<!-- image -->

## THE DIASYSTEMATIC STATUS OF THE DIATOPIC AXIS

Lene Schøsler University of Copenhagen schoesl@hum.ku.dk

## Abstract

This paper is anchored in the tradition of variationist linguistics of Germanic and Romance studies in Europe. In variationist linguistics, the dimension of 'space' is essential. According to Flydal (1952:245) this dimension is one of the 'extrastructuralismes' which, together with the structures of language, forms the 'architecture de langue'. The other important extrastructural dimension mentioned by Flydal is diastratic, i.e. social variation. Coseriu takes over these two notions from Flydal, adding a third dimension: the diaphasic variation (1969:148 ss.). A fourth dimension proposed by Koch & Oesterreicher (1990), opposing the spoken vs written conception, implying the distinction between communicative immediacy or distance (the diamesic variation), was, however, not included by Coseriu.  A  number  of  publications  and  articles  have  recently  questioned  the theoretical basis of the three or four dimensions taken over from Flydal by Coseriu and further elaborated in the tradition of variationist linguistics in Romance and Germanic studies. My contribution focuses on the diatopic level, but intends to show, by means of a number of case studies, that this level cannot be considered independently of other variation factors.

Keywords: Diasystematic axes; variationist linguistics; language of proximity vs. language of distance

## 1. Introduction

The present paper is anchored in the tradition of variationist linguistics of Germanic and Romance studies. This tradition is acknowledged especially in  German,  Italian,  and  French  universities  and  has  been  an  important scientific paradigm since the second half of the twentieth century. Already Weinreich, Labov & Herzog criticised the then canonical classification of free  inter-  and  intra-speaker  variation  and  demanded  more  scholarly attention to the 'orderly heterogeneity' (Weinreich, Labov & Herzog 1968:100) within language varieties. However, the sociolinguistic approach to language variation favours the analysis of the social context,

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

whereas  the  variationist  tradition  of  Germanic  and  Romance  studies, initiated  by  Coseriu  and  his  former  students,  analyses  variation  as  an element of subsystems of the architecture of language.

In  the  study  of  Romance  languages,  dialectology  has  held  a privileged position for centuries. Therefore, it is natural that the dimension of  'space' is  one  of  the  so-called  'extrastructuralismes' which, together with  the  structures  of  language,  form  the  'architecture  of  language', according  to  Flydal  (1952:245).  The  other  important  extrastructural dimension is diastratic, i.e. social variation, as Flydal notes:

Structure et extrastructuralismes forment un ensemble que [...] nous appellerons ici l' architecture d'ensemble de la langue ou simplement l' architecture de langue , en entendant par architecture non pas la disposition architectonique des parties d'un tout, mais un tout systématique formé de parties solidaires (1952:245 - italics in the original).

Coseriu adopts the two dimensions, diatopy and diastracy, adding a third dimension or axis: the diaphasic; he refers to the three as dialect , social level , and style (1969:148 ss.) To these three axes, a fourth was proposed by Koch & Oesterreicher, opposing the spoken versus written conception (the diamesic variation), which should not be confused with the medium of communication:  speech versus writing.  Instead,  it  is  anchored  in  the difference between the communication of proximity versus the communication of distance. This dimension was not considered by Coseriu as a separate axis, because he included it in the diaphasic dimension (Dufter 2018:66).

Important questions on these dimensions have been raised in a number of publications and articles, questioning the theoretical basis of the three or four dimensions taken over from Flydal by Coseriu and further elaborated in  variationist  linguistics,  including  the  following,  partly  overlapping, questions:

1. Do the diasystematic dimensions have equal importance in the socalled architecture of language?
2. Are they universal?
3. Is their status permanent or subject to change?

And most importantly for the present paper:

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

4. What  is  the  relation  between  the  dimensions:  are  they  mutually dependent or independent?
5. Can they possibly  be  derived  from  or  related  to  a  superordinate principle?

A  theoretical rethinking  of the  diasystem  is  necessary  in  order  to understand  the  inherent  variability  of  language  in  the  light  of  recent research, as observed by a number of linguists working on variation, for example the authors of a thematic volume entitled Repenser la variation linguistiques (Glessgen  et  al.  2018). 1 In  the  present  paper,  I  intend  to propose an integrated view of the different axes of variation.

The starting point of my paper is diatopy, with exemplifications mainly from the history of French syntax. I intend to show that diatopy should not be considered independently of other variation factors. Although my exemplifications primarily concern the diatopic axis, I intend to discuss all variation axes and claim (cf. the questions listed above) that diasystematic  factors  are  subject  to  change,  that  the  dimensions  are mutually  dependent,  and  that  they  can  be  considered  related to a superordinate principle.

The paper is organised in the following way: section 2 presents the traditional understanding of the variation axes; in section 3 I will consider the questions 3 and 4 raised in this Introduction, i.e. the question whether the  diatopic  axis  is  permanent  or  subject  to  change,  and  the  question whether  diatopy  can  be  investigated  independently  of  the  other  axes. Section  4  discuss  the  remaining  three  questions  (1,  2,  and  5).  My conclusion is found in section 5.

1 Concerning the definition and exploration of variation, this is not the place to discuss the question of variance and invariance, i.e. how to determine to which degree variants do indeed express the same thing but in a different way. This question is difficult, in particular outside the domain of phonetic variation, i.e. lexical, morphological, or syntactic variation. I refer to the discussion found in Gadet (2018:57) and, more recently, in the habilitation by Glikman (2022), who asks, for example, the highly relevant question whether it is correct to consider the following four, socially different terms for 'man' in French as 'equivalent': homme , gars , mec , keum ? See also Weinreich, Labov & Herzog (1968, especially on the ordered heterogeneity within language varieties, 1968:100), Dufter, Fleischer & Seiler (2009, especially the section on 'different ways of saying the same thing'), and Ghyselen & De Vogelaer (2018).

Interpersonal

variation

Intrapersonal

variation Variationistic dimension Time Location Society, culture Style, level, register Medium Type of variation Geographic, regional, Language change local, spatial Social Oral, written Diasystematic level Diamesic

Table 1. Diasvstematic narameters of variation. interpretation bv Gadet

## 2. The generally accepted presentation of the DIA-axes

Variationist linguistics is certainly not one homogeneous paradigm, but a common denomination of  research  anchored  in  the  investigation  of  the interplay  between  language  external  and  language  internal  factors,  with reference to the diasystematic axes. 2 A  widely  accepted,  but  simplified, presentation  of  these  axes,  which  will  be  subject  to  discussion  in  the following  sections,  affirms  that  there  is,  in  principle,  a  fundamental difference between the diachronic and the diatopic axes, on the one hand, and the diaphasic and the diamesic axes on the other hand (see Table 1). The  difference  is  rooted  in  the  observation  that  diatopic  and  diastratic variation is conceived as variation found between different speakers, i.e. interpersonal  variations  or  'varieties  according  to  users',  whereas  the diaphasic and also the diamesic variation is found with the same speaker, so they are intrapersonal variations or 'varieties according to use'. 3

Table 1. Diasystematic parameters of variation, interpretation by Gadet (2007/2003:23), reproduced by Kragh and Lindschouw (2013:8)

The idea behind the distinction between inter- and intrapersonal variation is that dialectal and social 4 variation are permanent features, in contrast to stylistic  and  diamesic  variations  which  can  be  chosen  by  speakers according to their communicative needs. However, in societies with social mobility, the diastratic level can be conceived as intrapersonal. It should be noted that Gadet (2018:58) rightly specifies that not just any speaker has access  to  the  intrapersonal  variation;  indeed,  higher  social  position  and education provide speakers with a larger range of variation possibilities than socially less favoured speakers.

2 See also Völker (2007, 2009) and, more recently, Siouffi (2020) and Glikman (2022).

3 Dufter & Stark (2003:89).

4 According to Coseriu, if I am not mistaken, the diastratic level does not include gender and age. See also Dufter & Stark (2003:85).

This generally accepted presentation of parameters of variation fails to include another important aspect of variationist linguistics: the study of text traditions, which is especially intense in Romance studies in Germany and Switzerland (see for example Kabatek 2013). I cannot elaborate on this aspect in the present paper, but I will briefly return to it in section 4.

The first part of my research on the diatopic axis is intended to examine whether  the  traditional  assumption  concerning  its  permanent  nature  is correct, and whether this axis should be investigated independently from the  other  axes,  in  order  to  answer  questions  3  and  4  posed  in  my introduction.

## 3. The status of the diatopic axis I

In  this  section,  I  will  provide  a  number  of  examples  (mainly  from  the history of French, in order to answer the questions 3 and 4 asked in the Introduction, i.e. question 3: Is the status of the diatopic axis permanent or subject  to  change?  (see  section  3.1)  and  question  4:  Can  diatopy  be investigated independently of the other axes? (see section 3.2).

## 3.1 Discussion of question 3

My intention here is to show the change of status of diatopy in the course of history, by means of the development of the negation in French. This is a phenomenon  well  studied  by  many  researchers  investigating the determining factors for this change: is it extra-linguistic, intra-linguistic, or both taken together? The starting point was formulated by Otto Jespersen (Jespersen 1917), hence the name 'Jespersen cycle'. According to him, there is the following evolution (the elements in brackets are optional):

Latin non dico 'I don't say' > very Old French ( je ) ne dis > Old and Middle French ( je ) ne dis ( pas / mie / point etc.) > Modern Standard French (High Standard) je ne dis pas > Modern French (Low Standard) je dis pas .

The  change  of  negation  in  French  is  spectacular,  it  has  been  examined among others by Price (1962), whose study on the historian Froissart is particularly  illuminating.  In  Froissart's Chronicle ,  begun  around  13791381 and whose manuscript dates from the fifteenth century, Froissart takes up a previous Chronicle by Jean le Bel, integrating it into his own text

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

(Price 1962:20-21). The two authors are both of Picardy origin and this dialect tends to prefer the particle of negation mie rather than pas or point . Froissart's books are especially interesting for a diachronic study because the use of the negation particle varies significantly from the first volume of his Chronicle , as shown by Price (1962). Price finds that Froissart uses pas in his first volume as often as mie ( s ). In the second volume, pas is more frequent than mie ( s ),  and  in  the  third, mie ( s )  has  almost disappeared. In other words, thanks to the study of one single author, adapting and writing in one single textual genre (the historical narrative), using one scripta -which is rooted in the Picard dialect 5 - and of three volumes of texts which undoubtedly were addressed to the same audience, we are able to follow the diachronic change of the negation particles, which in fact consists of a progression of a Central French ( francien ) dialect form ( pas ) which spreads at the expense of the original dialect form of Picardy ( mie ). This diachronic change is equivalent to the extension of a given (Central French) variant ( pas ), in diatopy. This is therefore an excellent case for the investigation of the correlation of the factors of time and space.

We have seen that the Central French ( francien ) negation particle ( pas )  prevails  at  the  expense  of  the  Picardy  form  ( mie ).  Here,  another phenomenon comes into play: the status of the diatopic form - in other words, diastracy. In fact, during the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries, the prestige  of  the  Picardy  dialect  declined  compared  to  Central  French ( francien ), which explains why the French variant pas replaced the Picardy form mie . This observation necessitates a rethinking of the status of diatopy during  the  history  of  French  and  of  the  relation  between  diatopy  and diastracy. I will provide three short illustrations intended to cast light on the status and the relation between these two axes, from Old French, from Classical French, and from Modern English.

## 3.2 Discussion of question 4

The present subsection is intended to illustrate my point concerning the interdependence between diachrony, diatopy, and diastracy. In the early

5 It is not possible in this context to specify the differences between the terms: dialect , scripta , and koiné . The term scripta is used in Romance philology, referring to supraindividual orthographic conventions, whereas koiné is mainly used referring to supraregional spoken varieties. The term scripta is often used referring to non-literary orthographic conventions, e.g. in charters. See further e.g. Kabatek (2013).

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

Middle Ages, the dialect was considered by the speakers/writers to be a trait closely linked to his/her identity. The implications of the existence of a hierarchy between the diatopic varieties, as clearly seen in the texts, have traditionally been neglected. There is an abundance of evidence to support my claim concerning a hierarchy; e.g. the following quotations, both from the twelfth century: (1) the excuse used by a nun, who is aware that her Anglo-Norman  variant  is  less  appreciated  than  other  variants  of  high prestige (e.g. the Central French variant or francien ) which is the variant of the author of (2).

- (1) Si joe l'ordre des cases ne gart / Ne ne juigne part a sa part / Certes n'en dei estre reprise / Ke nel puis faire en nule guise. / Qu'en latin est nominatif / Ço frai romanz acusatif. / Un faus franceis sai d'Angleterre / Ke ne l'alai ailurs quere. / Mais vus ku ailurs apris l'avez / La u mestier iert, l'amandez. ( Prologue de la Vie d'Edouard le Confesseur ,  translation from the twelfth century of a Latin  text  into  Anglo-Norman by  a nun,  quoted from Schøsler (1984:171)). Free  translation  into  English:  'If  I  do  not  respect  the  cases,  and  do  not  put together what should go together, I should not be blamed, because I cannot do better. What is in the nominative in Latin, I will make it accusative in French. I know bad French from England, because I never learnt it elsewhere. But you who  have  learnt it elsewhere, please  repair  [my  grammar],  whenever necessary.'
- (2) Mis langages est bons, car en France fui nez. ( Vie de S. Thomas Becket , v. 61615, quoted from Schøsler 1984:171.) 'My language is fine, because I was born in France [i.e. Île de France]'.

My second illustration stems from the socalled 'classic' French period. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Grammarians ( Remarqueurs ) undertake the huge work of describing and codifying the French language with  the  intention  of  making  it  prestigious  ('clear'  and  'logical')  by imitating  the  use  of  the  Court,  of  good  authors,  and  of  learned  people. Vaugelas' Preface remains emblematic:

Le  bon  usage…  C'est  la  façon  de  parler  de  la  plus  saine  partie  de  la  Cour, conformément à la façon d'escrire de la plus saine partie des Autheurs du temps ('Good usage … is the way of speaking of the healthiest part of the Court, in accordance with the way of writing of the healthiest part of the authors of our period', my translation).

At this time, diatopic varieties completely lost the prestige they would have had in the Middle Ages. The judgment made on dialects is negative and henceforth the word 'dialect' points to old-fashioned use, which should be avoided,  according  to  the  Grammarians.  But  if  'dialectal'  means  'old -fashioned',  this  is  a  reinterpretation  of  the  term  diatopy,  which  can  no longer  be  conceived  as  a  variation  according  to  the  user  (interpersonal variation) but, rather, interpreted in a sense which belongs to the variation according to use (intrapersonal variation). The use of the dialect, instead of being an inherent feature, thus becomes a choice of the speaker.

In such a configuration, the speaker can decide to get rid of his or her dialect but also, on the contrary, choose to claim it as a constitutive trait of his or her identity. Let us look closely at these two options: in a situation of strong standardisation of the language, as in the case of seventeenth- to nineteenth-century  France,  it  is  the  first  attitude  that  dominates,  further reinforced by compulsory public education and, later, by electronic media (Le Dû 2000). Dialect usage is then interpreted as a low variant in terms of diastracy.  The  use  of  standard  speaking  is  equivalent  to  a  high  level  of prestige, which thus becomes a means of social progress.

There  is,  however,  an  entirely  different  -  and  historically  more recent  -  attitude,  represented  by  my  third  illustration,  which  is  that  of claiming  a  local  identity  through  the  explicit  preservation  of  dialect features. This attitude was first brought to light by William Labov in his study of dialects at Martha's Vineyard (1962). Research on dialect features of the south of France, more precisely on the pronunciation of schwa [ Ə ], points in the same direction (cf. Armstrong & Unsworth 1999). The two authors  have  shown  that  the  presence  of  this  dialect  trait  is  not  only correlated with gender (greater presence in the pronunciation of men than of  women),  but  also  with  the  degree  of  the  speakers'  sense  of  local belonging. Thus, like the opposite attitude (the rejection of the dialect in favour  of  standard  language),  the  identity  claim  of  a  local  language becomes a choice made by the speaker.

These illustrations can easily be multiplied: however, they suffice, I believe, to confirm the idea that diatopy may change from an interpersonal to  an  intrapersonal  feature,  depending,  of  course,  on  the  nature  of  the society in question.

If indeed belonging to a specific place, characterised by a specific way  of  speaking,  remains  the  original  defining  meaning  of  the  term

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

diatopy, this is not a geographic or spatial dimension ('space', in Cresswell 2004) but a linguistic entity in its own right. Diatopy is therefore subject to the effects of linguistic awareness, interpretation by speakers, and identity constructions:

Space […] has been seen in distinction to place as a realm without meaning - as a 'fact of life' which, like time, produces the basic coordinates for human life. When humans invest meaning in a portion of space and then become attached to it in some way (naming is one such way) it becomes a place. (Cresswell 2004:20)

Recent research  in  sociolinguistics  is  oriented  in  this  line  of  thinking  towards the reinterpretation of dialect features as a social construction with an identity goal - by, among others, Juillard (2016:97), who defines the term 'sociolinguistic space' as follows:

J'entends  par  'espace  sociolinguistique'  une  notion  qui,  d'une  part,  tient compte  tout  à  la  fois  des  lieux  géographiques  et/ou  socio-symboliques,  des situations de communication, des réseaux, des activités et des types de relations interpersonnelles, ainsi que des variétés, langues ou usages, et traits disponibles comme  ressources,  et  les  relie  dans  une  non-dualité,  et  qui  d'autre  part, implique toujours qu'un espace donné soit relié à d'autres espaces sociolinguistiques, proches ou distants, potentiels, latents ou manifestés.

('By 'sociolinguistic space' I mean a notion which, on the one hand, takes into account  both  geographic  and/or  socio-symbolic  locations,  communication situations, networks, activities and types of interpersonal relationships, as well as varieties, languages or uses, and traits available as resources, and connects them in a non-duality, and which, on the other hand, always implies that a given space is connected to other sociolinguistic spaces, close or distant, potential, latent, or manifested.' my translation)

One of the causes presented to explain this evolution is the great mobility of the modern world, having repercussions in the anxiety felt by certain speakers between the global and the local (cf. Auer, Schmidt & Lameli 2010:XI).  But  the  metalinguistic  and  identity  dimension  of  diatopy  has perhaps  always  been  intrinsic  to  it,  since  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a completely homogeneous language without variation.

Summing  up,  with  reference  to  questions  3  and  4  raised  in  the introduction, my own research, confirmed by that of other scholars, shows that  diatopy  is  not  permanent  in  the  sense  of  being  an  interpersonal variation.  For  at  least  a  number  of  speakers,  dialectal  features  are  an option. 6 Moreover,  this  option  does  not  only  imply  anchoring  in  the linguistic  space,  it  may  also  imply  what  is  traditionally  considered diastratic and/or diaphasic features: most importantly, markers of individual  or  group  identity.  Consequently,  diatopy  cannot  be  separated from the other axes - they are mutually dependent. I will explore this point further in the following section.

## 4. The status of the diatopic axis II

In the Introduction, three additional questions were asked on the status of the  diasystematic  dimensions,  i.e.,  question  1:  Do  the  diasystematic dimensions have equal importance? question 2: Are they universal? and question 5: Can they possibly be derived from or related to a superordinate principle?  These  questions  are  related  and  will  therefore  be  discussed together in the following.

In  accordance  with  Koch  and  Oesterreicher's  line  of  thinking,  I believe that the diatopic, diastratic, and diaphasic axes can be interpreted as three continua which correspond to three parameters: space (strongly or weakly marked), linguistic prestige = diastracy (high or low), and context specificity = diaphacy (high or low). 7 The three axes should be interpreted as  integrated  in  the  architecture  of  variation  headed  by  the  distinction between  the  two  ends  of  the  conceptual  scale:  language  of  proximity ( Sprache der Nähe ) and language of distance ( Sprache der Distanz ), see Figure 1 (Koch 2003:105):

6 I recall, as mentioned in Section 2, that in praxis, not all speakers have equal access to intrapersonal variation.

7 I here refer to the argumentation presented in Glessgen & Schøsler (2018, section 6): Les axes et dimensions variationnelles dans leur coprésence and to Schøsler (2021).

universal

STATUS

einzel-

sprachlich

kontingent Nähe

‚Nähe"

niedrig

niedrig

stark

Abb. 10: Der einzelsprachliche Varietätenraum und das Nähe-Distanz-Kontinuum.

→ Distanz

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

2

Diaphasik MATISCHE

MARKIE-

RUNG

Figure 1: The linguistic variation and the continuum of proximity and distance

<!-- image -->

In  concrete  terms,  this  implies  that  strong  diatopic  features  can  be interpreted as diastratic marked features of low prestige, which in turn can be interpreted as diaphasic marked features of low style, and typical for the language  of proximity. In contrast, week  diatopic features can be interpreted as diastratic marked features of high prestige, which in turn can be interpreted as diaphasic marked features of high style, and typical for the language of distance. However, and this is important, such transfer from one axis to another presupposes the existence of a linguistic standard or norm. Indeed, the opposition at level 4, strong or weak diatopy, is measured in contrast to an accepted norm (see, e.g., most recently Oesterreicher & Koch 2016, section 8:1).

Let me return to the illustrations presented in section 3. In the case of negation particles, a change was observed in Froissart's Chronicle from the use of the particle mie , typical of Picardy in the first volume, towards the  later,  more  generally  accepted  use  of  Central  French pas in  the following volumes, mirroring the change of prestige of the dialects: the northern  Picardy  dialect  losing  prestige  in  favour  of francien .  In  other words,  even  in  societies  without  one  single  norm,  as  was  the  case  in

4

4

4

1a

1b

· hoch

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

Medieval French, the relative prestige of individual dialects had an impact on the choice of variants.

Another study on negation particles in charters from Luxemburg from the thirteenth century (Völker 2007) confirms the importance of the different  status  of  dialects  and  their  relevance  for  the  distribution  of variants. Völker distinguishes three social groups of addressees: A) minor nobility and clergy and town-dwellers, B) high nobility and high clergy, and  C)  the  King's  chancery.  The  latter  is  located  in  Île-de-France,  in contrast to the former, located in Luxemburg or the nearby region. In the first  two  social  groups,  the  particle mie ,  typical  of  this  dialectal  area,  is predominant  (77.8%  and  75.9%,  respectively),  whereas  it  has  a  low frequency  (22.2%)  in  charters  of  group  C.  In  contrast, pas is  the  most frequent  negation  particle  (55.6  %)  in  the  charters  addressed  to  the chancery, but much less frequent in A and B (11.1 % and 10.3 %). These figures show  that the local negation particle is chosen for local communication, whereas the central French form is chosen  when addressing the chancery located in the dialect favouring the use of pas . This implies that scribes were conscious of different dialectal standards and that they  adapted  their  language  use  according  to  these  standards.  In  other words,  in  languages  without  one  single  standard,  texts  are  adapted  to conform to the standard of the addressee. Referring to Figure 1, the local dialect, here that of Luxemburg, is avoided only in the charters addressed to the royal chancery of Île-de-France, in order to adapt to the language of distance, in diatopic, diastratic, and diaphasic terms.

Some scholars (e.g. Dufter & Stark 2003; Selig 2011:113-114, 119; Dufter 2018) have claimed that the 'diamodel' is incompatible with the Koch & Oesterreicher model, the latter being universal in nature and as such does not allow integration into the model of the diasystem provided for the variation of a concrete language. 8 However, as repeatedly argued by Koch and Oesterreicher most thoroughly in their posthumous article (Oesterreicher & Koch 2016:47 ss.), this criticism is not relevant, and I hope to have presented further evidence in the preceding sections in favour of the integrated model.

8 Other important points of criticism (see most recently Dufter 2018) concern the status of a standard, the question of non-hierarchically ranked dialects, and the question of pluri-centric languages, e.g. Spanish and English. I hope that the cases of negation particles in Medieval French cast some light on these points.

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

A  final  point  of  criticism  to  be  mentioned  here  concerns  the  alleged homogeneity of the diamodel, even inside a social group (see, e.g., Dufter & Stark 2003: 86 ss.). Against this  point,  the  freedom  of  choice  of  the individual speaker has repeatedly been put forward by the defenders of the model. An example mentioned both by Dufter & Stark and commented by Koch (2002) and Oesterreicher & Koch (2016) is the unexpected presence of the passé simple in Modern French speaking and writing, for example in newspapers. Another striking case of the sudden reappearance of an old form is the case of moult , originally an adverb or mass noun, replaced by the end of the Middle Ages by the adverb très and beaucoup , respectively. In Modern French, moult has acquired the new function of determiner and is, for the time being, most frequent in the register of journalism, mainly written. 9

So, for diachrony, old vs. new forms are strongly or weakly marked and of high or low prestige. In other words, space, prestige, context, and coexisting old and new forms, i.e. diachrony, are relevant parameters for each individual utterance. Thus, any utterance is placed on each of the axes. This is consistent with the variationist tradition: a dialect is a variety of the sociolectal type (= a group of speakers), with a strong diatopic marking (= low range in space). A sociolect is also a variety of sociolectal type (= a group  of  speakers),  characterised  by  a  well-defined  linguistic  prestige (which can be weak or strong). Finally, a style or register is a variety with a  strong  diaphasic  marking,  having linguistic  prestige,  high  or  low,  and variable diatopic marking.

Summing up: the answer to the questions asked in the title of this section can be put in the following way: all dimensions are relevant for each utterance. They are related to a superordinate principle, which is the continuum of proximity and distance. But, importantly, this principle is individually organised in languages, not universally organised.

Interestingly, Raible (2019) arrives at a similar conclusion in his thorough comparison of two approaches to linguistic variation in different languages, that of Koch & Oesterreicher and that of Biber. In spite of their different  starting  points,  i.e.  a  theoretical  one,  as  presented  in  Figure  1, versus a  corpus-based  one,  he  concludes  that  they  arrive  at  comparable results, cf. Raible's quotation from Biber & Conrad (2009:259):

9  See Glikman (2022:79-80).

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

A synthesis of previous research on spoken and written registers 10 shows three general  distributional  patterns:  (1)  linguistic  features  that  are  common  in informational writing tend to be rare in the spoken registers, and vice versa; (2) spoken registers are surprisingly similar to one another in their typical linguistic characteristics, regardless of differences in communicative purpose, interactiveness, and pre-planning; but in contrast (3) written registers have a wide range of linguistic diversity.

This quotation leads us to take into consideration text types. Any utterance, spoken or written, belongs to a text type, which is more or less marked and responds to more or less defined and definable communicative configurations.  From  a  diachronic  point  of  view,  the  most  recurrent communicative situations give rise to an elaboration of a text type, i.e. a ritualisation of the linguistic formatting, which can lead to the constitution of  a  tradition  of  discourse.  In  synchrony,  the  text  types  maintain  an interactive relationship with  the diasystematic  axes  -  in particular, diaphacy.

A classification of text types is difficult, especially if we consider their  diversification  in  modern  times.  For  example,  the  type  'scientific text'  covers  very  diverse  sciences  and  also  reflects  very  diverse  textual models within each discipline: monographs, journal articles, reviews, or even lectures. The type 'school book' also covers all subjects taught in primary and secondary education, taking into account the age of the pupils, their level of training as well as the type of education. Nevertheless, any scientific text and any school book is immediately recognisable as such in its tradition of discourse (cf. Biber 1988; Biber & Conrad 2009).

Moreover, classification of text types is subject to strong changes over  time.  For  example,  the  didactic  text  type  was,  from  the  outset  in Antiquity and also in the Middle Ages, conceived as a dialogue between teacher and pupil - this model is no longer used. Another example is letters, a text type which since Antiquity included very stylish letters - those with high spatial reach, high prestige, and a high degree of specificity. But this type of rhetorical letters, often copied and distributed widely, declined in use after the nineteenth century.

10 The term 'registers' should not be misinterpreted as exclusively linked to orality versus writing. However, as Biber explores written corpora, the comparison between the two approaches is based on similar investigations.

Lene Schøsler

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

## 5. Conclusion

The present paper has shown, I hope, that the traditional conception and classification  of  diasystematic  axes,  distinguishing  interpersonal  and intrapersonal  variation,  is  not  satisfactory  for  the  analysis  of  modern language variation,  and that  it  probably  never  was,  as  suggested  by  the illustrations  presented  in  sections  3  and  4.  According  to  the  analysis proposed  in  section  4,  the  different  diasystematic  dimensions  do  not represent oppositions but a co-presence which characterises any utterance at  any  time.  From  this  perspective,  the  diasystematic  axes  gain  an explanatory power and provide a tool for the description and interpretation of language data.

## References

- Armstrong, Nigel & Sharon Unsworth. 1999. Sociolinguistic variation in southern French schwa. Linguistics , vol. 37, 127-56.
- Auer, Peter, Jürgen Erich Schmidt & Alfred Lameli (eds.). 2010. Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation , vol. 1, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Coseriu, Eugenio. 1969. Einführung in die strukturelle Linguistik. Autorisierte Nachschrift besorgt von Gunter Narr & Rudolf Windisch, Tübingen: Romanisches Seminar der Universität.
- Cresswell, Tim 2004. Place: A short introduction . Malden, MA : Blackwell Pub.
- Dufter, Andreas. 2018. Repenser la spatialisation de la linguistique variationnelle. Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek & Harald Völker (eds.) Repenser la variation linguistique. Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12-14 sept. 2016), Strasbourg : Société de Linguistique Romane/Éditions de linguistique et de philologie, 53-62.
- Dufter, Andreas, Jürg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds.). 2009. Introduction. Describing and modeling variation in grammar, Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 1-18.

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

- Dufter, Andreas & Elisabeth Stark. 2003. La variété des variétés : Combien de dimensions pour la description ? Quelques réflexions à partir du français. Romanistisches Jahrbuch , vol. 53, 81-107.
- Flydal, Leiv. 1952. Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l'état de langue . Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap vol. 16, 240-257.
- Gadet, Françoise. 2007/2003. La variation sociale en français . Paris: Ophrys.
- Gadet, Françoise. 2018. Repenser le lieu théorique de la variation. Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek, Harald Völker (eds.) Repenser la variation linguistique. Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12-14 sept. 2016), Strasbourg : Société de Linguistique Romane/Éditions de linguistique et de philologie, 63-73.
- Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie & Gunther De Vogelaer. 2018. Seeking systematicity in variation: theoretical and methodological considerations on the 'variety' concept. Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 9, 1-19. Published online 2018 Mar 26. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00385

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879321/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879321/)

- Glessgen, Martin, Johannes Kabatek & Harald Völker (eds.). 2018. Repenser la variation linguistique. Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12-14 sept. 2016), Strasbourg : Société de Linguistique Romane/Éditions de linguistique et de philologie.
- Glessgen, Martin & Lene Schøsler. 2018. Repenser les axes diasystématiques : nature et statut ontologique. Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek & Harald Völker (eds.) Repenser la variation linguistique, Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12-14 sept. 2016), Strasbourg : Société de Linguistique Romane / Éditions de linguistique et de philologie, 11-52.
- Glikman, Julie. 2022. Entre contrainte et choix: Usages, normes et représentations en syntaxe dans l'histoire du français. Volume 1: Mémoire de synthèse .
- Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen : Høst.
- Juillard, Caroline. 2016. L'espace sociolinguistique et les actes de langage. La linguistique , vol. 52, 1, 91-124.
- Kabatek, Johannes. 2013. 'Koinés and scriptae'. Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds.). The Cambridge History

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

of the Romance Languages , vol. 2. Contexts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143-186.

- Koch, Peter. 2002. Diachronische Varietätenlinguistik: extern und intern. Andreas Wesch, Waltraud Weidenbusch, Rolf Kailuweit & Brenda Laca (eds.) Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte , Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 3-15.
- Koch, Peter. 2003. Romanische Sprachgeschichte und Varietätenlinguistik. Gerhard Ernst, Martin Glessgen, Christian Schmitt & Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.) Romanische Sprachgeschichte , vol. 1, Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 101-124.
- Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch . Tübingen: Niemeyer (2 nd ed. 2011).
- Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen & Jan Lindschouw. 2013. Introduction. Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Jan Lindschouw (eds.), Deixis and Pronouns in Romance Languages . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-15.
- Labov, William. 1962. The Social History of a Sound Change on the Island of Martha's Vineyard , Massachussetts, MA thesis, Columbia University.
- Le Dû, Jean. 2000. La progression du français en France. Gérald Antoine & Bernard Cerquiligni (eds.) Histoire de la langue française 1945-2000 . Paris : CNRS, 665-685.
- Oesterreicher, Wulf & Peter Koch. 2016. 30 Jahre 'Sprache der Nähe Sprache der Distanz'. Zu Anfängen und Entwicklung von Konzepten im Feld von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Henning (eds.) Zur Karriere von 'Nähe und Distanz', Rezeption und Diskussion des KochOesterreicher-Modells . Berlin/Boston: Walter De Gruyter, 11-72.
- Price, Glanville. 1962. The negative particles pas , mie and point in French. Archivum Linguisticum vol. 14, 20-34.
- Raible, Wolfgang. 2019. Variation in language: How to characterise types of texts and communication strategies between orality and scripturality. Answers given by Koch/Oesterreicher and by Biber. International Journal of Language and Linguistics vol. 6, No. 2, 157-174, June 2019 doi:10.30845/ijll.v6n2p19.

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (55-72)

- Schøsler, Lene. 1984. La déclinaison bicasuelle de l'ancien français, son rôle dans la syntaxe de la phrase, les causes de sa disparition (Études romanes de l'Université d'Odense, vol. 19), Odense : Odense University Press.
- Schøsler, Lene. 2021. Problèmes concernant la séparation entre certaines distinctions systématiques, en particulier entre diatopie et diachronie. Réflexions théoriques et méthodologiques autour des données variationnelles. Textes réunis et édités par Annie Bertin, Françoise Gadet, Sabine Lehmann & Anaïs Moreno Kerdreux (Langages, vol. 21), Chambéry : Presses Universitaires Savoie Mont Blanc, 25-43.
- Selig, Maria. 2011. Konzeptionelle und/oder diaphasische Variation? Sarah Dessì Schmid, Ulrich Detges, Paul Gévaudan, Wiltrud Mihatsch, & Richard Waltereit (eds.) Rahmen des Sprechens: Beiträge zu Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kreolistik, Kognitiver und Historischer Semantik. Peter Koch zum 60. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Narr, 111-126.
- Siouffi, Gilles. 2020 (ed.) Une histoire de la phrase française : Des Serments de Strasbourg aux écritures numériques . Arles: Actes Sud.
- Völker, Harald. 2007. A 'practice of the variant' and the origins of the standard. Presentation of a variationist linguistics method for a corpus of Old French charters. French Language Studies vol. 17, 207-224.
- Völker, Harald. 2009. La linguistique variationnelle et la perspective intralinguistique. Revue de linguistique romane vol. 73, 27-76.
- Weinreich Uriel, William Labov & Marwin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkeil (eds.) Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 95-188.