Linguistic varieties
From his earliest writings, Coseriu addressed linguistic variation alongside questions about functional language and the functioning of linguistic systems. In his essay “La geografía lingüística” (Linguistic Geography), published in 1956, Coseriu argues that variety linguistics should consider varieties in space, i.e., dialectal varieties, and varieties of social groups and situational varieties, e.g., linguistic styles. To describe these three dimensions of variety, he adopts the terms diatopic and diastratic variation from the Norwegian linguist Leiv Flydal (following the already traditional distinction between synchrony and diachrony), to which Coseriu adds a third dimension, the diaphasic (i.e., stylistic) variation. In considering a particular language system, varieties are disregarded, and a system is examined as determinable syntopically, synstratically, and symphasically. Any language system can be determined regarding all three dimensions. Coseriu sees the relationship between the three dimensions not as an unrelated juxtaposition but as being directional: In a speech community, the diatopic can be considered diastratic, and the diastratic can be evaluated as diaphasic (and, consequently, the diatopic can also be regarded as diaphasic). Hence, a dialect can function as a sociolect, and a dialect, as well as a sociolect, can act as a style, but not vice versa.
Coseriu also adopts Flydal’s distinction between the structure and architecture of language. In contrast to the structure of the functional language, the term architecture denotes the entire structure of a historical language, which is a composite of its corresponding set of varieties in the three dimensions. Along with the different varieties, the architecture of a particular historical language is, in a sense, “roofed over” by a common language in many communities. The common language serves as a supra-regional, uniform communication medium. Coseriu also refers to the “exemplary language” as an ideal norm in a community that prevails over the different varieties. The exemplary language is not used imminently as such; it is a mere norm of orientation reflecting the virtual unity of a linguistic community. Historical languages are characterized individually by means of an adjectivum proprium, such as German, French, or Spanish. In the essay “Historische Sprache und Dialekt” (Historical Language and Dialect) Coseriu further mentions the practice of dialectology to assign varieties to the common language closest to them. Therefore, for example, the Low German dialects are to be assigned to Dutch as their common language and not to German. If a new common Low German language were to be introduced, the current linguistic-dialectal hierarchy would become a juxtaposition of two common languages.
“La geografía linguistica”, Montevideo 1956; also in RFHC 14, 1955, pp. 29-69; Reprints: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Tucumán 1961 and Montevideo 1958.
“Los conceptos de ‘dialecto’, ‘nivel’ y ‘estilo de lengua’ y el sentido propio de la dialectología”, Lingüística española actual, III/1, Madrid, S. 1-32.