standardisation. Language Policy, 19(2), 183–213.Google Scholar

Bartsch, R. (1987). Norms of Language: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. London/New York: Longman (Translation of Sprachnormen: Theorie und Praxis, 1985).Google Scholar

Bédard, E. & Maurais, J., eds. (1983). La Norme linguistique. [Quebec]: Gouvernement du Québec, Conseil de la langue française; Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar

Berruto, G. (1987). Lingua, dialetto, diglossia, dilalìa. In Holtus, G. & Kramer, J., eds., Romania et Slavia Adriatica: Festschrift fu¨r Zˇarko Muljacˇic´. Hamburg: Buske, pp. 57–81.Google Scholar

Berruto, G. (1989). On the typology of linguistic repertoires. In Ammon, U., ed., Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 552–69.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: the linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems & Language Planning, 20(3), 199–222.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J., ed. (1999). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bocadorova, N. (1995). La théorie des langues normées selon V. V. Vinogradov. Histoire, épistémologie, Langage, 17(2), 163–81.Google Scholar

Brandist, C. & Chown, K., eds. (2011). Politics and the Theory of Language in the USSR, 1917–1938: The Birth of Sociological Linguistics. London: Anthem.Google Scholar

Brincat, J., Boeder, W. & Stolz, T., eds. (2003). Purism in Minor Languages, Endangered Languages, Regional Languages, Mixed Languages: Papers from the Conference on ‘Purism in the Age of Globalisation’, Bremen, September 2001. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. (2012). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cerruti, M., Crocco, C. & Marzo, S. (2017). Towards a New Standard: Theoretical and Empirical Studies on the Restandardization of Italian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Clyne, M., ed. (1992). Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Clyne, M. & Kipp, S. (1999). Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context: Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, R. L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: Universidad de la Republica, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Instituto de Filologia, Dept. de Lingüistica.Google Scholar

Coșeriu, E. (1962 [1952]). Sistema, norma y habla, reprinted in Teorı´a del lenguaje y lingu¨ı´stica general: cinco estudios. Madrid: Gredos, pp. 11–113.Google Scholar

Costa, J. (2019). Introduction: regimes of language and the social, hierarchized organization of ideologies. Language and Communication, 66, 1–5.Google Scholar

Costa-Carreras, J. (2007). Réflexions sur la diffusion de la norme linguistique catalane. In Viaut, A., ed., Variable territoriale et promotion des langues minoritaires. Pessac: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, pp. 287–300.Google Scholar

Costa-Carreras, J. (2020). Are terminology planning evaluation and language policy and planning evaluation applicable to the evaluation of standardisation? Current Issues in Language Planning, 21, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Costa-Carreras, J., Amorós-Negre, C. & Pradilla, M. A. (forthcoming). ‘Compositionality’ in comparative standardology. In F. Feliu, ed., Desired Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. (2005). Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175 /176, 3–15.Google Scholar

Coupland, N. & Kristiansen, T. (2011). SLICE: critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. In Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press, pp. 11–35.Google Scholar

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Darquennes, J. & Vandenbussche, W. (2015). The standardisation of minority languages: introductory remarks. Sociolinguistica, 29(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. (2004). Language Standardization and Language Change: The Dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2003). Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dollinger, S. (2019). The Pluricentricity Debate: On Austrian German and Other Germanic Standard Varieties. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–90.Google Scholar

Eliasson, S. (2013). Language ecology in the work of Einar Haugen. In Vandenbussche, W., Håkon Jahr, E. & Trudgill, P., eds., Language Ecology for the 21st Century: Linguistic Conflicts and Social Environments. Oslo: Novus, pp. 15–63.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2005). Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2007). A twofold view ‘from below’: new perspectives on language histories and language historiographies. In Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar

Feliu, F. & Nadal, J. M., eds. (2016). Constructing Languages: Norms, Myths and Emotions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325–40.Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1962). The language factor in national development. Anthropological Linguistics, 4(1), 23–7.Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1968). Language development. In Fishman, J. A., Ferguson, C. A. & Das Gupta, J., eds., Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1988). Standardization as a form of language spread. In Lowenberg, P. H., ed., Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1987. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 119–32.Google Scholar

Fernández, M. (1995). Les orígines del término diglosia: historia de une historia mal contada. Historiographia Linguistica, 22(1–2), 163–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A., ed. (2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? ‘Reversing Language Shift’ Revisited. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Gal, S. (2006). Migration, minorities and multilingualism: language ideologies in Europe. In Mar-Molinero, C. & Stevenson, P., eds., Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices: Language and the Future of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar

Gal, S. (2017). Visions and revisions of minority languages: standardization and its dilemmas. In Lane, P. & Costa, J., eds., Standardizing Minority Languages in the Global Periphery: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity. London: Routledge, pp. 222–42.Google Scholar

Garvin, P. L. (1959). The standard language problem – concepts and methods. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(3), 28–31.Google Scholar

Garvin, P. L. (1993). A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 100 /101, 37–54.Google Scholar

Gazzola, M. (2014). The Evaluation of Language Regimes: Theory and Application to Multilingual Patent Organizations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. (1986). Were there Egyptian koines? In Fishman, J. A., Tabouret-Keller, A., Clyne, M., Krishnamurti, B. & Abdulaziz, M., eds., The Fergusonian Impact: In Honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Vol. I. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar

Grin, F. (2003). Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haarmann, H. (1990). Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a methodological framework. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 86, 103–26.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1959). Planning for a standard language in modern Norway. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(3), 8–21.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922–35.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1972 [1969]). Language planning, theory and practice. In Dil, A. S., ed., The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 287–95.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice. In Cobarrubias, J. & Fishman, J. A., eds., Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton, pp. 269–89.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hickey, R. (2015). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8, 75–86.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In Ricento, T., ed., An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 24–41.Google Scholar

Hualde, J. I. & Zuazo, K. (2007). The standardization process of the Basque language. Language Problems and Language Planning, 31(2), 143–68.Google Scholar

Hüning, M., Vogl, U. & Moliner, O., eds. (2012). Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jernudd, B. & Nekvapil, J. (2012). History of the field: a sketch. In Spolsky, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–36.Google Scholar

Jernudd, B. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987). Language planning: for whom? In Laforge, L., ed., Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Quebec: Les Presses de L’Université Laval, pp. 69–84.Google Scholar

Jernudd, B. H. & Shapiro, M. J., eds. (1989). The Politics of Language Purism. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1925). Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo, etc.: H. Aschehoug & co., etc.Google Scholar

Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar

Joseph, J. E., Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. (2020). Dialect, language, nation: 50 years on. Language Policy, 19(2), 161–82.Google Scholar

Kachru, B. (1976). Models of English for the third world: white man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 221.Google Scholar

Kahane, H. & Kahane, R. (1979). Decline and survival of Western prestige languages. Language, 55(1), 183–98.Google Scholar

Kerswill, P. (2002). Koineization and accommodation. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 669–702.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1952). Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen von 1800 bis 1950. Munich: Pohl.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1967). ‘Abstand languages’ and ‘Ausbau languages’. Anthropological Linguistics, 9(7), 29–41.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1968). Notes concerning a language-nation typology. In Fishman, J., Ferguson, C. A. & Das Gupta, J., eds., Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1969). Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1978 [1952]). Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800, 2nd enlarged edn. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar

Koch, P. (2014). Phases et charnières: modéliser l’histoire de la langue (élaboration – standardisation – coiffure – régression). In Ayres-Bennett, W. & Rainsford, T. M., eds., L’Histoire du franc¸ais: état des lieux et perspectives. Paris: Classiques Garnier, pp. 321–55.Google Scholar

Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1990). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Franzo¨sisch, Italienisch, Spanisch, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (2001). Gesprochene Sprache und geschriebene Sprache. Langage parlé et langage écrit. In Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. & Schmitt, C., eds., Lexicon der romanistischen Linguistik, Vol. I, 2. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 584–627.Google Scholar

Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds. (2011). Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

Kristiansen, T. & Grondelaers, S., eds. (2013). Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

Lane, P., Costa, J. & De Korne, H., eds. (2017). Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Langer, N. & Davies, W. V., eds. (2005). Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Le Page, R. B. (1988). Some premises concerning the standardization of languages, with special reference to Caribbean Creole English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 71, 25–36.Google Scholar

Le Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lebsanft, F. & Tacke, F., eds. (2020). Manual of Standardization in the Romance Languages. Berlin/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lodge, R. A. (1993). French: From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lüdi, G. (2012). Traces of monolingual and plurilingual ideologies in the history of language policies in France. In Hüning, M., Vogl, U. & Moliner, O., eds., Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205–30.Google Scholar

Maas, U. (1985). Lesen – Schreiben – Schrift: Die Demotisierung eines professionellen Arkanums im Spätmittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit. Zeitschrift fu¨r Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 15(59), 55–81.Google Scholar

Machan, T. W. (2016). Snakes, ladders, and standard languages. In Machan, R. W., ed., Imagining Medieval English: Language Structures and Theories, 500–1500. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–77.Google Scholar

Mattheier, K. J. (1997). Über Destandardisierung, Umstandardisierung und Standardisierung in modernen europäischen Standardsprachen. In Mattheier, K. J. & Radtke, E., eds., Standardisierung und Destandardisierung europa¨ischer Nationalsprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

Metzeltin, M. (2004). Las lenguas roma´nicas esta´ndar (historia de su formación y su uso). Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar

Millar, R. M. (2005). Language, Nation and Power: An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–55.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (2012). Sociolinguistics and ideologies in language history. In Hernandez-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C, eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester, UK/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 571–84.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 4th edn. London/Boston, MA: Routledge & K. Paul (previous editions 1985, 1991, 1999).Google Scholar

Muljačić, Ž. (1993). Standardization in Romance. In Posner, R. & Green, J. N., eds., Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology, Vol. V. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 77–116.Google Scholar

Nahir, M. (1977). The five aspects of language planning – a classification. Language Problems and Language Planning, 1(2), 107–23.Google Scholar

Nahir, M. (1984). Language planning goals: a classification. Language Problems and Language Planning, 8(3), 294–327.Google Scholar

Neustupný, J. V. (1974). Basic types of treatment of language problems. In Fishman, J., ed., Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2006). Standardisation. In Hogg, R. & Denison, D., eds., A History of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T., Raumolin-Brunberg, H. & Mannila, H. (2011). The diffusion of language change in real time: progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change, 23(1), 1–43.Google Scholar

Pahta, P, Skaffari, J. & Wright, L., eds. (2017). Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and Beyond. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Penny, R. (2000). Variation and Change in Spanish. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Quintilian (1920). The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian with an English Translation by H. E. Butler, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press (1989 printing).Google Scholar

Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.Google Scholar

Ricento, T., ed. (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Ruszkowski, M. (1995). Teoretyczne i praktyczne zagadnienia je˛zykoznawstwa normatywnego. Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Jana Kochanowskiego.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & Vosters, R., eds. (2020). Revisiting Haugen: Historical-Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Standardization. Language Policy, 19(2), Special Issue.Google Scholar

Rutten, G., Krogull, A. & Schoemaker, B. (2020). Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: the case of Dutch (1750–1850). Language Policy, 19(2), 259–79.Google Scholar

Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2014). Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K. & Kroskrity, P., eds. (1998). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Siegel, J. (1985). Koines and koineization. Language in Society, 14(3), 357–78.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, R., Hanks, W. & Hofbauer, C., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar

Smakman, D. & Nekasa Barasa, S. (2017). Defining ‘standard’: towards a cross-cultural definition of the language norm. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. & Percy, C., eds., Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

Spolsky, B., ed. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stewart, W. A. (1968). A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism. In Fishman, J. A., ed., Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, pp. 531–45.Google Scholar

Stillwell, K. & Hetrovicz, L. (2013). The standardizations of Catalan: Latin to present day. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers, 2013, 68–86.Google Scholar

Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic Purism. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2011). The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. & Percy, C., eds. (2017). Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Trask, R. L. (1999). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford/New York: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar

van der Sijs, N., ed. (1999). Taaltrots: purisme in een veertigtal talen. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact.Google Scholar

Vandenbussche, W. (2006). Shared standardization factors in the history of sixteen Germanic languages. In Fandrych, C. & Salverda, R., eds., Standard, Variation und Sprachwandel in germanischen Sprachen / Standard, Variation and Language Change in Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar

Vogl, U. (2012). Multilingualism in a standard language culture. In Hüning, M., Vogl, U. & Moliner, O., eds., Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

Walsh, O. (2016). Linguistic Purism: Language Attitudes in France and Quebec. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Watts, R. J. (2012). Language myths. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 585–606.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact, Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U. (1954). Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400.Google Scholar

Woolard, K. (2008). Language and identity choice in Catalonia: the interplay of contrasting ideologies of linguistic authority. In Süselbeck, K., Mühlschlegel, U. & Masson, P., eds., Lengua, nación e identidad: la regulación del plurilingu¨ismo en Espan˜a y América Latina. Frankfurt am Main: Verveurt, pp. 303–23.Google Scholar

Anderwald, L. (2016). Language between Description and Prescription: Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, A. (2009). The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism: English and German Developments in the Eighteenth Century. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Auer, A. (2014). Nineteenth-century English: norms and usage. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 151–70.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: a typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, N., Van der Auwera, J. & Geeraerts, D., eds., Perspectives on Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–42.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. (2014). From l’usage to le bon usage and back: norms and usage in seventeenth-century France. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M., eds. (2013). Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Éditions de l’École Normale Supérieure (ENS).Google Scholar

Brewer, C. (2005). Authority and personality in the Oxford English Dictionary. Transactions of the Philological Society, 103(3), 261–301.Google Scholar

Burke, P. (2004). Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Certeau, M. de, Julia, D. & Revel, J. (1975). Une politique de la langue: La Révolution franc¸aise et les patois, l’enqueˆte Grégoire. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

de Jonghe, A. (1967). De taalpolitiek van Koning Willem I in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1824–1830). Sint-Andries-bij-Brugge: Darthet.Google Scholar

de Rooij, J. (1990). Over hun en hen, en hun: vorm en functie van de niet-gereduceerde voorwerpsvormen van het persoonlijk voornaamwoord in de derde persoon meervoud, in standaardtaal, ouder Nederlands en dialect. Taal en Tongval, 42(2), 107–47.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (2003). Research directions in the study of language standardization. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 455–69.Google Scholar

Dons, U. (2004). Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2005). Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2007a). A twofold view ‘from below’: new perspectives on language histories and language historiographies. In Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–1900). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2007b). Everyday language in emigrant letters and its implications on language historiography: the German case. Multilingua, 26, 151–65.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2014). Prescriptive norms and norms of usage in nineteenth-century German. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 303–20.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. & Langer, N. (2012). Jespersen’s cycle and the history of German negation: challenges from a sociolinguistic perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 113(3), 275–92.Google Scholar

Estival, D. & Pennycook, A. (2011). L’Académie française and Anglophone language ideologies. Language Policy, 10(4), 325–41.Google Scholar

Fairman, T. (2007). Writing and ‘the Standard’: England, 1795–1834. Multilingua, 26(2–3), 167–201.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique, 1(2), 67–88.Google Scholar

Gal, S. & Woolard, K. (2001). Constructing languages and publics: authority and representation. In Woolard, K. & Gal, S., eds., Language and Publics: The Making of Authority. Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Goeman, T., van Oostendorp, M., van Reenen, P., Koornwinder, O. & van den Berg, B. (2009). Morfologische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten: Deel II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68, 922–35.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Henckel, F. L. N. (1815). Nieuwe Vlaemsche spraek-konst. Gent: P. F. de Goesin-Verhaege.Google Scholar

Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In Ricento, T., ed., An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 24–41.Google Scholar

Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V., ed., Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 35–83.Google Scholar

Janssens, G. (2014). Tweehonderd jaar neerlandistiek aan de Université de Lie`ge: een geschiedenis van de oudste extramurale leerstoel Nederlands. Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.Google Scholar

Kloss, H. (1969). Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar

Konopka, M. (1996). Strittige Erscheinungen der deutschen Syntax im 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Krogull, A., Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2017). Relativisation in Dutch diaries, private letters and newspapers (1770–1840): a genre-specific national language? In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M. & Auer, A., eds., Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–86.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Langer, N. (2001). Linguistic Purism in Action: How Auxiliary Tun Was Stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langer, N. (2011). Historical sociolinguistics in nineteenth-century Schleswig-Holstein. German Life and Letters, 64(2), 169–87.Google Scholar

Langer, N. (2014). Standard German in the eighteenth century: norms and use. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 277–302.Google Scholar

Langer, N. & Havinga, A. E. (2015). Invisible languages in historical sociolinguistics: a conceptual outline, with examples from the German-Danish borderlands. In Havinga, A. E. & Langer, N., eds., Invisible Languages in the Nineteenth Century. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Langhanke, R. & Langer, N. (2013). How to deal with non-dominant languages – metalinguistic discourses on Low German in the nineteenth century. Linguistik Online, 59(1), 77–97.Google Scholar

Leerssen, J., ed. (2018). Encyclopedia of Romantic Nationalism in Europe, Vols. I–II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lodge, R. A. (2013). A lady-in-waiting’s begging letter to her former employer (Paris, mid-sixteenth century). In van der Wal, M. & Rutten, G., eds., Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 19–43.Google Scholar

Lodge, R. A. (2014). Jacques-Louis Ménétra and his experience of the langue d’oc. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 201–22.Google Scholar

Martineau, F. (2007). Variation in Canadian French usage from the 18th to the 19th century. Multilingua, 26(2/3), 201–25.Google Scholar

Martineau, F. (2013). Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage. In van der Wal, M. & Rutten, G., eds., Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 129–48.Google Scholar

McLelland, N. (2014). Language description, prescription and usage in seventeenth-century German. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 251–76.Google Scholar

Meyerhoff, M. (2011). Introducing Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (2000). Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–55.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 4th edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nebrija, A. de (1492). Grama´tica de la lengua castellana. Salamanca: n. pub.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. (2014). Norms and usage in seventeenth-century English. In Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 103–28.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2017). Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nobels, J. & Rutten, G. (2014). Language norms and language use in seventeenth-century Dutch: negation and the genitive. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar

Paffey, D. (2007). Policing the Spanish language debate: verbal hygiene and the Spanish language academy (Real Academia Española). Language Policy, 6(3–4), 313–32.Google Scholar

Poplack, S. & Dion, N. (2009). Prescription vs. praxis. The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language, 85(3), 557–87.Google Scholar

Poplack, S., Jarmasz, L.-G., Dion, N. & Rosen, N. (2015). Searching for standard French: the construction and mining of the Recueil historique des grammaires du français. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1(1), 13–55.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2007). Remark and remember: cultivating Dutch in Early Modern Europe. Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 49(1), 39–52.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2009). Grammar to the people: the Dutch language and the public sphere in the 18th century with special reference to Kornelis van der Palm. Beitra¨ge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, 19, 55–86.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2010). Vroegmoderne relativa: naar een diachrone constructiegrammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 15(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2013). Waarom verscheen de Twe-spraack in 1584? In Van Hal, T., Isebaert, L., & Swiggers, P., eds., De tuin der talen: taalstudie en taalcultuur in de Lage Landen, 1450–1750. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 254–78.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2016a). Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: evidence from Dutch. In Russi, C., ed., Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open, pp. 194–218.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2016b). Historicizing diaglossia. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(1), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rutten, G. (2016c). Standardization and the myth of neutrality in language history. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 242, 25–57.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. (2018). Matthijs Siegenbeek in defense of Dutch. In Honings, R., Rutten, G. & Kalmthout, T., van, eds., Language, Literature and the Construction of a Dutch National Identity (1780–1830). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 25–48.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2011). Local dialects, supralocal writing systems. The degree of orality of Dutch private letters from the seventeenth century. Written Language & Literacy, 14, 251–74.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. (2014). Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. (2010). Chaos and standards: orthography in the Southern Netherlands (1720–1830). Multilingua, 29(3/4), 417–38.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. (2013). Une tradition néerlandaise ? Du bon usage aux Pays-Bas (1686–1830). In Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M., eds., Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Éditions de l’École Normale Supérieure, pp. 233–43.Google Scholar

Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2014a). Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rutten, G., Vosters, R., & Vandenbussche, W. (2014b). The interplay of language norms and usage patterns: comparing the history of Dutch, English, French and German. In Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Schoemaker, B. & Rutten, G. (2017). Standard language ideology and Dutch school inspection reports (1801–1854). Sociolinguistica, 31(1) 101–16.Google Scholar

Siegenbeek, M. (1804). Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling, ter bevordering van eenparigheid in dezelve (Gebruikte editie: Amsterdam, 1805). Amsterdam: Allart.Google Scholar

Simons, T. & Rutten, G. (2014). Language norms and language use in eighteenth-century Dutch: final n and the genitive. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 49–72.Google Scholar

Takada, H. (1998). Grammatik und Sprachwirklichkeit von 1640–1700: Zur Rolle deutscher Grammatiker im schriftsprachlichen Ausgleichsprozess. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2010). The usage guide: its birth and popularity. English Today, 26(2), 14–23.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I., ed. (2018). English Usage Guides: History, Advice, Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tosi, A. (2011). The Accademia della Crusca in Italy: past and present. Language Policy, 10(4), 289–303.Google Scholar

van der Horst, J. & Marschall, F. (1989). Korte geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Nijgh & Van Ditmar.Google Scholar

van der Ploeg, H. W. (1800). Het belang der waare volksverlichting. Amsterdam: Wed. Harm. Keijzer, Corns. de Vries & Hendrik van Munster.Google Scholar

van der Wal, M. (2018). Johannes Kinker: a Kantian philosopher teaching Dutch language, literature, and eloquence. In Honings, R., Rutten, G. & Kalmthout, T., van, eds., Language, Literature and the Construction of a Dutch National Identity (1780–1830). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar

van Heule, C. (1625). De Nederduytsche Grammatica ofte Spraec-konst. Leyden: Roels. (Reissue of the text by W. J. H. Caron, Groningen: Wolters, 1953.)Google Scholar

Villa, L. (2011). ‘Because when governments speak, they are not always right’: national construction and orthographic conflicts in mid-nineteenth century Spain. In Langer, N., Davies, S. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Language and History, Linguistics and Historiography. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 209–28.Google Scholar

Villa, L. (2015). Official orthographies, spelling debates and nation-building projects after the fall of the Spanish Empire. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 228–47.Google Scholar

Voeste, A. (2015). Proficiency and efficiency: why German spelling changed in Early Modern times. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 248–59.Google Scholar

Vosters, R., Belsack, E., Puttaert, J. & Vandenbussche, W. (2014). Norms and usage in nineteenth-century Southern Dutch. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Historical-Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar

Vosters, R. & Rutten, G. (2015). Three Southern shibboleths: spelling features as conflicting identity markers in the Low Countries. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 260–74.Google Scholar

Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W. (2012). Bipartite negation in 18th and early 19th century Southern Dutch: sociolinguistic aspects of norms and variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 113(3), 343–64.Google Scholar

Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar

Watts, R. J. (2011). Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Watts, R. J. (2012). Language myths. In Hernandez Campoy, J. M. & Conde Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 585–606.Google Scholar

Weijermars, J. (2009). Neerlandistiek als bindmiddel van de natie: Hoogleraar Schrant in Gent 1817–1830. De Negentiende Eeuw, 1, 4–19.Google Scholar

Weijermars, J. (2012). Stiefbroeders: Zuid-Nederlandse letteren en natievorming onder Willem. Hilversum: Verloren.Google Scholar

Weiland, P. (1799). Nederduitsch taalkundig woordenboek. Amsterdam: J. Allart.Google Scholar

Weiland, P. (1805). Nederduitsche Spraakkunst. Amsterdam: J. Allart.Google Scholar

Willemyns, R. (1993). Integration vs. particularism: the undeclared issue at the first Dutch Congress in 1849. In Fishman, J. A., ed., The Earliest Stage of Language Planning. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–83.Google Scholar

Wright, S. (2012). Language policy, the nation and nationalism. In Spolsky, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–78.Google Scholar

Adelung, J. C. (1781). Deutsche Sprachlehre: Zum Gebrauche der Schulen in den Ko¨nigl. Preuß. Landen. Berlin: Voß.Google Scholar

Auer, A. (2019). Die Stadtsprache Yorks im späten Mittelalter: ein Baustein zu einer alternativen Standardisierungsgeschichte des Englischen. In Pickl, S. & Elspaß, S., eds., Historische Soziolinguistik der Stadtsprachen: Kontakt – Variation – Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (2006). Review of Deumert & Vandenbussche 2003. Zeitschrift fu¨r Dialektologie und Linguistik, 72(3), 338–9.Google Scholar

Auer, P. & Spiekermann, H. (2011). Demotisation of the standard variety or destandardisation? In Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds., Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus, pp. 161–76.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. (1996). A History of the French Language through Texts. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. (2014). From l’usage to le bon usage and back: norms and usage in seventeenth-century France. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 173–200.Google Scholar

Bergs, A. (2005). Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

CLUL, ed. (2014). P.S. Post Scriptum: Arquivo Digital de Escrita Quotidiana em Portugal e Espanha na época Moderna. Retrieved 19 February 2019 from http://ps.clul.ul.ptGoogle Scholar

Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (2016), A ‘third-wave’ historical sociolinguistic approach to late Middle English correspondence: evidence from the Stonor Letters. In Russi, C., ed., Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 46–66.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, W. V. & Langer, N. (2006). The Making of Bad Language. Lay Linguistic Stigmatisations in German: Past and Present. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2003). Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Durrell, M. (2000). Standard language and the creation of national myths in nineteenth-century Germany. In Barkhoff, J., Carr, G. & Paulin, R., eds., Das schwierige neunzehnte Jahrhundert: Germanistische Tagung zum 65. Geburtstag von Eda Sagarra im August 1998. Mit einem Vorwort von Wolfgang Fru¨hwald. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar

Durrell, M., Bennett, P., Scheible, S. & Whitt, R. J. (2012). The GerManC Corpus. Manchester: University of Manchester. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from www1.ids-mannheim.de/fileadmin/lexik/uwv/dateien/GerManC_Documentation.pdfGoogle Scholar

Dürscheid, C., Elspaß, S. & Ziegler, A. (2018). Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen. [A Grammar of Variation in Standard German]. An open access online reference work compiled by a team under the leadership of Christa Dürscheid, Stephan Elspaß & Arne Ziegler. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from http://mediawiki.ids-mannheim.de/VarGraGoogle Scholar

Edlund, A.-C., Ashplant, T. G. & Cuismin, A., eds. (2016). Reading and Writing from Below: Exploring the Margins of Modernity. Umeå: Umeå University and Royal Skyttean Society.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2005). Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2007). A twofold view ‘from below’: new perspectives on language histories and language historiographies. In Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2012). The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 156–69.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2015a). Private letters as a source for an alternative history of Late Modern German. In Auer, A., Schreier, D. & Watts, R. J., eds., Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2015b). 下からの言語史 －19世紀ドイツの「庶民」のことばを中心にして / Shitakara no gengoshi. 19seiki doitsu no shomin no kotoba wo chushin nishite [Language history from below – illustrated by the language of ‘ordinary people’ in nineteenth-century Germany, transl. into Japanese by Sato, M. ]. In Takada, H., Shibuya, K. & Iyeiri, Y., eds., 歴史社会言語学入門 / Rekishi Shakaigengogaku Nyumon [Introduction to Historical Sociolinguistics]. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing, pp. 55–69.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. (2020). Alternative sources of data for standardisation histories. Language Policy, 19(2), 281–99.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. & Möller, R. (2003–). Atlas zur deutschen Alltagssprache. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from www.atlas-alltagssprache.deGoogle Scholar

Elspaß, S. & Niehaus, K. (2014). The standardization of a modern pluriareal language: concepts and corpus designs for German and beyond. Orð og tunga, 16, 47–67.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2007). Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Fairman, T. (2007). ‘Lower-order’ letters, schooling and the English language, 1795–1834. In Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar

Fairman, T. (2012). Letters in mechanically-schooled language: theories and ideologies. In Dossena, M. & Del Lungo Camiciotti, G., eds., Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 205–28.Google Scholar

Fairman, T. (2015). Language in print and handwriting. In Auer, A., Schreier, D. & Watts, R. J., eds., Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar

Graser, H. & Tlusty, B. A. (2009). Layers of literacy: non-professional versus professional writing in a sixteenth-century case of fraud. In Barnes, R. B. & Plummer, M. E., eds., Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany: Essays in Honor of H. C. Erik Midelfort. Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar

Graser, H. & Tlusty, B. A. (2012). Sixteenth century street songs and language history ‘from below’. In Langer, N., Davies, S. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Language and History, Linguistics and Historiography: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Lang, pp. 362–88.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922–35.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice. In Cobarrubias, J. & Fishman, J. A., eds., Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 269–89.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1994). Standardization. In Asher, R. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 4340–2.Google Scholar

Havinga, A. & Langer, N., eds. (2015). Invisible Languages in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford, etc.: Lang.Google Scholar

Hennig, M., ed. (2016). Das Wo¨rterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfa¨lle: Richtiges und gutes Deutsch, 8th, completely rev. edn. Berlin: Duden.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, T. (2004). A new history from below. History Workshop Journal, 57(1), 294–8.Google Scholar

Huber, M. (2007). The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Meurman-Solin, A. & Nurmi, A., eds., Annotating Variation and Change. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huberGoogle Scholar

Imo, W. (2008). Wenn mündliche Syntax zum schriftlichen Standard wird: Konsequenzen für den Normbegriff im Deutschunterricht. In Denkler, M., Günthner, S., Imo, W., Macha, J., Meer, D., Stoltenburg, B. & Topalović, E., eds., Frischwa¨rts und unkaputtbar: Sprachverfall oder Sprachwandel im Deutschen. Münster: Aschendorff, pp. 153–79.Google Scholar

Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar

Knooihuizen, R. (2011). Demografisk press og språkskifte på Shetland. In Akselberg, G., & Bugge, E., eds., Vestnordisk spra˚kkontakt gjennom 1200 a˚r. Tórshavn: Fróðskapur (Faroe University Press), pp. 219–38.Google Scholar

Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (2012). Language of immediacy – language of distance: orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In Lange, C., Weber, B. & Wolf, G., eds., Communicative Spaces: Variation, Contact, and Change. Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Lang, pp. 441–73.Google Scholar

Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36, 15–43.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lacassain-Lagoin, C. (2018). On the margins of perception – TO-clauses: a standard construction of perception verbs? E-rea. Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone, 15(2). Retrieved 19 February 2020 from https://journals.openedition.org/erea/6283Google Scholar

Langer, N. (2001). Linguistic Purism in Action: How Auxiliary tun Was Stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langer, N. (2003). Low German. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 281–301.Google Scholar

Lyons, M. (2012). The Writing Culture of Ordinary People in Europe, c. 1860–1920. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Macha, J., Topalović, E., Hille, I., Nolting, U. & Wilke, A. (2005). Deutsche Kanzleisprache in Hexenverho¨rprotokollen der Fru¨hen Neuzeit. Vol I: Auswahledition. Vol II: Kommentierte Bibliographie zur regionalen Hexenforschung. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Marquilhas, R. (2012). A historical digital archive of Portuguese letters. In Dossena, M. & Del Lungo Camiciotti, G., eds., Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar

Martineau, F. (2004). Corpus du franc¸ais familier ancien, Université d’Ottawa. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from http://polyphonies.uottawa.ca/corpus/i-corpus-de-francais-familier-ancienGoogle Scholar

Martineau, F. (2007). Variation in Canadian French usage from the 18th to the 19th century. Multilingua, 26, 203–27.Google Scholar

Martineau, F. & Tailleur, S. (2014). From local to supra-local: hybridity in French written documents from the nineteenth century. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 223–47.Google Scholar

Messerli, A. (2000). Das Lesen von Gedrucktem und das Lesen von Handschriften – zwei verschiedene Kulturtechniken? In Messerli, A. & Chartier, R., eds., Lesen und Schreiben in Europa 1500–1900: Vergleichende Perspektiven. Basel: Schwabe, pp. 235–46.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, J. (1991). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. (2003). English. In Deumert, A.. & Vandenbussche, W, eds., Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 127–56.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. (2014). Norms and usage in seventeenth-century English. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 103–28.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2003). Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2012). Historical sociolinguistics: origins, motivations, and paradigms. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar

Niehaus, K. & Elspaß, S. (2018). ‘From above’, ‘from below’ and regionally balanced: towards a new corpus of nineteenth-century German. In Whitt, R. J., ed., Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar

Nobels, J. (2013). (Extra)Ordinary Letters: A View from Below on Seventeenth-Century Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Pillière, L. & Lewis, D. (2018). Revisiting standardisation and variation. E-rea. Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone, 15(2). Retrieved 19 February 2020 from https://journals.openedition.org/erea/6391Google Scholar

Pöll, B. (2020). Orthography and orthoepy. In Lebsanft, F. & Tacke, F., eds., Manual of Standardization in the Romance Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 399–416.Google Scholar

Poplack, S., Jarmasz, L.-G., Dion, N. & Rosen, N. (2015). Searching for standard French: the construction and mining of the Recueil historique des grammaires du franc¸ais. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1(1), 13–55.Google Scholar

Puttaert, J, Van de Voorde, I., & Vosters, R. (2019). Forgotten voices from below: historical sociolinguistic research in Flanders. In Pickl, S. & Elspaß, S., eds., Historische Soziolinguistik der Stadtsprachen. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. J. (2013). Change, contact and conventions in the history of Dutch. Taal en Tongval, 65(1), 97–123.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. J. (2014). Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W., eds. (2014). Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sato, M. (2015). ‘Wegen dem Clavier’: die Beethovens und der Rektionswandel der Präpositionen wegen, statt und wa¨hrend im Zeitraum von 1520–1870. Muttersprache. Vierteljahrsschrift fu¨r deutsche Sprache, 125, 23–56.Google Scholar

Schiegg, M. (2017–). CoPaDocs – Corpus of Patient Documents. Retrieved 19 February 2020 from http://copadocs.deGoogle Scholar

Schneider, E. W. (2002). Investigating variation and change in written documents. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N., eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 67–96.Google Scholar

Schneider, J. G., Butterworth, J. & Hahn, N. (2018). Gesprochener Standard in syntaktischer Perspektive: Theoretische Grundlagen – Empirie – didaktische Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

Schulte, M. (2008). Om å skrive språkhistorie ‘nedenfra’: tanker om en ny norsk språkhistorie for tiden 700–1050. Maal og Minne, 100(2), 167–88.Google Scholar

Sević, R. B. (1999). Early collections of private documents: the missing link in the diachronic corpora. In Beedham, C., ed., Langue and Parole in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective: Selected Proceedings of the XXXIst Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, St Andrews 1998, Amsterdam, etc.: Pergamon, pp. 337–47.Google Scholar

Siegenbeek, M. (1804). Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling. Amsterdam: Allart.Google Scholar

Takada, H. (1998). Grammatik und Sprachwirklichkeit von 1640–1700: Zur Rolle deutscher Grammatiker im schriftsprachlichen Ausgleichsprozeß. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Van Pottelberge, J. (2004). Der am-Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklungen in den kontinentalgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

van der Wal, M. (2006). Onvoltooid verleden tijd: witte vlekken in de taalgeschiedenis. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar

Watts, R. (2011). Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Watts, R. (2012). Language myths. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds., The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 585–606.Google Scholar

Watts, R. & Trudgill, P., eds. (2002). Alternative Histories of English. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y., eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 97–195.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. (1995). Morphological change in tribal languages of central India. PILC Journal of Dravidic Studies, 5(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. (1996). Don’t kill my mother (tongue) against excessive standardization. In Verma, S. K. & Singh, D., eds., Perspectives on Language and Society: Papers in Memory of Prof. R. N. Srivastava, Vol. I. Delhi: Kalinga Publications, pp. 155–67.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. (1997). Languages in-contact in Jharkhand: a case of language conflation, language change and language convergence. In Abbi, A., ed., Languages of Tribal and Indigenous Peoples of India: The Ethnic Space. Delhi: Motilal Benarsidass, pp. 131–48.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. (2009). Vanishing diversities and submerging identities: an Indian case. In Sarangi, A., ed., Language and Politics in India (Themes in Politics). New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 299–311.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. (2017). Human cognitive abilities and safeguarding linguistic diversity. IIC Quarterly, 44(2), 83–100.Google Scholar

Abbi, A. & Sharma, M. (2014). Hindi as a contact language of India. In Kuczkiewicz-Fraś, A., ed., Defining the Indefinable: Delimiting Hindi. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang Academic Research, pp. 107–24.Google Scholar

Abbi, A., Gupta, R. S. & Gargesh, R. (1998–2000). A Sociolinguistic Enquiry into the Acceptance Level of Hindi as a Pan Indian Language. New Delhi: ICSSR Report.Google Scholar

Armstrong, N. & Mackenzie, I. E. (2013). Standardization, Ideology, and Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Benedikter, T. (2009). Language Policy and Linguistic Minorities in India: An Appraisal of the Linguistic Rights of Minorities in India. Berlin: LitVerlag.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Burling, R. (2007). The lingua franca cycle: implications for language shift, language change and language classification. Anthropological Linguistics, 49(3/4), 207–34.Google Scholar

Finegan, E. (2007). Language: Its Structure and Use. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Foley, W. (1997). Standard language and linguistic engineering. In Anthropological Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 398–416.Google Scholar

Garvin, P. L. (1991). A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 1–20.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. (1960). Linguistic diversity in South Asia, Introduction (with Charles Ferguson). International Journal of American Linguistics, 26(3), vii–18. (Reprinted in Ferguson, C., ed. (1972). Language Structure and Language Use. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.)Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. & Naim, C. M. (1960). Formal and informal standards in the Hindi regional language area. In Gumperz, J. & Ferguson, C., eds., Linguistic Diversity in South Asia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 92–118.Google Scholar

Hagen, T. & Vallen, T. (1974). Dialect, Standaardtaal en school: de Nederlandse literatuur van heemtaalkunde tot sociolinguїstiek II [Dialect, Standard Language and School: Dutch Literature from Local Historical Linguistics to Sociolinguistics, Vol. II]. Nijmegen: Nijmeegse Centrale voor Dialectkunde.Google Scholar

Harris, R. M. (1968). Colloquial deviations in urban Hindi. Anthropological Linguistics, 10(9), 25–34.Google Scholar

Hashami, S. (2015). Contact Hindi in Bihar and Jharkhand: Structure and Use. Doctoral thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Hasnain, S. I. & Gupta, R. S. (2002). From periphery to centre: towards dehegemonizing standard language. Indian Linguistics, 1 –4, 33–8.Google Scholar

Kachru, Y. (2006). Hindi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds. (2011). Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar

Le Page, R. B. (1988). Some premises concerning the standardization of languages, with special reference to Caribbean Creole English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 71, 25–36.Google Scholar

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Modi, Y. (2005). Emergence and Impact of Hindi as a Lingua Franca in Arunachal Pradesh. MPhil thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–55.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 4th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Satyanath, S. (2015). Language variation and change: the Indian experience. In Smakman, D. & Heinrich, P., eds., Globalizing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 107–22.Google Scholar

Sharma, M. (2011–12). Field Data on Hindi as a Link Language in Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Sharma, M. (2013). Hindi as a Link Language in Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. Doctoral thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar

Shiffman, H. F. (1998). Standardization or restandardization: the case for ‘standard’ spoken Tamil. Language in Society, 27, 259–85.Google Scholar

Siegel, J. (1988). Development of Fiji Hindustani. In Siegel, J. & Barz, R., eds., Language Transplanted: The Development of Overseas Hindi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 121–49.Google Scholar

Smakman, D. (2012). The definition of the standard language: a survey in seven countries. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 218, 25–58.Google Scholar

Abdelhay, A. K. (2010). The politics of writing tribal identities in the Sudan: the case of the colonial Nuba Policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(2), 201–13.Google Scholar

Abdelhay, A., Makoni, B. & Makoni, S. (2018). When God is a linguist: missionary orthographies as a site of social differentiation and the technology of location. In Juffermans, K. & Weth, C., eds., The Tyranny of Writing Revisited: Ideologies of the Written Word. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 97–112.Google Scholar

Abdelhay, A., Makoni, B., Makoni, S. & Mugaddam, A. R. (2011). The sociolinguistics of nationalism in the Sudan: the politicisation of Arabic and the Arabicisation of politics. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(4), 457–501.Google Scholar

Abdulaziz, M. H. & Osinde, K. (1997). Sheng and Engsh: development of mixed codes among the urban youth in Kenya. International Journal for the Sociology of Language, 125, 43–63.Google Scholar

Adejunmobi, M. (2004). Vernacular Palaver: Imaginations of the Local and Non-Native Languages in West Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15, 38–59.Google Scholar

Agha, A. (2007). Language and Social Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Amselle, J. (1990). Logiques métisses: Anthropologie de l’identité en Afrique et ailleurs. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Amselle, J. & M’Bokolo, E., eds. (1985). Au cœur de l’ethnie: Ethnies, tribalisme et état en Afrique. Paris: La Découverte/Poche.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. A. & Gladys, N. A. (2015). A sociolinguistic mosaic of West Africa: challenges and prospects. In Smakman, D. & Heinrich, P., eds., Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 54–65.Google Scholar

Auer, P. (2007). The monolingual bias in bilingualism research, or: why bilingual talk is (still) a challenge for linguistics. In Heller, M., ed., Bilingualism: A Social Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 319–39.Google Scholar

Bailleul, C. (1996). Dictionnaire bambara-franc¸ais. Bamako: Éditions Donniya.Google Scholar

Barasa, S. N. (2015). Ala! Kumbe? ‘Oh my! Ist it so?’: multilingualism controversies in East Africa. In Smakman, D. & Heinrich, P., eds., Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 39–65.Google Scholar

Barasa, S. N. & Mous, M. (2017). Engsh, a Kenyan middle class youth language parallel to Sheng. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 32(1), 48–74.Google Scholar

Bazin, J. (1985). À chacun son bambara. In Amselle, J. & M’Bokolo, E., eds., Au cœur de l’ethnie: Ethnies, tribalisme et état en Afrique. Paris: La Découverte/Poche, pp. 87–125.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2008). Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages. Language & Communication, 28(4), 291–307.Google Scholar

Bondarev, D. (2019). Introduction: orthographic polyphony in Arabic script. In Bondarev, D., Gori, A. & Souag, L., eds., Creating Standards: Interactions with Arabic Script in 12 Manuscript Cultures. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker, Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Calvet, L. (1994). Les voix de la ville: Introduction a` la sociolinguistique moderne. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Childs, M. (2016). Reflecting on translanguaging in multilingual classrooms: harnessing the power of poetry and photography. Educational Research for Social Change, 5(1), 22–40.Google Scholar

Cobbinah, A., Hantgan, A., Lüpke,, F. & Watson, R. (2016). Carrefour des langues, carrefour des paradigmes. In Auzanneau, M., Bento, M. & Leclère, M., eds., Pratiques plurilingues, mobilités et éducation: éclairages d’Afrique ou d’ailleurs. Paris: Édition des Archives Contemporaines, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–40.Google Scholar

Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In Hornberger, N. H., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 1528–38.Google Scholar

Delafosse, M. (1901). Essai de manuel pratique de la langue mandé ou mandingue: étude grammaticale du dialecte dyoula; vocabulaire franc¸ais-dyoula. Histoire de samori en mandé; étude comparée des principaux dialectes mandé. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar

Delafosse, M. (1904). Vocabulaires comparatifs de plus de 60 langues ou dialectes parlés a` la Coˆte d’Ivoire et dans les régions limitrophes. Paris: Ernest Leroux.Google Scholar

Delafosse, M. (1912). Haut-Sénégal-Niger (Soudan Francais). Premiére série: Le Pays, les peuples, les langues, l’histoire, la civilisation. Paris: Emile Larose.Google Scholar

Delafosse, M. (1929). La langue mandingue et ses dialectes (malinké, bambara, dioula). Paris: Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Lexander, K. V. (2013). Texting Africa: writing as performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17, 522–46.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Mabandla, N. (2018). Beyond colonial Linguistics: the dialectic of control and resistance in the standardization of isiXhosa. In Lane, P., Costa, J. & de Korne, H., eds., Standardizing Minority Languages. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 200–21.Google Scholar

Di Carlo, P. (2018). Towards an understanding of African endogenous multilingualism: ethnography, language ideologies, and the supernatural. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 254, 139–63.Google Scholar

Djité, P. G. (2008). The Sociolinguistics of Development in Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Djité, P. G. (2009). Multilingualism: the case for a new research focus. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 199, 1–7.Google Scholar

Donaldson, C. (2017). Clear Language: Script, Register and the N’ko Movement of Manding-Speaking West Africa. Doctoral thesis. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Donaldson, C. (2018). Orthography, standardization and register: the case of Manding. In Lane, P., Costa, J. & de Korne, H., eds., Standardizing Minority Languages. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 175–99.Google Scholar

Donaldson, C. (2019). Linguistic and civic refinement in the N’ko movement of Manding-speaking West Africa. Signs and Society, 7(2), 156–85.Google Scholar

Fabian, J. (2002). Time and the Other. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Fardon, R. & Furniss, G. (1994). African Languages, Development and the State. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fishman, J. A. (1989). Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Gafaranga, J. & Torras, M. (2016). Interactional otherness: towards a redefinition of codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Gal, S. (2016). Scale-making: comparison and perspective as ideological projects. In Carr, E. S. & Lempert, M., eds., Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21^st century. In Mohanty, A., Panda, M., Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas, T., eds., Education, Multilingualism and Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp. 128–45.Google Scholar

García, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Githiora, C. (2018). Sheng: Rise of a Kenyan Swahili Vernacular. Woodbridge: James Currey.Google Scholar

Good, J., Di Carlo, P. & Ojong, R. (2019). Multilingualism in rural Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-227Google Scholar

Goodchild, S. (2019). Sociolinguistic Spaces and Multilingual Repertoires: Practices and Perceptions in Essyl, Senegal. Doctoral thesis. SOAS University of London.Google Scholar

Goodchild, S. (forthcoming). Multilingual people with monolingual perceptions: patterns of multilingualism in Essyl, Basse Casamance, Senegal. In Lüpke, F., ed., The Oxford Guide to the Atlantic Languages of West Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heugh, K. (2015). Epistemologies in multilingual education: translanguaging and genre – companions in conversation with policy and practice. Language and Education, 29(3), 280–5.Google Scholar

Houis, M. (1978). Comptes rendus. Revue franc¸aise d’histoire d’outre-mer, 65(238), 128.Google Scholar

Humery, M.-E. (2010). Multilinguisme et plurigraphie dans le Fuuta Sénégalais: quelques outils d’analyse. Journal of Language Contact THEMA, 3, 205–27.Google Scholar

Hunswick, J. & O’Fahey, R. S., eds. (2003). Arabic Literature of Africa. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar

Irvine, J. T. (2016). Going upscale: scales and scale-climbing as ideological projects. In Carr, E. S. & Lempert, M., eds., Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, pp. 213–31.Google Scholar

Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, P. V., ed., Regimes of Language. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 35–83.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A. (2005). La polynomie dans une école bilingue corse : bilan et défis. Marges Linguistiques, 10, 282–300.Google Scholar

Kießling, R. & Mous, M. (2004). Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological Linguistics, 46(3), 303–41.Google Scholar

Kopytoff, I. (1987). The internal African frontier: the making of African political culture. In Kopytoff, I., ed., The African Frontier: The Reproduction of Traditional African Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 3–84.Google Scholar

Lane, P., Costa, J. & de Korne, H., eds. (2018). Standardizing Minority Languages. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Launay, R. & Miran, M. (2000). Beyond Mande Mory: Islam and ethnicity in Côte d’Ivoire. Paideuma, 46, 63–84.Google Scholar

Lentz, C. (1995). ‘Tribalism’ and ethnicity in Africa. Cahiers des Sciences Humaines, 31(2), 303–28.Google Scholar

Lexander, K. V. & Alcón, D. (forthcoming). Digital language and new configurations of multilingualism: language use in a Senegal-based discussion forum. In Lüpke, F., ed., The Oxford Guide to the Atlantic Languages of West Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2004). Language planning in West Africa – who writes the script? Language Documentation and Description, 2, 90–107.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2016a). Pure fiction – the interplay of indexical and essentialist ideologies and heterogeneous practices: a view from Agnack. Language Documentation and Conservation, 10, 8–39.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2016b). Uncovering small-scale multilingualism. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 4(2), 35–74.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2018a). Escaping the tyranny of writing: West African regimes of writing as a model for multilingual literacy. In Juffermans, K. & Weth, C., eds., The Tyranny of Writing Revisited: Ideologies of the Written Word. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 129–48.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2018b). Multiple choice: language use and cultural practice in rural Casamance between convergence and divergence. In Knörr, J. & Filho, W. T., eds., Creolization and Pidginization in Contexts of Postcolonial Diversity: Language, Culture, Identity. Leiden: Brill, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (2020). The writing’s on the wall: spaces for language-independent and language-based literacies. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(3), 382–403.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. (forthcoming). How a language is constructed: from objects of enquiry to new ways of thinking and linking language and languaging. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Research Encyclopedia in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. & Bao-Diop, S. (2014). Beneath the surface – contemporary Ajami writing in West Africa exemplified through Wolofal. In Asfaha, Y. M. & Juffermans, K., eds., African Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 86–114.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F. & Storch, A. (2013). Repertoires and Choices in African Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lüpke, F., Biagui, A. C., Biai, L. & Diatta, J. (forthcoming). LILIEMA: language-independent literacies for inclusive education in multilingual areas. Language and Development Series of the British Council.Google Scholar

Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: the effects of translanguaging strategies for multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200–17.Google Scholar

Makalela, L., ed. (2018). Shifting Lenses: Multilanguaging, Decolonisation and Education in the Global South. Cape Town: CASAS.Google Scholar

Makoni, S. & Meinhof, U. (2004). Western perspectives in applied linguistics in Africa. AILA Review, 17(1), 77–104.Google Scholar

Makoni, S. B. (2013). An integrationist perspective on colonial linguistics. Language Sciences, 35, 87–96.Google Scholar

Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A., eds., Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar

Manfredi, S. (2015). One tribe, one language: ethno-linguistic identity and language revitalization among the Laggorí in the Nuba Mountains. In Cascarri, B., Ireton, F. & Assal, M., eds., Multidimensional Change in Sudan (1989–2011): Reshaping Livelihoods, Political Conflicts and Identities. New York: Berghahn, pp. 281–301.Google Scholar

Mazrui, A. (2007). Swahili beyond the Boundaries: Literature, Language, and Identity. Athens: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar

Mazrui, A. (2019). Sociocultural and political settings of language in Africa. In Wolff, E., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 419–41.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, F. (2001). Dakar Wolof and the configuration of an urban identity. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 14(2), 153–72.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, F. (2008a). On the origins of Urban Wolof: evidence from Louis Descemet’s 1864 phrase book. Language in Society, 37(5), 713–35.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, F. (2008b). The ascent of Wolof as an urban vernacular and national lingua franca in Senegal. In Vigouroux, C. & Mufwene, S. S., eds., Globalization and Language Vitality: Perspectives from Africa. London: Continuum, pp. 142–70.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, F. (2015). Linguistic warscapes of northern Mali. Linguistic Landscape, 1(3), 213–42.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, F. (forthcoming). Ajami writing practices in Atlantic-speaking Africa. In Lüpke, F., ed., The Oxford Guide to the Atlantic Languages of West Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mesthrie, R. (2015). Towards a distributed sociolinguistics of postcolonial multilingual societies: the case of Southern Africa. In Smakman, D. & Heinrich, P., eds., Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar

Mignolo, W. D. (1996). Linguistic maps, literary geographies, and cultural landscapes: languages, languaging, and (trans)nationalism. Modern Language Quarterly, 57(2), 181–96.Google Scholar

Mufwene, S. S. (2007). Population movements and contacts in language evolution. Journal of Language Contact, 1(1), 63–91.Google Scholar

Mumford, B. (1929). Education and the social adjustment of the primitive peoples of Africa to European culture. Africa, 2(2), 138–59.Google Scholar

Mumin, M. & Versteegh, K., eds. (2014). The Arabic Script in Africa. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Ouane, A., ed. (2003). Towards a Multilingual Culture of Education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education.Google Scholar

Ouane, A. (2009). My journey to and through a multilingual landscape. In Brock-Utne, B. & Garbo, G., eds., Language and Power. Dar es-Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota, pp. 164–71.Google Scholar

Ouane, A. & Glanz, C. (2010). Why and How Africa Should Invest in African Languages and Multilingual Education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar