Project History

The data that was collected for the compilation of a dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria, Bavaria and their neighboring countries since the early 20th century has a long and eventful history. The collecting activity was preceded by the idea of revising the Bavarian Dictionary by Johann Andreas Schmeller at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities. In the second half of the 19th century, Andreas Schmeller's Bavarian dictionary was regarded as a milestone in scientifically based dialect lexicography, which diachronically linked the dialects in use at the time with the language of the past.

However, some scholars in Munich did not consider a revision of this work to be expedient, as Schmeller's surveys from the 19th century had been carried out a considerable time ago, and therefore called for the establishment of a dictionary project that would cover the entire Bavarian dialect area. Schmeller's dictionary had only covered Bavarian in the Kingdom of Bavaria and in some areas of Salzburg, while the rest of the Bavarian vocabulary had not yet been recorded systematically and extensively. Accordingly, the Franconian and Swabian dialects within the borders of Bavaria were not to be included, but instead the Bavarian dialects of what was then Austria, which could only be achieved through cooperation with the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna. At the end of the 19th century, other large-scale dictionaries in German-speaking countries also began to be published, such as the Schweizerisches Idiotikon in 1881 and the Schwäbisches Wörterbuch, which was published since 1904. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was suggested that the dialects of the entire German-speaking area should be compiled in one work and that the respective large dialect regions should be documented (cf. Friebertshäuser 1986: 10).

Austria was already part of a tradition of research that was active in the fields of phonetics, grammar, lexis, language history and language contact, such as the theologian and teacher at the Schottengymnasium Hugo Mareta (1827–1913), who compiled a dictionary of the Österreichischen Volkssprache (1861 and 1865) and campaigned for the reintroduction of teaching Middle High German (vgl. Hübl 1907: 163f.), Johann Willibald Nagl (1856–1918) with his dissertation on the Conjugation des schwachen und starken Verbums im niederösterreichischen Dialekt (1883), Josef Schatz (1871–1950) with his Albairische Grammatik(1907) or Primus Lessiak (1878–1937) with his dissertation Die Laut- und Flexionslehre der Mundart von Pernegg (1903) and his plan to create a Bavarian-Austrian dialect atlas (cf. Hornung 1976: 37).

On September 20 in 1910 the Indo-Europeanist Ernst Kuhn (1846-1920) from the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences in Munich wrote a letter to the Germanist Joseph Seemüller (1855–1920) from the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna. In his letter, he proposed to initiate a joint Bavarian-Austrian dialect dictionary. In contrast to Munich, there was already an established and prestigious dialectological school at the academy in Vienna, which was dedicated to research the inner-Bavarian region and the Bavarian "language islands" as well. The proposal was received with interest by the Vienna Academy. As a result, planning for the project began immediately. Josef Seemüller was the chairman of the technical commission, which had already been founded on March 15 in 1911 and Paul Kretschmer (1866–1956) became his deputy. Josef Seemüller was elected as the immediate head of the business and Rudolf Much (1862–1936) was appointed as his deputy.

In order to raise funds, applications for support were submitted to the city of Vienna and the provincial parliaments of Lower and Upper Austria, Carinthia, Tyrol, Salzburg and Styria in the same year. This request for subsidies was accompanied by a “preface to a dictionary of the Austro-Bavarian dialect”. In it, the importance of the dictionary project was emphasized as follows:

Its scientific significance is joined by native and national driving forces. It is a work that lifts valuable, much too little appreciated treasures of tribal peculiarities from obscurity and oblivion, has a strengthening effect on tribal consciousness, shows the connection of the tribe with the nation everywhere and thus serves it. (Seemüller/Much (1911): (Geleitwort zu einem Sprachschatz der österreichisch-bayrischen Mundart)

Which nation was meant by this, remained unclear or unspoken. “Österreich” in the sense of the empire at the time could not be meant without contradiction, as a connection with the ‘tribe’ of the Bavarians could not be postulated for all parts of Cisleithania (cf. Zimmermann 2023: 198f.). From a dialectological and lexicographical perspective, the focus on Bavarian certainly made sense, but it also pointed to the conflict zones of the ethnic-tribalistic dialect concept on which the undertaking was based within the multilingual reality of the monarchy (cf. Zimmermann 2023: 198), which perhaps also explains why the letter of request was only sent to Vienna and to those Austrian (federal) states that were located in the Bavarian-speaking area and in which German speakers made up the majority of the society.

On September 28th and 29th 1911, the Munich commission members Ernst Kuhn and Wilhelm Streitberg (1864–1925) and the Viennese Josef Seemüller and Ernst Much developed a basic concept in Salzburg in order to standardize further activities. In 1912 and 1913, the dictionary offices in Vienna and Munich were founded, which were initially intended as affiliated offices. The new dictionary was to be published as the Bayerisch-Österreichisches Wörterbuch. February 12, 1913 is generally regarded as the founding date of the Viennese office, when three rooms on the first floor of the former k. k. Bezirksgericht Wieden (1040 Vienna, Favoritenstraße 5) were occupied.

The most important members at this time were Anton Pfalz (1885–1958), Walter Steinhauser (1885–1980) and Primus Lessiak. These three people played an important role even before the office was founded and were to shape the preparation of the questionnaires and other collecting activities. Josef Schatz was also offered a position as an article writer, but he turned it down and was only involved in the project as a freelancer; Dietrich Kralik (1884–1959) initially took on the role of the second article writer. The position of the assistant to Anton Pfalz should have been filled by Hans Tschinkel (1872–1926), a plan that could not be realized “for external reasons [...]” (Seemüller 1913: 47). He was replaced in the fall of 1912 by Walter Steinhauser, whose father Robert Steinhauser (1852–1920), a lawyer, writer, functionary and large landowner, had promised the dictionary project an annual grant of 1000 crowns for the next five years starting in 1913 (cf. Seemüller 1913: 51). In designing the Bayerisch-Österreichisches Wörterbuch, the expert commission that convened in 1911 drew on the experience that other established large-scale dictionary projects such as the Schweizerisches Idiotikon and the Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande made since the previous century (cf. König 2004: 1804). For this purpose, the future dictionary assistants Anton Pfalz and Walter Steinhauser traveled to Zurich to gain an impression of the work there with Albert Bachmann from the Swiss Idiotikon and Louis Gauchat from the Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande. The latter dictionary had already conducted an indirect survey of around 150 Patois speakers by correspondence between 1900 and 1910. In the process, 227 questionnaires were sent to priests, teachers and farmers (female respondents were only occasionally included), who each gave answers on specific topics with detailed subcategories (the human body, character traits, illnesses, agriculture, etc.) on color-coded paper slips. Depending on the Swiss canton, these had a different color coding so that they could be assigned to a specific region and were marked with a stamp of the place of origin. They form the majority of the Glossaire's data collection (see Corpus et iconographie du Glossaire and Les fiches des correspondants). In this way, it was possible to collect language material from 242 survey locations. The paper slips were accompanied by their own transcription system, which was intended to make it possible to transcribe the corresponding sounds, especially those for which there was no equivalent in standard French (cf. Gauchat 1914: 13ff.). This method, developed by Louis Gauchat, Jules Jeanjaquet and Ernst Tappolet, was adopted by the Viennese dictionary office, adapted to the conditions of Bavarian and greatly expanded (cf. Pfalz 1918: 21). In addition, the Bavarian-Austrian dictionary project was in contact with the editors of a number of other dictionaries in order to obtain clues for the guidelines and the preparation of the questionnaires, such as the Pfälzisches Wörterbuch, the Wörterbuch der luxemburgischen Mundart, the Rheinisches Wörterbuch, the Hessen-Nassauisches Wörterbuch founded in the same year and the Siebenbürgisch-sächsisches Wörterbuch. The adoption of this extensive prior knowledge probably also explains why the first questionnaire could already be sent out on March 7, 1913.

Following the meeting with the Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande, Pfalz and Steinhauser spent three weeks in Fribourg with Primus Lessiak, who had held a professorship for Germanic philology at the university there since 1906 and was to have a decisive influence on the further development of the questionnaires. In Fribourg, Lessiak introduced Pfalz and Steinhauser to practice-oriented questions of dialect research (cf. Seemüller 1913: 44). Lessiak was also Austrian and had grown up in the mixed-language region of Carinthia. In his doctoral thesis in Vienna (1903), he had already dealt with the Flexionsformen der Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten and planned a dialect atlas of the Austrian alpine countries. As part of his habilitation thesis Beiträge zur Dialektgeographie der österreichischen Alpenländer(1906), he examined the dialects of the upper Drau valley, the Lieser and Malta valleys and the Isel valley and its side valleys, applying dialect geography methods. This project was continued in 1909 in the Gail and Lesach valleys. The resulting Dialektatlas Österreichs und seiner Nachbarländer (DAÖ) was to be part of the history of the Bavarian-Austrian dictionary chancellery long after Lessiak's death (cf. Wagner / Zimmermann 2021).

While the Munich office was responsible for the data collection within Bavaria, the office in Vienna explored the closed Bavarian language area in the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy, namely in present-day Austria, South Tyrol, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia, as well as for all “language islands” outside the closed Bavarian language area (the so-called “Streu- und Inseldeutschtum”). Although both registries were to work with joint questionnaires, the collections were to be carried out separately. It was then planned to transfer the material to Vienna, where the lexicographical work would have taken place.

The two offices prepared questionnaires and question books for the surveys, which mainly focused on dialect vocabulary, but also targeted folkloristic peculiarities. With the help of advertisements and appeals, collectors were recruited from all over the Bavarian-speaking region, who set to work from 1913 onwards and sent the collected material to the academies' offices (cf. Seemüller 1912: 188f.). Lessiak and Pfalz had already been working on the design and preparation of the questionnaires since the spring of 1912. Steinhauser had joined them in the fall of the same year, and they had received support for their work from the various departments. The last of the so-called “large questionnaires” was sent out in 1933, and the follow-up surveys using the supplementary questionnaires ended in 1937 (cf. the Material Collection).

In addition to the collections, dissertations and monographs, existing small-scale dialect dictionaries, historical materials and similar sources on handouts were excerpted and incorporated into a large paperslip catalog (see Digitization of the paper slips). (Linguistic) material from direct surveys (so-called “Kundfahrten”), various scientific collections and personal communications was also added to the collection. This led to a rapid growth of the paper slip catalog, which today represents a unique corpus of historical, dialectological and folkloristic material.

During this period, Lessiak and his assistants also undertook many field research trips, such as an expedition for dialectological studies, which took Lessiak and Pfalz to the area of the "Sette Comuni" in northern Italy in September 1912. The data obtained was primarily intended for a dialect geography and represented preliminary work for the dictionary. These research projects were financed by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna, the Phonogrammarchiv and the Austrian Alpine Club (vgl. Seemüller 1913: 43f.).

Another research trip took Lessiak and Pfalz to Sorica (Zarz) in Slovenia in August 1913, where the German-Slovenian population was surveyed using a Slovenian dictionary, as the standard German language and the Carinthian dialect were not understood there. Lessiak's companion Pfalz recorded twelve phonograms in Sorica (Zarz) and the surrounding area using a recording device from the phonogram archive. In addition, together with Walter Steinhauser, they traveled to Styria and Salzburg for further field research and drew on data collected by Josef Schatz on the western border of Bavarian between Lech and Ammer and on the Styrian-Hungarian border from the Raab to Friedberg (vgl. Seemüller 1914: 28ff.).

The First World War was a turning point both for the two dictionary offices and for the collecting activities, as all of the younger members of the dictionary office were called up for military service (cf. König 2003: 1003 and 1804). Despite financial problems, work was resumed after the war. Eberhard Kranzmayer (1897–1975) began his work on the dictionary project in the 1920s, initially in Vienna and later in the Munich office. His first mention in the Academy reports is in connection with the interrogation of prisoners of war from Pladen and the "Sette Comuni" who were interned in the Mauthausen prison camp. In addition to Pfalz, the then student Kranzmayer was also involved in this survey, which from today's perspective is questionable in terms of research ethics. Kranzmayer had already collected language data from a Cimbrian soldier who had been in a hospital in Klagenfurt (cf. Seemüller 1919: 17).

The project of a dialect geography of Bavarian, which was set out in the original work plan of the dictionary, was successively tackled by Eberhard Kranzmayer from 1924 and 1926 onwards and realized in the form of a phonetic geography complementary to the WBÖ (published only in 1956) and his unfinished map series DAÖ (Dialektatlas Österreichs und seiner Nachbarländer) (cf. Wagner 2022: 5f. and DIAUMA).

In the 1930s, the political tone of dialectologists in academia and public statements became increasingly strident, once again highlighting their völkisch ideology (Zimmermann (Braun) 2015: passim). It is therefore not surprising that Anton Pfalz, an illegal National Socialist and “Gottgläubiger” ('believer in god') since 1937 (see König 2003: 1396 and Conze et al. 2010: 157), affirmed the “Anschluss” of Austria to Nazi Germany (Zimmermann (Braun): 2015: 33ff.). Kranzmayer, who was in Munich at the end of 1937, was by no means opposed to the Nazi seizure of power, as it was accompanied by a significant career boost for him. Even if he did not become a member of the NSDAP until 1940, he was already a lecturer at Munich University in 1937 and from 1940 also headed the Munich Dictionary Office (cf. König 2003: 1006). From 1942, Eberhard Kranzmayer finally took over the management of the “Institut für Kärntner Landesforschung” in Klagenfurt, an institution of the SS-Ahnenerbe under the patronage of Heinrich Himmler. In the context of the Nazi war of conquest, the aggressive population and spatial policy of the National Socialists, which led to the resettlement and deportation of thousands of Slovenes, was being pursued there (cf. Wedekind 2017: 1433ff.; Wedekind 2019: passim). While scientists at some institutes of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna were dismissed after the "Anschluss" because of their Jewish origins or their political views, there were no dismissals at the Vienna dictionary office under the leadership of Anton Pfalz (cf. Suppan 2013: 15). This was probably because all of the staff were largely (with appropriate nuances) loyal or conformist to the National Socialist party. Anton Pfalz, who had already been involved in the anti-Semitic academic network “Bärenhöhle” in the early 1920s to prevent Jewish habilitations and appointments at the University of Vienna (see Taschwer 2016: 221ff.), was involved in the “cleansing of the faculty” from 1938, as he himself mentioned in a correspondence (FE-Akten: Pfalz 1938). The so-called "Bärenhöle" also provides a deep insight into the (university) political entanglements of the time. Apart from its founder, the palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist Othenio Abel (1875-1946), the network was made up almost exclusively of humanities scholars. In addition to Anton Pfalz, these included Rudolf Much, Richard Meister (1881–1964) and Dieter Kralik. Eleven of the 19 members were also members of the German Club, a German nationalist association whose members held high political, scientific and cultural positions. Five members of the “Deutsche Gemeinschaft” (DG), an anti-socialist and anti-Semitic community, were also members of the "Bärenhöhle", such as Anton Pfalz and Rudolf Much (cf. Taschwer/Huber/Erker 2020: 111ff.). Above all, these interdependencies reveal the exclusion of dissenters, and this also provides an insight into a uniform mindset within the homogeneous humanities of the time, which misused or was misused for socio-political influence.

The Second World War soon had an impact on the work at the Vienna office: by the end of September 1939, Anton Pfalz had only one employee left in the office, “all the others are soldiers,” he wrote in a letter dated September 23, 1939 (FE-Akten: Pfalz 1939). Work on the dictionary was soon stopped completely.

After the Second World War, it took some time for some of the employees to return from war and captivity and resume their work; some young colleagues had been killed in the war. The Munich office was faced with a completely new start in terms of personnel. However, both offices were able to continue their work successfully in the following years and Kranzmayer was reinstated at the Vienna law firm in 1949 after a “glimpflichen Entnazifizierung” in 1947 (see Pfefferle / Pfefferle 2014), so he moved from Munich to Vienna and was also able to regain a professorship at the University of Vienna in the 1960s. Pfalz was classified as a “Minderbelasteter” in 1947 and retired in 1949.

The 1950s were characterized by efforts to reignite the connection between Vienna and Munich. The Munich office was no longer willing to hand over materials to its sister office in Vienna. The plan was for the two offices to write draft articles for their regions, which were to be compiled into joint articles alternately in Vienna and Munich. As the Vienna office had already started writing the articles, the first edition of the Dictionary of Bavarian dialects in Austria (WBÖ) was published in 1963 under the direction of Viktor Dollmayr (1878-1964) and Eberhard Kranzmayer (cf. Reiffenstein 2005: 3). This may also be partly related to the self-image of the now Austrian Academy of Sciences, into which the Vienna Academy had been transformed in the context of nation building in the Second Republic. In any case, it meant that the dictionary was separated into two series in terms of publication, but these were officially published under the joint, overarching title Bayerisch-Österreichisches Wörterbuch.

After Viktor Dollmayr died in 1964, Eberhard Kranzmayer took on the sole role of editor of the WBÖ until 1975. Maria Hornung (1920–2010), who had worked at the Vienna dictionary office since the 1940s, was finally appointed editor from 1969 to 1980. She was followed by Werner Bauer (1939–2016) as editor. Ingo Reiffenstein (1928–2023) headed the commission from 1975 to 1999. During his chairmanship, various streamlining concepts for the publication were developed, which affected both the processing period and the selection of material. In 1994, the Dictionary Commission was transformed into the Institut für Österreichische Dialekt- und Namenlexika (DINAMLEX) together with the project Altdeutsches Namenbuch (ANB) project. From 2013, DINAMLEX – and thus the WBÖ – was part of the Institut für Corpuslinguistik und Texttechnologie (ICLTT). From 1999 onwards, Peter Wiesinger (1938-2023) provided the WBÖ with scientific advice and leadership. From 2001 to 2015, Ingeborg Geyer was responsible for editing.

Since the first publication, five volumes were published leading up to 2015 in a total of 41 deliveries, covering the entire route from A to E.

After the dictionary was temporarily discontinued in 2015, it was reorganized in 2016 at the then so-called Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities (ACDH) in the context of the newly founded ÖAW research department Variation und Wandel des Deutschen in Österreich (VaWaDiÖ), which was renamed the to the research unit Linguistics on 1 June 2021. Alexandra N. Lenz, professor at the University of Vienna, was appointed project manager. In the context of the Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage (ACDH-CH), the WBÖ long-term project was transformed from a classic dictionary project with a focus on writing dictionary articles (originally geared purely towards print format) into a project cluster adapted to the digital research landscape of the 21st century, which is divided into the task areas of Corpus & Infrastructure, Lexicography, Research, Science Communication and History of Science and optimally links these together. In the context of the lexicographical task area, dictionary articles continue to be written and published online via Lexical Information System Austria (LIÖ). In the meantime (as of September 2024), over 4,600 WBÖ articles – including some of the retro-digitized versions of the published articles – are already accessible online.

Braun (Zimmermann), Jan David (2015): Das ‚Lautdenkmal reichsdeutscher Mundarten zur Zeit Adolf Hitlers‘ in der ‚Ostmark‘. Geisteswissenschaftliche Gemeinschaftsforschung am Beispiel der Germanistik von 1938 bis 1945. Masterarbeit. Universität Wien.

Conze, Eckart / Frei, Norbert / Hayes, Peter / Zimmermann, Moshe (2010): Das Amt und die Vergangenheit. Deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich un in der Bundesrepublik. München: Karl Blessing.

FE-Akten, Wörterbuch-Kommission, Karton 4, Brief von Anton Pfalz an Eberhart Kranzmayer vom 24.03.1938.

FE-Akten, Wörterbuch-Kommission, Karton 4, Brief von Anton Pfalz an Trudel Limbeck vom 23.09.1939.

Friebertshäuser, Hans (1986): Zu Geschichte und Methoden der deutschen Dialektlexikographie. In: Hans Friebertshäuser (Hg.): Lexikographie der Dialekte. Beitrage zur Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: De Gruyter. S. 1–13.

Gauchat, Louis (1914): Notice Historique. In: Bulletin du Glossiaire des Patois de la Suisse romande. Heft 1. S. 3–30.

Hornung, Maria (1976): Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich. In: Hans Friebertshäuser (Hg.): Dialektlexikographie. Berichte über Stand und Methoden deutscher Dialektwörterbücher. Festgabe für Luise Berthold zum 85. Geburtstag am 27.1.1976. Wiesbaden: Steiner. S. 37–47.

Hübl, Albert (1907): Geschichte des Unterrichtes im Stifte Schotten in Wien. Wien: Carl Fromme.

König, Christoph (2003) (Hg.): Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800- 1950. Band 1 und 2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

Lessiak, Primus (1963): Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten. Deutsche Dialektgeographie. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.

Mareta, Hugo (1861): Proben eines Wörterbuches der österreichischen Volkssprache mit Berücksichtigung der älteren deutschen Mundarten. In: Jahres-Bericht des kais. kön. Ober-Gymnasiums zu den Schotten im Wien am Schlusse des Schuljahres 1861, veröffentlich von dem Director desselben. Wien: Carl Gerold’s Sohn.

Mareta, Hugo (1865): Proben eines Wörterbuches der österreichischen Volkssprache. Zweiter Versuch. In: Separat-Abdruck aus dem Jahresbericht des Ober-Gymnasiums zu den Schotten in Wien am Schlusse des Schuljahres 1865. Wien: Carl Gerold’s Sohn.

Meister, Richard (1970). Vorwort. In: Eberhard Kranzmayer (Hg.): Wörterbuch der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich (WBÖ) (Band 1: A–Azor). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. V–XVI.

Nagl, Johann Willibald (1883): Die Conjugation des schwachen und starken Verbums im niederösterreichischen Dialekt. Nebst einer knappen Übersicht über den Gebrauch des Conjunctivs in derselben Mundart.

Pfalz, Anton (1918): Abhandlung. In: Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. 55. Jahrgang 1918.

Pfefferle, Roman / Pfefferle, Hans (2014): Glimpflich entnazifiziert. Die Professorenschaft der Universität Wien von 1944 in den Nachkriegsjahren. Wien: V&R unipress.

Reiffeistein, Ingo (2005): Die Geschichte des Wörterbuches der bairischen Mundarten in Österreich (WBÖ). Wörter und Sachen im Lichte der Kulturgeschichte. In: Isolde Hausner / Peter Wiesinger (Hg.): Deutsche Wortfirschung als Kulturgeschichte. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. S. 1–13.

Schatz, Josef (1907): Altbairische Grammatik. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Wien: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Seemüller, Josef (1912): Ein Wörterbuch der bayrisch-österreichischen Mundart. Aufruf. In: Zeitschrift für österreichische Volkskunde. S. 188–189.

Seemüller, Josef (1913): Tätigkeitsbericht über die Herausgabe eines Wörterbuches der bayrisch-österreichischen Mundart. In: Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. 50. Jahrgang.

Seemüller, Josef / Much, Rudolf (1911): Geleitwort zu einem Sprachschatz der österreichisch-bayrischen Mundart.

Suppan, Arnold (2013): ,Anschluss‘ und NS-Herrschaft Österreich 1938–1945. In: Johannes Feichtinger u. a. (Hg.): Die Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 1938 bis 1945. Katalog zur Ausstellung. Wien. S. 11–18.

Taschwer, Klaus (2016): Geheimsache Bärenhöhle. Wie eine antisemitische Professorenclique ab 1918 an der Universität Wien jüdische Forscher vertrieb. In: Regina Fritz u. a. (Hg.): Alma Mater Antisemitica. Akademisches Milieu, Juden und Antisemitismus an den Universitäten Europas zwischen 1918 und 1939. Wien: New academic press. S. 221–241.

Taschwer, Klaus / Huber, Andreas / Erker, Linda (2020): Der Deutsche Klub. Wien: Czernin.

Wagner, Klemens (2022): Dialektologisches Wissen im biographischen Kontext. Eine wissenschaftshistorisch akzentuierte Analyse des „Dialektatlas Österreichs und seiner Nachbarländer“ von Eberhard Kranzmayer. Masterarbeit. Universität Wien.

Wagner, Klemens und Zimmermann, Jan David (2021): Neue Arbeit an historischem Material: Der Atlas des umstrittenen Dialektologen Eberhard Kranzmayer aus wissenschaftshistorischer Perspektive. https://www.dioe.at/artikel/2379 [13.08.2024].

Wedekind, Michael (2017): Das Institut für Kärntner Landesforschung. In: Michael Fahlbusch u. a. (Hg.): Handbuch der völkischen Wissenschaften. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. S. 1433–1444.

Wedekind, Michael (2019): Die Besetzung der Vergangenheit: Aräologie, Frühgeschichte und NS-Herrschaftslegetimation im Alpen-Adria-Raum (1939–1945). Innsbruck: Studienverlag.

Zimmermann, Jan David (2023): „Die Sprache(n) auf der Karte: Die Konstruktion von Geschichtlichkeit in der Dialektkartografie des Deutschen zwischen Cisleithanien, Erster Republik und Zweiter Republik“. In: Johannes Feichtinger / Heidemarie Uhl (Hg.): Das integrative Empire. Wissensproduktion und kulturelle Praktiken in Habsburg Zentraleuropa. Bielefeld: transcript. S. 189–210.