Perceptual-articulatory aspects of the development of German-speaking variative competence

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University

Perceptual-articulatory aspects of the development of german-speaking variative competence

Verbitskaya T. candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professor, Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University Vasylchenko O. candidate of philological sciences, associate professor

Abstract

The given article highlights a relevant question of methodology, namely, how well students who study German as a foreign language can distinguish national versions of German by ear. It is thus about the development of variable competence of students, as well as the level of tolerance for the perception of national versions of the German language. As it is known, since the 1980s, the German language has acquired the status of a pluricentric language with national centers located in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. On the one hand, there is the problem of insufficient level of development of perceptual competence of students in the perception of national versions of the German language, which is noted by many scholars, which determines the relevance of this study. On the other hand, however, it is necessary to take into account the target group and the level of students, so that the pluricentric approach does not become an additional burden in learning a foreign language. Our focus is on the language of the media, namely audio recordings of Austrian and federal German television. The study involved German students of the 4th and 8th semesters of study, who, after listening to audio recordings, filled out a questionnaire designed specifically for this study. During the first audition, it was necessary to establish the national version of the German language in which the news releases sound. The second task of the study was to establish pronunciation variants that especially distinguish the federal-German standard pronunciation from the Austrian national variant of the German language. As the results show, there is no doubt about the influence of the media language of Germany on some sound realizations. We can assume that it could be not only about linguistic, but also about complex psychological processes and ultimately about the persuasive influence of sound media language on the individual. Key words: variable competence, media speech, sound speech, pluricentric, mass media, tolerance of perception.

Аннотация

ПЕРЦЕПТИВНО-АРТИКУЛЯТОРНІ АСПЕКТИ РОЗВИТКУ НІМЕЦЬКОМОВНОЇ ВАРІАТИВНОЇ КОМПЕТЕНЦІЇ

Вербицька Т. Д. кандидат педагогічних наук, доцент,

Одеський національний університет імені І. І. Мечникова

Васильченко О. Г. кандидат філологічних наук, доцент,

Одеський національний університет імені І. І. Мечникова

Дана стаття висвітлює актуальне питання сучасної методики викладання іноземних мов, а саме - наскільки добре студенти, які вивчають німецьку мову як іноземну, можуть розрізняти на слух національні варіанти німецької мови. Йдеться таким чином про розвиток варіативної компетенції здобувачів освіти, а також про рівень толерантності щодо сприйняття національних варіантів німецької мови. Як відомо, з 1980-х років німецька мова набула статусу плурицентричної мови з національними центрами, що знаходяться в Німеччині, Австрії та Швейцарії. З одного боку, існує проблема недостатнього рівня розвитку перцептивної компетенції у здобувачів освіти щодо сприйняття національних варіантів німецької мови, яка відзначається багатьма вченими, що зумовлює актуальність даного дослідження. З іншого боку, однак, необхідно враховувати цільову групу та рівень учнів, щоб плурицентричний підхід не став додатковим тягарем у вивченні іноземної мови. У центрі нашої уваги знаходиться мова мас-медіа, а саме аудіозаписи новин австрійського та федеративно-німецького телебачення. У дослідженні брали участь студенти-германісти 4 та 8 семестрів навчання, які, прослухавши аудіозаписи, заповнили анкету, розроблену спеціально для даного дослідження. Під час першого прослуховування необхідно було встановити національний варіант німецької мови, якою звучать новинні випуски. Друге завдання дослідження полягало у встановленні вимовних варіантів, що особливо відрізняють федеративно-німецьку стандартну вимову від австрійського національного варіанту німецької мови. Як показали отримані результати, не викликає сумніву вплив медійної мови ФРН на деякі звукові реалізації. Можна припустити, що мова могла б йти не тільки про лінгвістичні, а й про складні психологічні процеси і зрештою про персуазивний вплив медійної мови, що звучить, на особистість.

Ключові слова: варіативна компетенція, медіа мовлення, звукове мовлення, плюріцентріка, масмедіа, толерантність сприйняття.

Introduction

The article is dedicated to the development of perceptive-articulatory aspects of variety skills in German as a foreign language. It is not uncommon for German learners to experience a kind of "language shock" during a stay in Austria or Switzerland because these standard varieties were not taken into account when learning German. There is therefore a great need for more widespread use of the topic of standard variation in GFL lessons, which would contribute to an authentic picture of the reality of speech in the pluricentric German-speaking area. The development of an awareness of pluricentricity, combined with the productive ability of a federal German norm and receptive competence in several standard variants, would enable a large communicative range and prepare learners for a stay in the German-speaking area (Kellermeier-Rehbein, 2014: 216). Since national variants can be found on all language levels (pronunciation, orthography, morphology, vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics), we would like to concentrate on conveying the national peculiarities in the phonetic area within the scope of this article. It is not about dialects or regional languages, but about variation in the standard and thus about the language form that is considered the "first and most important subject and the actual goal of teaching" in DaF (Spiekermann, 2010: 343).

The subject of investigation is the spoken media language of the TV announcers and moderators trained in speech training, in whose news readings and comments the standard language finds its oral expression.

Sound recordings of news programs on Austrian and German television, which can be described as “model recordings” (Krech, 2009:16), serve as the material to be examined.

investigation methodology. Methodologically, the procedure was as follows: To shed light on the question of how well the GFL learners can distinguish between the standard varieties while listening, they were offered audio recordings of news readings and commentaries from Austrian (ORF) and German television (ZDF/ARD). A questionnaire consisting of two parts was developed as a data collection instrument. In the 1st part, the students are asked to determine when they hear it for the first time whether it is the German or Austrian standard variety and which characteristics can be used to determine this recognized. In the second part, the students go more precisely into the Pronunciation peculiarities of the Austrian model speakers and fill in the table with phonetic features of the Austrian standard variety. The data collected was evaluated and conclusions were drawn with regard to the practical relevance to teaching.

results and discussion. “Variation is a characteristic of all living languages. In addition, there are - for historical reasons - linguistic differences in German to a greater extent than in many other European languages. These also affect the standard language and manifest themselves, in addition to lexical and grammatical peculiarities, above all in the area of ??pronunciation (Kleiner/Knobl, 2015: 29).

The sound of each language - the specific combination of phonetic, i. H. suprasegmental and segmental structures and features such as voice, speech melody, rhythm, volume as well as sounds and sound sequences with their specific tonal characteristics - has a far-reaching meaning in everyday life as well as in foreign language teaching, with great importance being attached to the development of not only articulatory but also perceptual skills learners should be placed. In the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR 2001) published by the Council of Europe, where an attempt was made to define specific learning objectives in connection with the main objective of foreign language teaching and the determination of levels, the perceptive side, perception, understanding, is used in the level descriptions in the Area of ??pronunciation completely excluded (Hirschfeld/Reinke, 2018: 15). However, it should be noted that

Pronunciation skills include both production and perception. The development of productive ability presupposes that of perceptual ability (Hirschfeld/Reinke, 2018: 21). The two areas of ability must be gradually taught in parallel. The competence expectations and demands in the perceptual area inevitably exceed the productive ones at all learning levels, since the learners are forced from the beginning to be able to deal with the foreign language perceptually. For this reason, great attention must be paid to listening comprehension in German lessons, so that foreign learners of German can understand colloquial, dialectal forms as well as national standard varieties of pronunciation. Otherwise, in certain situations (school, university, media) native speakers are only expected to have a "correct, supra-regional pronunciation". In this way, the level of development of perceptual abilities is reflected, which had to be challenged much more so that such everyday hearing processes did not become a problem (Hirschfeld, 1996: 192). It is all the more important that imparting knowledge about the standard variation must be an integral part of German lessons, which also applies to the training of German teachers, since knowledge of the pluricentric character of the German language is the least developed.

The problem of the insufficient level of development of perceptual abilities with regard to the national standard varieties of German is probably also due to the fact that, on the one hand, German standard German dominated until the 1990s, which is why “a monocentric orientation of the DaF lessons” prevailed: the federal German standard German was considered the only correct German and as a result was usually also used in German

foreign language lessons without pointing out the pluricentric character of the German language (Kellermeier-Rehbein, 2014: 215). In the meantime, the perspective has changed in favor of the pluricentric approach, but the German standard variety is still seen as the only target variety of the lesson. Such a "monocentric orientation" (Kellermeier-Rehbein, 2014: 216) of German as a foreign language teaching is evidenced by many textbooks that focus on the linguistic conditions in Germany and often only marginally refer to the standard language features of Austria and Switzerland (Kellermeier -Rehbein, 2014: 215).

On the other hand, pronunciation exercises were and unfortunately still are not optimally integrated into most textbooks (Hirschfeld/Reinke, 2018: 184). In addition, due to the lack of curricular time, in DaF lessons you usually do not get the chance to train such skills as understanding listening with regard to the national pronunciation variants that distinguish the national standard varieties (Federal German, Austrian and Swiss German), which leads to unexpected difficulties communication of German learners with native speakers outside of the classroom. It is particularly easy to identify speakers of a specific variety by their pronunciation, because the phonetic pronunciation is considered the most striking feature of national standard varieties (Kellermeier-Rehbein, 2014: 95). The pronunciation in particular often allows a national and/or regional localization of the speakers (Ulbrich, 2003: 155-158).

Since the 1970s, the term standard language has increasingly replaced terms such as high-level language, literary language, national language and written language. Standard language and standard variety are often used alternately. A standard variety does not represent a separate language, but a subsystem of a language (Krech, 2007: 406). The national standard varieties of German - the Federal German, the Austrian and the German-Swiss - each have their own standard pronunciations when it comes to the spoken form at the level of the standard. Standard pronunciation means the oral realization of the standard variety (Hirschfeld/Reinke, 2018: 21). There is not just one standard variety for the German language. In a long process, German has acquired the character of a pluricentric language and has been considered a pluricentric language with three national centers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland since the 1980s. The current terminology draws on two different sources: Russian linguistics with the term “national variant/variety” and North American and German sociolinguistics with the term “pluricentric language” (KlaaB, 2009: 16). Representatives of the first group are G. V. Stepanov, AD Schweizer, E. Riesel and AI Domashnev. They developed the approach of specific national expressions of a language: "The non-identity of a language with itself led linguistics to recognize the variative character of the system and the norm of a nationally inhomogeneous language, the individual expressions of which were called national variants" (Domaschnev , 1989:342).

This idea of ??national language variants was further developed by E. Riesel in 1952 for the German language. In 1970, in her book ЃgDer Stil der deutscher Jedertumsrede” (The Style of German Everyday Speech), she refers to the “three national language variants of German that are most pronounced in terms of system and structure: the language of the Germans, the Austrians and part of the Swiss population” (Riesel 1870: 18).

Domashnev emphasizes that he connects the concept of a national variant "with the concept of a standard quality on several language levels (choice of words and word usage, semantics, phraseology, word formation, pronunciation)" (Domaschnev, 1989: 349). tolerance language pronunciation

Representatives of the second group (H. Kloss, M. Clyne, P. von Polenz) regarded a number of languages ??(including German) as "pluricentric". A language is only characterized with this term if it has several national centers (KlaaB, 2009: 18). U. Ammon thinks that the two terms “national variety/variant” and “pluricentric/plurinational language” should be used, with “plurinational” referring more to the type of society (nation) and “pluricentric” to its relation to the language in question (centre) is accentuated” (Ammon, 1995: 98). According to Ammon, it is not necessarily meant that all nations in which the language in question is an official language are such national centers. Referring to the German language, he speaks of seven national centres: the full centers in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland, and the half-centres in Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the German-speaking community in Belgium and the province of Bolzano-South Tyrol in Italy. The German Pronunciation Dictionary (DAWB) (Krech, 2009) takes into account the development of German into a pluricentric language by describing the oral forms of the standard varieties for Austria and for German-speaking Switzerland alongside those for Germany in detail and in separate chapters (Krech, 2007 : 413). Not only the DAWB, but also the Duden pronunciation dictionary (2015) is based on a pluralistic view of German: In this work, the users should be provided with a standard which is based on the actual pronunciation and allows a certain degree of variation and takes into account the peculiarities of the German, Austrian and Swiss standard languages ??(Kleiner/Knobl, 2015: 31).

In the context of this article, our research question relates to the treatment of national standard varieties in the teaching of German as a foreign language. A distinction must be made here between teaching in a German-speaking area and teaching in a non-German-speaking area. In German lessons abroad, it should be considered whether preference should be given to the German standard variety, says Ingrid Hove (Hove, 2002: 176). Traditionally, teaching the standard pronunciation of the German standard variety at Ukrainian universities forms a basis in DaF lessons. However, since the German language has a large number of national standard varieties, it is worth teaching them with regard to the target group and level of competence. For beginners, only greetings are enough

to get to know each other (e.g. Guten Tag/GruB Gott/Gruezi), so that pluricentricity does not become an additional burden. With increasing language competence, however, this topic can be deepened. For German studies students, it would be an advantage to go into the special features of the national standard varieties on all linguistic levels in depth: in lexis, grammar, spelling, pronunciation. B. Rues emphasizes that it is definitely desirable for advanced learners to include regionally influenced colloquial languages ??in the listening comprehension training (Rues, 2005: 236). In our opinion, this statement also applies to the development of perceptual competence with regard to the national standard varieties, because the

Pronunciation differences can be found at all levels of pronunciation: in the area of ??vowels, consonants and prosody. ЃgAlthough most of the differences occur systematically, they do not affect the system and are therefore to be regarded as purely phonetic differences” (Hirschfeld/Siebenhaar, 2013: 133).

In the practical part of the article, the data collection process for the mini-practice research project (PEP) is presented, which is part of the special course "Variability of the German spoken media language" for

German studies students at the National Mechnikov University of Odessa. 12 students in the 4th and 13 students in the 6th semester took part in the study. To shed light on the question of how well the GFL students can distinguish between the standard varieties of German when listening, they were offered audio recordings of news readings and commentaries from Austrian (ORF) and German television (ZDF/ARD/n-TV) and a questionnaire was created , where the DaF students answered two questions after listening to the news readings globally for the first time: Is it about the German or Austrian standard variety? By what characteristics did you recognize it?

In the 2nd step, the differences between the German and Austrian standard pronunciation variety on the phonetic level were addressed in more detail by answering the question "By which characteristic pronunciation features are Austrian speakers recognizable" and the table with features of the Austrian standard pronunciation variety was supplemented:

When hearing the media language for the first time, the course participants were able to recognize in which case the Austrian standard variety was involved. As the most important feature, a special phonetic pronunciation was recorded among Austrian speakers. The German studies students found this out in both the 4th and 6th semesters.

Analyzing the data collected in step 2, we can identify particularly prominent pronunciation features of the Austrian Standard Varietat, which most of the course participants ticked off in the table, to which “o”-like sound of the monophthong “a” and as the first component of the diphthong “ au", "e"-like sound of the first component of the diphthong "ei", lack of glottal stop in syllable-initial vowels, partial delabialization of front tongue vowels when writing "o" ,,u", peculiarities in the "r" realization, realization of "ch" after "r" as an ach sound, unbreathed fortis, realization of "-ig" as [ik] in the final sound. The pronunciation variants mentioned are realizations that differ greatly from the German standard pronunciation or from media German. Here we would like to go into a little more detail about the realization of the glottal stop onset of syllable-initial vowels in the stem or prefix, the use or non-use of which changes the prosody and is perceived as a conspicuous feature. Since the students got used to the fact that this limit signal is normally used by German speakers according to the pronunciation code, its limited use by Austrian model speakers was immediately noticeable. In this context, the problem of syllable boundary shifts (e.g. ver-eisen | fi?arzn | opposite ver-reisen [fi'Kaezn) and even word boundary changes (e.g. [mitaenoma:l] with an eel or with a Mal) as a result of the omission of the glottic plosive, because the vagueness of the word boundaries impairs comprehensibility for non-native speakers (Hirschfeld/Siebenhaar, 2013: 133).

The starting point of our mini-PEP relates to the media language of news anchors, who are considered model anchors and have the standard pronunciation that "is highly binding for the professional anchors" (Krech, 2009: 6). It is about the language read aloud, with the reading context determining the extent to which linguistic variations are realized. In her study of the standard pronunciation in the Swiss standard variety, I. Hove assumes that somewhat more attention is paid to the pronunciation in the formal text type (which is about the language read aloud) (Hove, 2002: 139). From their findings it can be concluded that the more formal the type of text is, the more some speakers adapt to media German pronunciation (Hove, 2002: 108). According to Rues, prosody (accent, intonation, pauses) the pronunciation becomes stronger the more spontaneous an utterance is. When reading aloud, the influence of prosodic elements is much less than in directly freely formulated speech, which represents the opposite poles of the spoken language, since the texts read are realized rhythmically evenly (Rues, 2014: 67). When language is read aloud, either fewer pronunciation variants or the variants used can be realized less distinctively than with spontaneous speaking, which “led to an alignment towards an idealized standard construct” (Shafer, 2018: 230).

With regard to the variety of standard varieties, R. Schmidlin points to the numerical dominance of speakers from Germany and the spread of federal German television programs in Austria and Switzerland, which has a significant influence on the national varieties of the two smaller states. This is evidenced by the acceptance of federal German variants alongside national variants, according to Schmidlin (Schmidlin, 2011: 34).

According to the research results of I. Hove, who researched the standard pronunciation in German-speaking Switzerland, be it in the realizations e.g. B. the long vowel written with "a(h)" as [e:] and with the r-vocalizations evident that they are based on the influence of Media German (Hove, 2002: 135). Hove also noted the connection between the way standard language is realized at the phonetic level and how speakers are evaluated by their interlocutors: "Since all persons know that the way they pronounce standard language can be interpreted , they try to use variants that are interpreted as positively as possible or not at all by their interlocutors. If a person wants to avoid having their pronunciation interpreted, they follow pronunciation convention as much as possible” (Hove, 2002: 145). The research mentioned also notes that there are types of people who have a connotation such as B. evaluate “German” positively or not positively and accordingly either realize German variants or not (Hove, 2002: 146). Therefore, it could not only be about linguistic, but also about complex psychological processes and ultimately about the persuasive effect of the mass media, which exerts an influence on a personality through the spoken language (Селіванова, 2012 : 432).

The study by N. Shafer, which is devoted to the three national standard varieties, appears interesting. Her research question is whether "DaF beginners basically understand the standard German of the Federal German, Austrian and Swiss forms about the same or differently well" (Shafer, 2018: 158). According to the results of their study, standard variation did not prove to be a problem for the DaF learners from eleven non-German-speaking countries who took part in the experiment. The following factors contributed to this (Shafer, 2018: 229):

1. the phonological standard proximity of the input texts, partly due to the specific recording situation (reading context)

2. Characteristics of the speakers (educational background, close to standard, clarity of pronunciation)

3. learner aspects such as familiarity, understanding of varieties,

Perceptual tolerance and language level

The closeness to the standard can probably be explained by the fact that the recordings were based on written templates and did not depict spontaneous speech. This once again confirms the thesis that the more one is oriented towards the written text, the fewer differences there are from the standard pronunciation.

Although the recordings were not spoken by trained professional speakers but by laypeople, the differences between the standard varieties examined were not too great, so that the participants' ability to hear was not impaired. As far as the characteristics of the speakers are concerned, they are well-educated native speakers who come from the three DACH countries, who work as university students or lecturers in the higher education sector and who use the standard German language productively and receptively on a regular basis. According to the DAWB, the codification serves as a recommendation with greater norm tolerance for professional speakers in a broader sense, such as B. Personalities who work in science, culture, business and politics in public, as well as educators of all disciplines and in all institutions (Krech, 1076: 7). In our opinion, the situationally appropriate use of the standard pronunciation by the speakers participating in the study was to be expected, which is why the standard variation did not confuse the DaF learners (Shafer, 2018: 234).

It could be concluded that the participants in our study have a kind of standard language perception tolerance or receptive variety competence, so that they are made aware of differently sounding sounds, different speech rhythms or e.g. B. missing glottal stops in Austrian Standard German were not irritated.

Conclusion. In summary, it can be said that a stronger focus on the standard variation of German in DaF lessons is desirable. The aim is to raise awareness of the standard variation and to raise awareness of how to deal with national language norms. In addition, the treatment of pronunciation varieties and variants in the classroom helps learners of German to better understand and be better understood by speakers from DACH countries.

In DaF lessons, it would be appropriate to use the German standard variety as a basis for language production and at the same time to develop receptive variety skills in order to achieve maximum communicative reach. Contact with different standard varieties can undoubtedly have a positive influence on receptive perception tolerance and variety competence.

In addition, the problem discussed in this article presupposes that the GFL teachers have undergone appropriate training, whereby imparting knowledge about the standard variation must be an integral part of the training. It can also be concluded that the pluricentricity of German poses a particular challenge and that the pluricentric approach should have its place in teacher education.

Outlook. Some questions, which were only hinted at in this article, could serve as an incentive for further scientific investigations. An investigation of the perception of standard varieties with regard to listening comprehension would be conceivable. Subsequently, the pronunciation features could be assigned to the phonostyle levels, whereby the spoken language of newsreaders, announcers, moderators as well as politicians and other people in public life is analyzed by phonostyle levels of read language, memorized, freely producing speech through to spontaneous speech. In this way, the question can be clarified as to what the standard language diversity of German means on a phonetic level for the listening comprehension of DaF students and thus also for the development of German-language communicative competence.

Literaturliste

1. Селіванова О. Світ свідомості в мові. Черкаси: Ю.Чабаненко, 2012.

2. Ammon U. Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Osterreich und der Schweiz. Berlin: Gruyter, 1995.

3. Domaschnew A. I. Noch einmal uber die nationalen Sprachvarianten im Deutschen / A. I. Domaschnew. Zeitschrift fur germanistische Linguistik. Deutsche Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte. 1989. Heft 17.3, S. 342-355.

4. Hirschfeld U. Standardaussprache - Ziel des Unterrichts Deutsch als Fremdsprache? Hallesche Schriften zur Sprechwissenschaft undPhonetik. 1996. Band 1, S. 187-194.

5. Hirschfeld U., Reinke K. Phonetik im Fach Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: E. Schmidt Verlag, 2018.

6. Hirschfeld U., Siebenhaar B. Aussprachevielfalt im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. 2013. Heft 3, S. 131-140. Hove I. Die Aussprache der Standardsprache in der deutschen Schweiz. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2002. Kellermeier-Rehbein B. Einfuhrung in die nationalen Varietaten des Deutschen. Berlin: E. Schmidt Verlag, 2014.

7. KlaaB D. Untersuchungen zu ausgewahlten Aspekten des Konsonantismus bei osterreichischen Nachrichtensprechern. Fr.a.M.: Peter Lang GmbH, 2009.

8. Kleiner St., Knobl R. Duden. Das Ausspracheworterbuch. Berlin, Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 2015.

9. Krech E.-M. u. a. Deutsches Ausspracheworterbuch. Berlin/New York, 2009.

10. Krech E.-M. Die Differenzierungvon Standarddeutsch und ihre Relevanz fur die Kodifizierung. Лингвистическая полифония: Сборник статей в честь юбилея профессора Р.К.Потаповой. М.: Языки словянских культур, 2007. С. 404-423

11. Riesel E. Der Stil der deutschen Alltagsrede. Leipzig: Reclam, 1970.

12. Rues B. Varietaten und Variation in der deutschen Aussprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie undPraxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. 2005. Heft 4, S. 232-237. Schmidlin R. Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation. Gebrauch, Einschatzung und Kodifizierung einer pluralistischen Sprache. Studia Linguistica Germanica, 106. Berlin/New York: Langenscheidt Verlag, 2011.

13. Shafer N. Varietaten und Varianten verstehen lernen. Zum Umgang mit Standardvariation in Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Universitatsverlag Gottingen, 2018.

14. Spiekermann H. Variation in der deutschen Sprache. Krumm H.-J. u. a. (Hg.): Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. Band 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2010, S. 343-359.

15. Trim J., North B., Sheils J. Gemeinsamer europaischer Referenzrahmen fur Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Berlin/Munchen/Wien/Zurich/New York: Langenscheidt, 2001.

16. Ulbrich Chr. Prosodische Aussprachebesonderheiten der deutschen, osterreichischen und schweizerischen Standardvarietat des Deutschen in gelesene AuBerungen von Nachrichtensprechern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. 2003, S 155-158.

References

1. Selivanova, O. (2012). Svit svidomosti v movi. Tcherkasy: Iu. Tchabanenko.

2. Ammon, U. (1995). Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Osterreich und der Schweiz. Berlin: Gruyter.

3. Domaschnew, A. I. (1989). Noch einmal uber die nationalen Sprachvarianten im Deutschen / A. I. Domaschnew. Zeitschrift fur germanistische Linguistik. Deutsche Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte. 3, 342-355.

4. Hirschfeld, U. (1996). Standardaussprache - Ziel des Unterrichts Deutsch als Fremdsprache? Hallesche Schriften zur Sprechwissenschaft undPhonetik. Band 1, 187-194.

5. Hirschfeld, U., Reinke, K. (2018). Phonetik im Fach Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. 2., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin: E. Schmidt Verlag.

6. Hirschfeld, U., Siebenhaar, B. (2002). Aussprachevielfalt im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Heft 3, 131-140.

7. Hove, I. (2002). Die Aussprache der Standardsprache in der deutschen Schweiz. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

8. Kellermeier-Rehbein, B. (2014). Einfuhrung in die nationalen Varietaten des Deutschen. Berlin: E. Schmidt Verlag.

9. KlaaB, D. (2009). Untersuchungen zu ausgewahlten Aspekten des Konsonantismus bei Osterreichischen Nachrichtensprechern. Fr.a.M.: Peter Lang GmbH.

10. Kleiner, St., Knobl, R. (2015). Duden. Das Ausspracheworterbuch. Berlin, Mannheim: Dudenverlag.

11. Krech, E.-M. u. a. (2009). Deutsches Ausspracheworterbuch. Berlin/New York.

12. Krech, E.-M. (2007). Die Differenzierungvon Standarddeutsch und ihre Relevanz fur die

13. Kodifizierung. Lynhvystycheskaia polyfonyia. M.: Yazyky slovianskykh kultur, 404-423.

14. Riesel, E. (1970). Der Stil der deutschen Alltagsrede. Leipzig: Reclam, 1970.

15. Rues, B. (2005). Varietaten und Variation in der deutschen Aussprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Heft 4, 232-237.

16. Schmidlin, R. (2011). Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation. Gebrauch, Einschatzung und Kodifizierung einer pluralistischen Sprache. Studia Linguistica Germanica, 106. Berlin/New York: Langenscheidt Verlag.

17. Shafer, N. (2018). Varietaten und Varianten verstehen lernen. Zum Umgang mit Standardvariation in Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Universitatsverlag Gottingen.

18. Spiekermann, H. (2010). Variation in der deutschen Sprache. Krumm H.-J. u. a. (Hg.): Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. Band 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 343-359.

19. Trim, J., North, B., Sheils, J. (2001). Gemeinsamer europaischer Referenzrahmen fur Sprachen: lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Berlin/Munchen/Wien/Zurich/New York: Langenscheidt.

20. Ulbrich, Chr. (2003). Prosodische Aussprachebesonderheiten der deutschen, Osterreichischen und schweizerischen Standardvarietat des Deutschen in gelesene AuBerungen von Nachrichtensprechern. Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis des Faches Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 155-158.

Размещено на Allbest.ru