Lęzing en artikelen oer it twatalich petear oftewol

Non Convergent Discourse (NCD)



Non-convergent discourse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A non-convergent discourse (NCD) is a discourse in which the participants do not accommodate on the language level, which results in the use of different languages.


This type of NCD is common in Scandinavia, where the differences between the Germanic varieties are relatively small, and do not necessarily obstruct use of the participants' mother tongues.


NCD participants with an ethnic marking strategy might be wrongly interpreted as if they were expressing dislike. /wiki/Non-convergent_discourse   (356 words)


Un discorso o un NCD non-convergente č un discorso in cui i partecipanti non accomodano al livello di lingua, che provoca l'uso delle lingue differenti. I nomi alternativi per questo fenomeno sono discorso asimmetrico e bilingue.

Il termine č stato introdotto dal sociolinguist Reitze Jonkman. Distingue due motivazioni affinchč la gente si agganci in un NCD:

  • Conoscenza attiva insufficiente della lingua della lingua degli altri partecipanti, unita con una buona conoscenza passiva. Questo tipo di NCD č comune in Scandinavia, in cui le differenze fra le varietŕ germaniche sono relativamente piccole e necessariamente non ostruisce l'uso delle lingue materni dei partecipanti.
  • Marcatura etnica: l'uso di una varietŕ preferita, per sollecitare suo appartenere ad un gruppo culturale o etnico sicuro. Ciň si presenta per esempio in Germania del Nord, in cui gli altoparlanti di minimo e di su tedesco non accomodano.

Una terza motivazione per l'aggancio in un NCD si trova al livello personale. Secondo la teoria della sistemazione del Giles, i contatti tra persone sono trattative. In un discorso, la gente cerca di generare capire, sollecitando le caratteristiche comuni. Quando, tuttavia, questo volontŕ per la generazione della comprensione non č assente, per esempio nei casi, in cui il tatto dei partecipanti un'avversione forte di a vicenda, l'opposto dissocia da a vicenda sollecitando le differenze. L'uso delle lingue differenti ha potuto essere il risultato di una tal strategia di dissociazione.

A volte la motivazione per l'aggancio in un NCD č compresa male, particolarmente nei contesti dove sono rare. I partecipanti di NCD con una strategia etnica della marcatura potrebbero essere capiti erroneamente come se stessero esprimendo l'avversione. Questo tipo di misunderstanding č particolarmente comune fra gli altoparlanti che vengono dalle zone monolingue e si trova in una zona bilingue, in cui una seconda lingua č usata di fianco con le loro proprie ed in dove NCDs sono uso comune.





Reitze J. Jonkman

Frisian Dept. of University of Amsterdam/Fryske Akademy

c/o P.O. Box 54

8900 AB  Ljouwert/Leeuwarden, the Netherlands

phone +31 58 2131414

fax +31 58 2131409


Non-Convergent Discourse (in Friesland) as a special type of Codeswitching[1]



Haugen (1972: 215) refers in his article on 'Semicommunication' to the fact that communication does not require the participants to talk the same language in a discourse. Despite the growing loss of efficiency in the communication process as language codes deviate, differences in codes can be overcome by speakers if they wish to understand each other. In the bilingual province of Fryslân/Friesland in the Netherlands two related - West-Germanic - languages are spoken: Frisian and Dutch. About 90% of the Dutch speakers (standard and dialect) in Friesland claim to understand the minority language Frisian and all Frisian speakers understand (and speak) the state language Dutch (Gorter and Jonkman 1995:12). There is a wish to understand each other and, in general, there are no great difficulties for most of the inhabitants in understanding each other's languages. All the same most discourses are in one code; the bilingual members of the Frisian language group most often converge to monolingual members of the Dutch language group ('convergent' language behaviour, Street and Giles 1982). But a category of Frisian speakers opt for what I call a 'Non-Convergent Discourse' (NCD) with non-Frisian speaking persons, so two linguistic varieties are consistently used in one conversation by members of different language groups. The Frisian Broadcasting Company has conventionalized NCD: Dutchspeaking interviewees are mostly interviewed in Frisian on radio and TV. The two daily newspapers tend to codeswitch from Dutch to Frisian in their articles to quote someone.

            Not only Friesland but also other areas such as Scandinavia (Haugen 1972, Braunmüller 1984) and the former state of Czechoslovakia are familiar with NCD (Budovicová 1986). As far as I know, this phenomenon has scarcely been treated explicitly in sociolinguistic publications, let alone in the frame of theory about codeswitching.

There are different definitions of 'codeswitching'. My definition of 'codeswitching' is: the use of two or more linguistic varieties in one conversation.

This paper has two objectives:

-           Firstly to treat several aspects of NCD in Friesland explicitly on basis of the research results

-           Secondly to consider NCD in linking it with one of the general theoretical treatments of codeswitching: the Markedness Model (MM) by Myers-Scotton (1993).

NCD: Results from empirical research in Friesland

To give you an idea about NCD in Friesland I present a selection of results from several types of research (Survey, Participant Observation, Matched-Guise Technique, Interview).

These results will give insight in the following aspects:

-           size of the category of NCD speakers

-           the motivations of the NCD speakers,

-           attitudes of Frisian speakers and non-Frisian speakers, and

-           the most important precondition concerning NCD.

I start with the size of the NCD phenomenon to indicate whether the phenomenon is negligible or not. In the representative language survey of Gorter et al. (1984: 339) non-Frisian speakers (n=295) were asked whether it happened that people started speaking Frisian to them and continued to speak Frisian. One third (35%) said that it happened that Frisians continued to speak Frisian to them. Frisian speakers (n=752) answered the question as to whether they tend to speak Frisian to their neighbours who usually speak Dutch or dialect. About 30% claimed to do so (quite) often (1984: 362). Recent figures show that 22% of the Frisian speakers (n=747) claim to speak Frisian in return when addressed in Dutch by a salesperson in a shop in an urban setting (Gorter and Jonkman 1995: 24). An urban shop is chosen because it is associated with non-Frisianess.

            The conclusion on the basis of these survey results can be that there appears to be a substantial group of people in Friesland who participate, in one way or another, in NCD. It is a societal phenomenon and not just an personal incident.

            However, this is reported, not observed, language behaviour. Feitsma (1984: 56-58) is sceptical about claims of people who say they consistently use Frisian as a result of her own survey:

"People were asked, for example, whether they used Frisian to Dutch-speaking people who were able to understand Frisian. A great majority (61 against 22) said they used Frisian in such cases. But, in talking further about that question, they sometimes made rather important restrictions: it was difficult to speak Frisian to Dutch-speaking people, so they often or nearly always went over to Dutch; it depended upon the relation one had to the interlocutor and so on. A large part of the positive answers seem more or less to be ideological utterances about how it should be, instead of realistic descriptions of linguistic behaviour. "

She concludes that the "normal" situation is that people in their communication use the same language: one converges one's language towards the other. The "normal" situation in Friesland would therefore be that speakers of the less powerful language (Frisian) adapt themselves to speakers of the more powerful language (Dutch). It is certainly not the majority of Frisian speakers who are NCD speakers, but the above-mentioned results - even after scepticism - indicate that NCD is a societal phenomenon.

A second aspect is reasons why: what are the reasons or motivations for NCD speakers to behave as they do? Feitsma mentions two in her survey:

1.         because it is one's mother-tongue and one is accustomed to speaking Frisian in one's own surroundings; perhaps one expresses oneself better or feels more at home in that language;

2.         one stands up for the right of the Frisian language in Friesland and will promote the language.

The first is a reason at the micro-level and the second at the macro-level. These two reasons can occur in combination in different proportions, but for a number of people only one is valid. Auer - one of the few who paid some attention to NCD - also mentioned these two reasons. He called this type of switching preference-related[2]. Gorter et al (1984: 171) reported that there is a relation between such Frisian language behaviour and attitude. Gorter (1987: 129-130) sees NCD, which he calls 'asymmetry' in language use, as a 'negotiation' about the language choice. The phenomenon seldom occurs throughout the entirety of a conversation. Gorter found out during the fieldwork for his participant observation study in a municipality office that those cases where the client consistently speaks Frisian to a monolingual Dutch clerk might be explained as conscious non-convergence, which may be a display of identity maintenance and of cultural distinctiveness ('Divergence', Street and Giles 1982). This type of use of Frisian as a matter of principle does occur. In his main report (Gorter 1993: 176) he puts it this way:


There is a small category who claim (and I really observed this to be so) that in general they speak Frisian to anyone. They (very often) start in Frisian to an unknown person and hear soon enough that this person does not understand Frisian. Of course they will 'in case of a call to The Hague' choose for Dutch, but the fact that they themselves report this behaviour, is an indication that they think it over. (my translation, RJJ)

Like Feitsma he makes a link for this group with better self-expression ("most convenient in Frisian") and a very positive attitude to the Frisian language.

This brings us to the third aspect: attitudes towards non-convergent language behaviour. How do observers - Frisian and non-Frisian speakers -, who are not directly involved, perceive NCD?

            To test this I (Jonkman 1985: 49-50) taped - among others - two discourses of two persons (matched-guises of the same couple) who do not know each other. The first speaker asks the second person to show him the way to a certain place, the second showing the way. The first discourse is a monolingual dialogue (Frisian/Frisian), a CD, and the second is bilingual (Dutch/Frisian), an NCD. In both cases the person who asks is overtly showing that the explanation is clear to him and saying thanks to the guide. Students of teacher training colleges were asked to make a speaker evaluation of the two 'guised' guides with fillers in between. Actually without knowing it they made a comparison between convergent (CD) and non-convergent language behaviour (NCD). The affective evaluations were given on 15 bipolar seven-point rating scales with prestige and solidarity variables. I select the variable 'decent' to show how NCD is perceived in relation to CD. The perceptions of this variable are illustrative for the perceptions of the other variables.


Table 1    Mean scores for guises of Convergent (CD) and Non-Convergent Discourse (NCD) by Frisian (n=44) and Dutch speakers born in Friesland (n=28)

                                           Frisian speakers                   non-Frisian speakers


                                           CD          NCD                      CD          NCD         



decent                                  5,82        5,14*                      6,00        3,61*

* p<0,05 (student's t-test, two-tailed)

The non-Frisian speakers (L1) born in Friesland, and also the Frisian speakers (L1), evaluated the NCD more negatively than the CD on the trait 'decency', among others. The non-Frisian speakers did so on many more traits than the Frisian speakers. The conclusion is that NCD in these conditions (two people who do not know each other) is disapproved of by non-Frisian observers on certain traits. The Frisian observers do not reject such behaviour as strongly as the other group. It is possible that an NCD between two persons who know each other will have a more positive speaker evaluation, but this has not been tested yet.

            The non-Frisian speaking judges who experienced NCD themselves were questioned after the matched-guise test. They gave a positive evaluation in majority (24 against 4). The four who disapproved said they did so because of no competence in Frisian (Jonkman 1985: 57). I found affirmation of this approval for undergoing NCD among non-Frisian Urban Dialect speakers (n=55) in the capital of Friesland. 90% were positive or reported that they did not mind being addressed in Frisian by a stranger (Jonkman 1993: 151).

The fourth aspect comes from Hamstra (1995: 38), who gives more evidence for communicative efficiency as a precondition of the motive for using the first language in the results of interviewing students:

[speaker] G: I just want to have clarity. If there is clarity, then I just go on in Frisian and they just talk in Dutch; so why shouldn't we speak Frisian? [speaker] I: Then you prefer Frisian? G: That happens to be my first language. (...) I: You are able to communicate in Dutch as well as in Frisian? G: In principle yes, but I do express myself better in Frisian (...).

(my translation, RJJ)


Now I turn to the Markedness Model of Codeswitching of Myers-Scotton to consider some theoretical aspects of CS.


Marked choice in the Markedness Model of Codeswitching

The reason for selecting the MM is because it claims to account for all types of CS.

Myers-Scotton defines CS - the use of two or more linguistic varieties in one conversation - in a more explicit way as: The selection by bilinguals or multilinguals of forms from an embedded language (or languages) in utterances of a matrix language during the same conversation. The matrix language is the main language in CS utterances in a number of ways, while the embedded language has the lesser role.

The basic assumption of the MM is that speakers exploit the socio-psychological values which are associated with the varieties in a specific speech community. This enables speakers to switch codes in order to negotiate a change in social distance between themselves and other participants in the conversation, conveying this negotiation through the choice of a different code. It is called 'the negotiation principle': "Choose the form of your conversation contribution such that it indexes the set of rights and obligations which you wish to be in force between speaker and addressee for the current exchange." (1993:113) It implies that every language choice can ultimately be explained in terms of speaker motivations. Three maxims follow from this principle; 1) the unmarked-choice maxim, 2) the marked-choice maxim and 3) the exploratory-choice maxim.





(main part)



choose form = index interpersonal RO set





(change in situational factors

change into new unmarked RO set)


      'CS ITSELF AS THE UNMARKED CHOICE' (overall pattern of switches by two ingroup members symbolizing dual memberships and no change in RO set)



(not clear which norms apply for RO set)




(change into a new marked RO set, e.g by assertion of ethnic identity)


Which maxim should possibly comply best with NCD as seen from the scope of the MM? In brief: in general NCD does not fit in this model, for the code choice in NCD does not belong to:

-           the 'unmarked-choice maxim' 1a) because the choice does not refer to switching that indicates a change in participants, topic or role-status relationships ('sequential CS' 1993: 114) and

1b) the NCD is between members of different groups. In the MM only ingroup members are involved and different codes are used intrapersonally all the time. In this way each switch has no special meaning, but it is the overall pattern which carries the communicative intention ('CS itself as unmarked choice', 1993: 117-119)

  -         the 'exploratory-choice maxim' because the code is chosen to use it consistently. In MM this choice is used to find out which norms and which variety apply for the RO set.

-           the 'marked-choice maxim' because the two types of reasons for speaking Frisian in NCD are not motivated by the wish to have another relationship in the way of increasing or decreasing social distance between the speakers present. In MM the code choice is meant to change the unmarked old set of rights and obligations between two speakers into a new marked set, i.e. to change the social distance between the speakers, among other things by the assertion of ethnic identity. ("'Put aside any presumptions you have based on societal norms for these circumstances. I want your view of me, or of our relationship, to be otherwise.'" 1993:131-132)

The conclusion must be that the MM, in this way, does not - as Myers-Scotton claims - account for all types of CS.

That brings us to the question of why not? I think the most important reason is that MM only accounts for interpersonal change in the RO set. But as we saw the reasons for the NCD were personal (at the micro-level) - "I do express myself better in Frisian" - and/or aimed (implicitly) at intergroup change - "promote the language"- (see also Auer 1984 and 1991 in the second note), i.e. change the old intergroup RO set into a new set, and this is at the macro-level.

            In their extensive review-article Meeuwis and Blommaert (1994: 402) criticize the model for the 'disappearance of society' as they call it.

Variability in codeswitching use among speakers in the same community is not related to the structure of the community, but to the speakers' computation of what they have to gain by using one code or another. So here we have the individual acting autonomously in a field which was previously said to be 'community-specific' and subject to conventionalization.[3]

In general, in a bilingual society like Friesland the state language Dutch is the matrix language, the expected, the self-evident language. The indigenous language of the province, Frisian, is the embedded language, the less expected, the less self-evident language. This is an indication of an underlying power process between dominant and minority language (group) (cf Gorter 1993: 225-240).

The basic assumption of the extended MM in a societal context must also be that bilingual speakers exploit the socio-psychological values which are associated with the varieties in a bi- or multilingual community: the language of the dominant group and the language(s) of the minority group(s), and the language of the ingroup and the language(s) of the outgroup(s). These associated values can be more salient than the associations because of a functional distribution (diglossia) of the varieties in the speech community at hand, especially in speech communities where the varieties are in competition for several functions, as is the case in Friesland (Gorter et al. 1984: 256-258). The management of the negotiation principle is much harder now, not only because of the fact that the chosen form can be - next to the index of interpersonal RO set - an index of the intergroup RO set, but also the associated values can be very subtle and controversial. In a not clear-cut diglossic context there is more room for personal interpretations; for the one a variety is a "coarse" language, for the other "melodious".

The consequence for the maxims is that the change or no change in the RO set has two dimensions in a resulting type of CS: interpersonal and intergroup.

If we now return to the question of which maxim should possibly comply best with NCD as seen from the scope of the MM, then the answer has become more complicated in the extended version of MM.

            I start with the intergroup dimension of the negotiation principle. From a societal point of view in general - Dutch is the matrix language - the choice for Frisian in a NCD is marked and belongs to the marked-choice maxim. Though a category of people report that they engage in an NCD, they are still a minor part of the total population. As Feitsma said the "normal" situation is that people use the same language in their communication. And even people who do not are very much aware of the fact that they don't: "They think it over", says Gorter. This societal markedness can only disappear as the minority language becomes the dominant language and the dominant the minority language. This negotiation at the intergroup-level is separate from the negotiation at the interpersonal level.

            For the interpersonal dimension the answer is more subtle and depends on the history of the relationship between the interlocutors. There are clues from the matched-guise that NCD is not accepted for interpersonal communication if the chance for semicommunication (i.e. misunderstanding by code noise) is perceived as high, e.g. between strangers, then it will be a marked choice ('not decent') at the micro-level too. For observers of the discourse it seems close to the marked-choice maxim in the original MM by speaking Frisian as an assertion of ethnic identity with the motivation to diverge personally from the addressee (this is of course also marked in the extended MM).

            The NCD becomes less marked if a relationship has a longer history: Frisian in return to a Dutch turn becomes expected and the established interpersonal RO set is reaffirmed; there is 'conventionalization'. For NCD as the unmarked-choice maxim the best condition - as we know from the above-mentioned results - is a discourse between people who know each other and/or in situations where the right to speak Frisian is conventionalized, e.g. in the municipal council and the Frisian media. The precondition for this seems to be the intelligibility of Frisian for the other interlocutor(s).

            So another extension is needed: there is a third type of CS that is covered by the unmarked-choice maxim: 'Interpersonal unmarked CS' (switches between interlocutors who are members of different language groups, and no change in [interpersonal] RO set).






choose form = index interpersonal ([+intergroup]) RO set





(change in situational factors,

change into new unmarked [interpersonal] RO set)


       'CS ITSELF AS THE UNMARKED CHOICE' (overall pattern of switches by two ingroup members symbolizing dual memberships,

no change in [interpersonal] RO set)



(switches between interlocutors who are members of different language groups,

no change in [interpersonal] RO set)



(not clear which norms apply for RO set)


3. MARKED-CHOICE MAXIM [+intergroup index]

(change into a new marked [interpersonel or intergroup] RO set, e.g by assertion of ethnic identity)

Uptill now I have made the intergroup dimension explicit in the presented formulation of the extended MM, for the sake of the treatment in this paper. But because there is no principal difference between the socio-psychological values associated because of diglossia in the original MM and these values associated with in- or outgroupness in the extended MM, the formulation between square brackets can be left out.

The formulation of two dimensions (interpersonal and intergroup) and a new type of the unmarked-choice maxim (interpersonal unmarked CS) makes clear that NCD can be ambiguous for the addressee. The code choice in NCD as such can be an index of opposite directions: 1) the speaker is psychologically diverging - which is a marked-choice maxim - or 2) the speaker is psychologically converging - which is an unmarked-choice maxim. It makes understandable why this CS - which is a marked choice at societal (intergroup) level - leads to uncertainty for a lot of non-Frisian speakers, especially in non-conventionalized situations.

Summing up

I started this paper with the observation that there is an interactional phenomenon which I called 'Non-Convergent Discourse' and that it is scarcely treated explicitly in CS theory. After presenting research results from Friesland I tried to integrate NCD in one of the general models of CS, the MM by Myers-Scotton. This appeared not to be possible because the original MM is restricted to the interpersonal dimension. My proposal to solve the problem was by two extensions: integrating the intergroup dimension and adding another type of CS for the unmarked-choice type. In a way it is an affirmation of the model that there are marked and unmarked choices, but there are more aspects than the former model accounted for.




Auer, J.C.P. (1984), Bilingual Conversation, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Auer, J.C.P. (1991) 'Bilingualism in/as social action: a sequential approach to codeswitching. In: Network on Code-switching and Language Contact - Papers for the symposion on code-switching in bilingual studies: theory, significance and perspectives. Srasbourg, pp. 319-352.

Braunmüller, K. (1984) 'Interscandinavian Communication, a Model for Scotland?' In: Strauss, D. and H.W. Drescher (eds), Scottisch Language and Literature, Medieval and Renaissance. Frankfurt, pp.63-72.

Budovicová, V. (1986) 'Literary Languages in Contact (A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Relation between Slovak and Czech Today).' In: Chloupek, J. et al (eds): A Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Praha, pp.156-175.

Feitsma, A. (1984) 'Interlingual Communication Dutch Frisian, a Model for Scotland?' In: Strauss, D. and H.W. Drescher (eds), Scottisch Language and Literature, Medieval and Renaissance. Frankfurt, pp.55-62.

Gorter, D. (1987) 'Aspects of Language Choice in the Frisian-Dutch Bilingual Context: Neutrality and Asymmetry.' In: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Vol 8, pp.121-132.

Gorter, D. (1993) De taal fan klerken en klanten. Undersyk nei it Frysk en it Nederlânsk yn it ferkear tusken siktary-amtners en ynwenners fan de gemeente Hearrenfean. [The Language of Clerks and Clients. An Investigation of Frisian and Dutch in the Communication of Civil Servants and Inhabitants of the Municipality of Hearrenfean/Heerenveen.] Ljouwert/Leeuwarden.

Gorter et al (1984), Taal yn Fryslân. [Language in Friesland] Ljouwert/Leeuwarden.

Gorter, D. and R.J. Jonkman (1995) Taal yn Fryslân op 'e nij besjoen [Language in Friesland Revisited], Ljouwert/Leeuwarden.

Hamstra, W.T. (1995) Woorden over het Fries. Een analyse van uitgesproken meningen en motieven over hun taal en taalkeuze. [Words on Frisian. An Analysis of pronounced Opinions and Motivations about Language and Language Choice] Groningen. (unpl. MA)

Haugen, E. (1972) 'Semicommunication: The Language Gap in Scandinavia.' In: Haugen, E., The Ecology of Language. Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford 1972, pp. 215-236.

Jonkman, R.J. (1985) Skaadwizers: in lykskeakele-opnameűndersyk nei taal- and taalgedrachshâlding yn Fryslân [Guised Guides: a Matched-Guise Study of the Attitude to Language and Language Behaviour in Friesland]. Grins (unpublished MA thesis).

Jonkman, R.J. (1993) It Leewarders: in taalsosjologysk űndersyk nei it Stedsk yn ferhâlding ta it Nederlânsk en it Frysk yn Ljouwert. ['Leewarders': A Sociolinguistic Study concerning the City Vernacular in Relation to Dutch and Frisian in Ljouwert/Leeuwarden.] Ljouwert.

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

Street, R.L. and H. Giles (1982) 'Speech Accommodation Theory: a social cognitive Approach to Language and Speech behavior.' In: Roloff, M. and C. Berger (eds), Social Cognition and Communication, Beverly Hills, pp.193-226.

[1]I wish to thank Durk Gorter, Adalgard Willemsma and Henk Wolf for their comments and feedback on earlier draft versions. The last mentioned also thought up the term 'Non-Convergent Discourse'.

[2]Auer (1984:23-24) starts with the assumption that there is a preference for same language talk in discourse, but he recognizes that this preference is nothing like a universal.  But then he refers to frequent turn-internal switching as a habitualized form of talk which leads to abolishing the preference for same talk and not to the principle of NCD. In a more recent paper (1991:337) he goes into this type of code switching: "type II tells us first something about speakers' "preferences" for one language or the other, i.e. instead redefining the discourse, it permits assessment of/by participants. I have therefore called this type of switching preference-related; here the term "preference" must not be understood as a psychological disposition of the speaker, but rather in the conversation analytic sense of an interactionally visible structure. The reasons for such a preference are an altogether different issue. By preference-related switching, a speaker may simply want to avoid the language in which he or she feels insecure and speak the one in which she has better competence. But preference-related switching may also be due to a deliberate decision based on political considerations. What surfaces in conversation will be same sequential arrangement of language choices, interpreted in different social contexts."

[3]M. Meeuwis and J. Blommaert in Multilingua 13 (1994), pp. 387-423. Other reviews J. Fishman in Anthropological Linguistics 36 (1994), pp. 99-100, P. Muysken and V. de Rooij in Linguistics 33 (1995), 1043-1045 and W.F. Edwards in Language in Society 24 (1995), pp. 302-305.

Eigene Webseite von Beepworld
Verantwortlich für den Inhalt dieser Seite ist ausschließlich der
Autor dieser Homepage, kontaktierbar über dieses Formular!