ABSTRACT
In this chapter, Stefan Dollinger takes the term of “pluri-areality” to task with five rather fundamental kinds of criticism. To begin, the term’s misleading structure is addressed, and it is shown that it is merely a synonym for “geographical variation”. As such, it is no theory, such as pluricentricity, but only a term for which we already have an existing one. The second point refers to the mathematical and dialectometrical methods pluri-arealists often use: in the absence of theory it is shown that any interpretation, even the computation through parameter settings, are exposed to researcher bias. Third, it is shown that “pluri-arealists” apply an Axiom of Categoricity in their defence of a “pluri-areality”: if one non-Austrian uses an Austrian term, say, in Germany, it is interpreted as evidence against pluricentricity. Finally, it is shown that the deliberate but never defined cut-off points of what makes a variety and what not are irrelevant, as they are based on type, not token counts, and do not include the social salience of the variable. Jänner might only be one varable (type), but associated with Standard Austrian German and in opposition to Januar (the German and Swiss standards) is a useful marker of Austrianness. Finally, Karl Popper’s principle of theory and hypothesis testing in the form of falsification is brought up as a principle that is utterly lacking in any “pluri-areal” approach.
